Talk:2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches

Wiki article

Hi all, i'll declare my COI right now - I am a gutted Irishman - Anyway, this article currently reads like a match report / sport news article. Surelt it would be better placed in wiki news? I don't know, what do YOU think? Best, Darigan (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it just needs work. It was a very controversial result that directly sent a team to the World Cup, which I believe is notable. There are certainly enough sources out there to create a good article about it. (Personally, I believe that this result will convince FIFA to finally bring in instant replay cameras, which, if that ends up being the case, would seal the notability of this match without question, but that's neither here nor there.) However, I'd also support a wikinews article. BTW, what does "COI" mean? :^) JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I use it for Conflict of Interest - however, i think that i may be the only wikipedian that does, making my little time saving abbreviation pretty inneffective. The talk page about the deletion nomination for this article (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_of_Ireland_vs_France_(2010_FIFA_World_Cup_Play-Off) is resulting in a lot of 'Delete' votes without any 'keep' votes. If you reckon the article should stay, then you might want ot get on their and argue your case. On the instant replays, i'd like FIFA to stand up and take note, but i don't think they will. Best, Darigan (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

oh dear, look at my spelling Darigan (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"There are certainly enough sources out there to create a good article about it." This could be said about every Premier League game, about ever World Cup game, every World Cup qualifier even. But we don't do it... As I pointed out in the AfD a very similar situation happened earlier this year and that article was deleted as well. chandler 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Crowd Numbers

Just a query... On the Article: 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification - (UEFA - Second Round), the crowd numbers for the two matches between Ireland & France are 74, 103 in Dublin and 79, 145 in Paris but they are different in this article. Is the there a reason for this??? (Parra-Power (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

No idea where the ones here come from, but the article you name is accurate, so I've edited this article to match. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Heavily biased

This article, almost exclusively edited by angry Irish users, is heavily slanted towards painting Ireland as the victim of a big scandal. While I think everybody agrees that the referee made a really horrible call, we should still stick to being neutral here. I would like to remind editors that sourced content doesn't equal neutral content. By selecting which sources to use and what to put in, one can easily create a perfectly sourced but heavily biased article. This is a prime example.Jeppiz (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have any examples of balancing sources, please provide them, I have found barely any (although I don't speak French). It is not a violation of neutrality to reflect this fact in an article. If this is the sole basis of your complaint, plus some innaccurate claims about people's nationalities, and who created the article, then the POV tag is innappropriate, and should go. I am removing the recentism tag again, because it is utterly irrelevant. It is simply impossible to slant an article towards recent events, when it is only about recent events. That tag is meant to stop the over-balancing of articles which already have historical content. MickMacNee (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no "balancing" sources. I don't think any paper says "Good call" or "Smart play by Henry". That doesn't stop the article from being heavily slanted towards a certain point of view, so the POV-tag is not inappropriate. And this article is heavily slanted towards a recent event. That's one of the reasons it's up for deletion. Please stop removing tags because you don't like it.Jeppiz (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

{Recentism} is a totally wrong tag. If you disagree, seek a third opinion instead of making accusations and edit warring over it. As for your ideas on POV, I just haven't a clue how you think an article can be POV by not having any non-existent sources in it. MickMacNee (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, given your long history of blocks for disruptive behaviour, one would think you would have learned not to edit-war, but of course not. You know the WP:TRUTH and you WP:OWN the article. Of course it's I who have to seek a third opinion, because you are by definition right. Next disruptive edit from you on this subject and you'll be reported.Jeppiz (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do it now. I have nothing to fear from extra people seeing your comments and actions. So far, all you have done here is attempt to place innacurate tags, totally misunderstand POV, attack me for pointing these things out, and now aggravate me with your accusations, empty threats and templating me. MickMacNee (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that the tags are innacurate and that I misunderstand Wikipedia policies, because you are by definition always right. My bad.Jeppiz (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you just going to annoy me all night or what? If you carry on with this, it'll be me asking for extra eyes here. MickMacNee (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to get this straight, in your opinion it is not allowed to insert tags here, any argument to include them is inaccurate, and using your level of argumentation needs supervision. Actually, I'll agree with the last one so I'll just stop interacting with you. Your history of blocks speaks for itself.Jeppiz (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC

MickMacNee and I do not see eye to eye. He's a dissatisfied Irish fan who has pretty much taken ownership of this article, and he keeps removing tags inserted by me. I'm no more neutral than he is, I strongly supports France (while not supporting the way France qualified). In my opinion, this article is heavily biased and, due to its recent nature, reads like a news article. Our arguments are no longer bringing any improvement to the article, and outside comments (preferably by people who aren't French or from the British Isles) might be a good thing.Jeppiz (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The article in its current state is definitely to long and seems very POV... I for example don't see the Irish player(s) who admitted they would've done the same thing as Henry. A much more controversial game, that's actually proven to have notability because it forced FIFA to re-write the rules West Germany v Austria (1982) does not have every member of the Algerian parliment voicing their dismay or every newspaper found quoting some expert on the subject. chandler 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection to France, nor to Ireland. Yet when I made a comment here about FIFA's strangely quick resort to Law 5, it got deleted for being "heavily biased." OK, so "heavily biased" now includes anyone who dares to question FIFA's motives. Not even in the discussion section of an article can anybody suggest that FIFA is biased towards some states and against others?!