→FIFA 2010: > R |
Emperorubby (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::::::: That way we can prevent the over coverage and recentism, while also taking care that this entry doesn't become to biased towards a certain viewpoint. All the present quotes will still be available in the references, thus nothing is truly lost. [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
::::::: That way we can prevent the over coverage and recentism, while also taking care that this entry doesn't become to biased towards a certain viewpoint. All the present quotes will still be available in the references, thus nothing is truly lost. [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::The italicized quotes above sounds good to me. But people, get serious here. The entry is slandering. Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid entries. The quotes in that section is not credible. It's opinionated. Read my posts above. Until there is a response from FIFA acknowledging the outcry and accusations from a few biased analysts, then there's nothing factual about their opinions. If the entry stays, you're pretty much saying that any opinion I may have against any one of you is who you are. Come on, be real here. I may be a one man army, but Wikipedia would have to stop me for this nonsense to remain up here, and then they would have to explain to me what was so credible about it. [[User:Emperorubby|Emperorubby]] ([[User talk:Emperorubby|talk]]) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:58, 18 June 2010
Biography Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
- If you're looking to discuss the calls of the last match, this is not the place to do it. Don't start blaming regular Wikipedia users or admins for doing things you don't like, if you're going to misuse articles and talk pages to express your emotions. Either find sources with the intent of improving a compendium of facts that can be backed up, or get a Twitter. backstabb 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Malicious edits
Done Admins, get this page under control. The entry's been maliciously edited and is now locked. It needs editing ASAP. These talk comments are also ridiculous.
> I agree. This page is maliciously edited perhaps by people who have no in-depth knowledge of the sport. Opinions from biased soccer analysts should have no place in an encyclopedia entry and should all be removed. We know enough about Coulibaly, his profession, and his statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperorubby (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
FIFA 2010
I think that the 2010 football box is worthy of inclusion, as it is a major game that he had officiated. Along with that, a separate and referenced controversy section is not out of bounds of inclusion on wikipedia. -Dscarth (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we were to remove the football box, might as well remove the one for the african game. And at that, this article is no more than a stub, and might as well be a speedy deletion, because it adds nothing to wikipedia. Lets include all the information we can, and look to improve the article. -Dscarth (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do think all the football boxes should be removed, Jorge Larrionda's article doesn't have them, and he's one of the better-developed ref pages on Wiki. I also don't think we need to expand the article for the sake of expansion at the moment; it's got basically everything we know about this guy right now, so I don't think we need a separate controversy section. His officiating one group stage match at the World Cup wouldn't be noteworthy without the controversy, so in essence, the section on the match is functioning as a controversy section. If we were to find out that the 2010 ACN Final was controversial in some way, then we might separate it out. (PS, I wrote on your talk page.)Kingnavland (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The football boxes only mention him as a referee, and they mention the date and time the match took place, but the rest of the information is not exactly relevant to Coulibaly as a person. If they would detail the amount of cards, offsides, free kicks and so on i could understand inclusion as these factors are directly related to the actions of the referee. The current information however, is more related to player performance then referee performance.
- I do think all the football boxes should be removed, Jorge Larrionda's article doesn't have them, and he's one of the better-developed ref pages on Wiki. I also don't think we need to expand the article for the sake of expansion at the moment; it's got basically everything we know about this guy right now, so I don't think we need a separate controversy section. His officiating one group stage match at the World Cup wouldn't be noteworthy without the controversy, so in essence, the section on the match is functioning as a controversy section. If we were to find out that the 2010 ACN Final was controversial in some way, then we might separate it out. (PS, I wrote on your talk page.)Kingnavland (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we were to remove the football box, might as well remove the one for the african game. And at that, this article is no more than a stub, and might as well be a speedy deletion, because it adds nothing to wikipedia. Lets include all the information we can, and look to improve the article. -Dscarth (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would also point out that this is a BLP page detailing Koman Coulibaly. It should not become a coatrack where we discuss needless details that are not directly related to him as a person - that is, his personal record and his actions in several games. I would equally point out that we should be careful to give undue weight to the recent match. Coulibaly has been a referee for 10 years or so it seems, but 4 out of 11 lines in his biography detail just one particular match. Its understandable since this is the English wikipedia (Thus subjects involved with the US and UK receive more coverage in general), but we should be careful not to over-focus on just a small blip in his career. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, this definitely runs the risk of being a coatrack. I think the solution to this (which I don't have time to do at the moment) is to go back through his ACN career and add information to this article regarding notable matches he officiated in those tournaments. Additionally, a couple of the US quotes could be trimmed. (If I were choosing, I would cut Donovan's quote and the sentence about the caution given to Findley, leaving Lalas and Wynalda, but I'll wait for consensus, because I don't want to lose the information and not get it back if other people have different opinions about what should be cut.) Kingnavland (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would also point out that this is a BLP page detailing Koman Coulibaly. It should not become a coatrack where we discuss needless details that are not directly related to him as a person - that is, his personal record and his actions in several games. I would equally point out that we should be careful to give undue weight to the recent match. Coulibaly has been a referee for 10 years or so it seems, but 4 out of 11 lines in his biography detail just one particular match. Its understandable since this is the English wikipedia (Thus subjects involved with the US and UK receive more coverage in general), but we should be careful not to over-focus on just a small blip in his career. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, the edits on this man's profile have become too ridiculous. He has been refereeing for about 10 years and there's nothing there showing matches that he officiated in the past. There may be a place for the recent views and accusations by a few biased and emotional sports analysts but I do not believe that their opinions should have any place in this entry unless the governing body of the sports take action over it. I'm afraid that allowing such edits to remain will be misguiding readers and imply an unconfirmed conspiracy involving FIFA against the United States. It will stretch beyond the scope of writing about Mr Coulibaly and demean the credibility of Wikipedia. Emperorubby (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- While you have one or two valid points, there is absolutely no way that anyone can call this information irrelevant. It, or at least a solid bit of information about this, needs to remain in the article. A simple google search will show wide range of news sources that are covering this. I do, however, agree that the potential for it to make the page disproportionate is there. I feel the answer is not to simply blank relevant information, but instead to fill the article with more information about this official to balance the article. If this referee is as prominent and experienced as you say, it should be fairly easy to find such information.Dashren2001 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The information is very irrelevant and at this point can even be considered a tabloid piece. Although news worthy, the facts may stay that he officiated a recent USA-Slovenia match, along with many other matches he has officiated. But the opinions should have absolutely no place on the article until there has been a response from FIFA regarding the matter. For now, it's a tabloid piece, not Wiki-worthy. It almost comes as an emotional reaction from many USA fans and pundits and is slandering. There shouldn't be a place for that. Emperorubby (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seconding keeping the FIFA World Cup 2010 information. All the sports news sources are beginning to report on it, as well as many general news sites. We will continue to see and hear about the effects of this over the next few days, possibly weeks, especially if USA does not move onto the next round. EDIT: Someone has removed the section without explaining why they have done-so here. Is that not malicious? I have reverted the information back into the article. Please do not blank sections of this article without discussing it here first.Dashren2001 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would whoever keeps reverting this section please stop, and discuss it here? I will revert it one more time, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would request assistance in stopping this blatant vandalism until we reach a consensus on the wording of the section. Dashren2001 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree wholeheartedly with User:Emperorubby, who should also be using edit summaries and careful of violating the Three revert rule. We're not saying that those people are right, we're saying this is what they said about the match. There's a lot of articles about his calls, this is more press than he's probably ever gotten, and it deserves to be in the article. --AW (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Emperorubby has blanked the section once again. I have reverted it, but I cannot do-so again without violating Three revert rule. This has become blatant vandalism. How do i go about bringing in assistance, or would someone else mind asking for it?Dashren2001 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's vandalism, but he does seem to believe strongly in it. Let's discuss it here. EmperorRuby? --AW (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be in the article as it certainly received enough coverage, but the article is called "Koman Coulibaly", and not "2010 Fifa World Cup - The Koman Coulibaly Incident". Do we really need to quote every random sports commentator that disagreed, while also showing their credentials? We could also say:
- I'm not sure it's vandalism, but he does seem to believe strongly in it. Let's discuss it here. EmperorRuby? --AW (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Emperorubby has blanked the section once again. I have reverted it, but I cannot do-so again without violating Three revert rule. This has become blatant vandalism. How do i go about bringing in assistance, or would someone else mind asking for it?Dashren2001 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree wholeheartedly with User:Emperorubby, who should also be using edit summaries and careful of violating the Three revert rule. We're not saying that those people are right, we're saying this is what they said about the match. There's a lot of articles about his calls, this is more press than he's probably ever gotten, and it deserves to be in the article. --AW (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would whoever keeps reverting this section please stop, and discuss it here? I will revert it one more time, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would request assistance in stopping this blatant vandalism until we reach a consensus on the wording of the section. Dashren2001 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seconding keeping the FIFA World Cup 2010 information. All the sports news sources are beginning to report on it, as well as many general news sites. We will continue to see and hear about the effects of this over the next few days, possibly weeks, especially if USA does not move onto the next round. EDIT: Someone has removed the section without explaining why they have done-so here. Is that not malicious? I have reverted the information back into the article. Please do not blank sections of this article without discussing it here first.Dashren2001 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Coulibaly took charge of the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. After conceding two first half goals, the United States fought back to equalize and had scored an apparent third goal to take the lead; however, Coulibaly disallowed the goal which led to harsh criticism from players and sport analysts alike (Add all the references here)"
- That way we can prevent the over coverage and recentism, while also taking care that this entry doesn't become to biased towards a certain viewpoint. All the present quotes will still be available in the references, thus nothing is truly lost. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The italicized quotes above sounds good to me. But people, get serious here. The entry is slandering. Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid entries. The quotes in that section is not credible. It's opinionated. Read my posts above. Until there is a response from FIFA acknowledging the outcry and accusations from a few biased analysts, then there's nothing factual about their opinions. If the entry stays, you're pretty much saying that any opinion I may have against any one of you is who you are. Come on, be real here. I may be a one man army, but Wikipedia would have to stop me for this nonsense to remain up here, and then they would have to explain to me what was so credible about it. Emperorubby (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)