Talk:Daniele De Rossi

Do we really need to add every red card he earns? --Panairjdde 01:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully he doesn't earn that many! Obviously, this one was in a critical game. Subsequent events will determine just how important it was- I would recommend leaving it in for now, pending any media reaction in Italy and the team's future progress in the tournament. Badgerpatrol 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an enciclopedy, not a cristal ball. If the red card will earn any importance (weighted with the high importance a WC has), we will always have time to add it. For the time being, it is a useless information, and furthermore McBride is still alive and well, luckyly.

I do not support this over-covering current events, filling with details that are meaningless. It is very probable, even if De Rossi gets a six-match-stop, that in a five years span this will be forgotten, it is just a red card, after all.

And yes, he got other reds, if I remember well.--Panairjdde 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It indeed isn't a crystal ball, and therefore no predictions are made in the De Rossi article- it is simply a statement of fact. If De Rossi has any global fame, it is because of this. One does not have to have a crystal ball to work out that this story already has been touted extensively (e.g. [1]) and that it will appear in tomorrow's Italian press, who are I believe not renowned for being shrinking violets. Anyone looking for De Rossi in this encyclopaedia will be expecting to find this; a sending off of any international footballer (in a World Cup match especially) is blatantly notable enough to include in their biography. And if Italy go out or falter, it is very unlikely to be forgotten- not least because it was a horrible challenge. See here for a broadly analogous example. Badgerpatrol 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

"Subsequent events will determine just how important it was- I would recommend leaving it in for now, pending any media reaction in Italy and the team's future progress in the tournament."

This means that the red card is un-encyclopedic per se; Do you think it will become important if Italian media will publish? A red card in a major competition is not always an important fact. Tomáš Ujfaluši, Mateja Kežman, and André Macanga have no reference to their red cards, and I'm sure Czech, Serbian, and Angolan media did write something! Even Pablo Mastroeni, a straight red card in the same match, has no reference to this disciplinary punishment in his page.

--Panairjdde 01:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have stricken my previous edit to avoid confusion (I thought I already had- my previous edit was lost due to an edit conflict- mea culpa)- it was meant to indicate that events are plastic and the exact ramifications have yet to play out. Nontheless, a red card in any World Cup match is inherently notable. I recommend that you boldy update the other articles to which you refer. Badgerpatrol 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

YES! This RED CARD NEEDS TO BE NOTED! Does anyone care that it was a red card? No. But it was the most repugnant display of cheap violence I have ever seen in FIFA! This was a particularly blatent and bloody violation. This cretin should be banned from FIFA. Nobody cares about De Rossi- he will be remembered FOREVER as the cheap, unskilled Italian who turned a world cup match into a greasy knife fight.

Yes from me too. The red card was a significant, dramatic, well-publicised event in that game and does need to be noted (though in a straightforward, unemotional manner). To deliberately not include it would be NPOV - especially since the article notes an example of De Rossi's fair play in refusing to allow a hand goal to stand. If we cut the red card, then we need to cut that hand goal reference too! Instead, we should leave BOTH references - one is negative, one is positive, both are significant and both contribute to an accurate profile of the player. Being "encyclopedic" means being NPOV, verifying facts etc etc, it doesn't mean only including the bare minimum of information. If it did, Wikipedia would be half the size it currently is and consist of not much more than a dull list of dates and statistics. Cheers.