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)

Chandler, please stop making such specious arguments, it's clear you don't want the article here at all seeing as you are the persson who put it up for deletion, but at least try to make some policy based arguments. For example, which policy exactly can I find a specification for how long this article can be? It certainly doesn't violate WP:SIZE yet, so what am I missing? And if you know of Irish players who said things like that, either add it to the article, or mention it here and let someone else do it. Don't simply snidely suggest that just because you know of something, that others should as well, and their failure to add it is something dodgy. As for that German game, its not even a GA, let alone an FA, so who exactly is saying it is a fine example to be comparing this article to as to what should and shouldn't be in the article? Just comparing article to article is not how Wikipedia judges quality at all, because due to the nature of wikipedia, it is a pure logical paradox, see other stuff arguments. It is only even remotely worth doing if you actually have a peer reviewed example such as an FA, and even then it is still pretty much against policy to do so. And to labour the point, precisely two editors have put any time into that article, over a grand total of about 40 edtis in its lifetime, so frankly, its state is as unnofficial as any other article you might care to dig up to criticise this one against. As an aside, I am guessing that since that german article dates from 1982, unless somebody was prepared to put some serious effort into it and pay for newspaper archives, or spend weeks in a library, then they are going to have less then no chance to even be able to source timely comments for it, even if they wanted to. And since when did this article even have to be perfect after two days? At the end of the day, if you were actually genuinely bothered about improvement, then 'too much information' should be the least of anybody's concerns at this stage. It is frankly always preferrable to have too much information to start with and trimming it down, than doing it the other way around. And to 96.225.200.150, you posted this, which was removed not because it was biased, but because it had nothing to do with improving the article. These talk pages are not discussion forums, see WP:FORUM. MickMacNee (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Working on the basis that this article should be kept (if anything weak keep was overstating my position), I've done a mini peer review:

Title

• The title itself should not have Play-Offs capitalised and doesn't need brackets.
• The title and the order of the teams in the infobox should be consistent. I have no desire to find out which "should come first", but they should certainly be consistent.

Structure and weighting'

• We should be discussing both matches in reasonable detail in the prose, and then going into the incident (although the incident itself and the aftermath warrant an unusually large percentage of the weight).
• Minus the flags, the structure of the games themselves should be similar to that found here. Regardless of why the one or two games are notable, if one or two games have their own articles, they should be covered in that much detail.
• The weighting between the incident itself and the reaction is also wrong. This article looks like being kept (albeit as a no consensus closure) because of the political and economic ramifications, more than footballing ones. I therefore think the weighting between the reaction of those in football, and the reaction of those outside it, needs a serious rethink.
• Quotes from people of equal stature are not given equal prominence. I am not necessarily saying that there should be a 50-50 split between French and Irish quotes, but for instance, Geovanni Trappatoni's quote should be formatted in the same way as Raymond Domenech's.
• For these reasons, a NPOV tag is understandable if a little over the top, and a recentism tag is appropriate for want of a more accurate one. The article covers too much of the events of the 19th and 20th, and has absolutely nothing on the preceeding events. Just because the games only have an article because of the handball, does not mean the article should only cover the handball.

Miscellaneous

• Why the hell are we using archived links?
• No pictures? Normally for something of this nature there would be edit wars about whose picture deserves a place.
• UTC±0 should just be UTC. The article is at that location because UTC is used to describe the entire timing system.
• People who never have, are not now and never will be notable have been redlinked, and should be de-linked.
• I'm aware that I am repeating myself. Why the hell are we using archived links? Every news organisation in the world is covering this. Surely we could apply a bit of common sense and stick to those who keep things where they are?

I hope those help. WFCforLife (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)