Jump to content

Talk:2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

Would 'Republic of Ireland' not be better before 'France'? Ireland were drawn from the pot first and had their home leg first..... Fionnsci (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the article was about both legs, nevermind. Fionnsci (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Crowd Numbers

[edit]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Heavily biased

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
{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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I will volunteer a third opinion, I completely disagree with Jeppiz. The purpose of the article is to cover the playoff tie and the entire world media covered the story with the same slant. The article here is not biased as even the French press covers the story along the same lines. Regarding the recentism claim, the main point is obviously the handball, given that it is a single event it is difficult to see the story evolving much more. The only things that can change from here are possible events such as an Henry apology, a FIFA imposed player ban for Henry, a match replay etc. Regardless, the guts of this story remain intact, it is only a replay that would fundamentally change it and that is widely regarded as a rather unlikely outcome. Chrismccarthy (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Should there perhaps be added some neutrality, perhaps referencing Irelands game against Georgia where they accepted a wrongful penalty to get back into the game? chandler 11:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how referencing other unrelated events would help to balance this article. The article is not titled 'Ireland has a right to feel cheated', the article just describes what happened in this playoff tie. The article is balanced because all media portrays the same slant. If you wish, please feel free to create a new article on the Ireland vs Georgia game but that has nothing to do with this tie. Chrismccarthy (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait i think he is right, adding a completely different event, where the ref invented a foul, but no Irish player simulated or asked for a penalty would definitely balance out the article after all a ref inventing a foul is the same as a ref missing 3 infractions and a player blatantly cheating. Georgia were definitely cheated in that game, but by the ref, Keane did not dive, and there was no call for the penalty by the Irish players, in fact they were as surprised as the Georgian players. Admittedly Keane should have asked the ref what the penalty was for and if the ref said to him, "well you were fouled weren't you?" then he should have done the honest thing and admitted he wasn't. Ma fammi il piacere va, your star player did something shameful because you were not able to beat Ireland. We could hang on to the fact Pazzini was sent off for nothing, yet we don't because we also got lucky at the end with ref's calls, and Ireland deserved their point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.131.58 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see how referencing other unrelated events would help to balance this article." Maybe talking about Given's foul on Anelka not whistled by the referee ? Maybe telling about the four or five handball of Robbie Keane, whistled by the referee but with angry reaction from Keane to him ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.99.152 (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is heavily biased but I don't think it should be deleted.--Kevinharte (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care that much about football (I used to live in France and I am half Irish so I like both teams) but I think it is wrong to take out the direct quote from Thierry Henry that I translated and instead put in that he admitted what he did was illegal. He did NOT admit that, as you can see from the original quote (see history). Evangeline (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been hundreds of arrests throughout Europe regarding football curruption.--Kevinharte (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have some fair comments, but I think you need to remember that this article has existed for a couple of days. There is no point expecting it to be finished yet, or even half way there. However, the only redlinked people are people you would defintiely think as notable, the apparently most notable Franch football tv commentator, and the president and vice president of the French Football Federation. As for archive links, its just sensible. The Independent is the only paper know of whose artilce links are still stable after ten years. Archiving isn't being done to safeguard them in the short term, and there is no harm in doing it now, rather than hoping someone does it years later, if the links are still correct. I do think it is a pain that the archive link is given first, but that's an issue for the cite template. The {Recent} tag is not meant for pointing out the lack of Background details, and I don't think that was even why he was insistent on adding it. I don't see how an NPOV tag is justifiable because there are simply too many opinions from football people, or the article reflects the fact that either Domenech didn't make a long statement, or they didn't bother reporting it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article being in its infancy doesn't mean I'm wrong to suggest improvements, but thanks for the feedback. Apart from the vice president you're probably right on the other reds. But I strongly disagree on the recentism tag not being appropriate. If anything the NPOV tag should be removed, and the recentism one added. The complaint that the article focuses too much on the press tittle tattle afterwards is far easier to justify than the suggestion that we're being biased towards the Irish. WFCforLife (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a last note about neutrality, I think Roy Keane should be getting far more prominence than he has been. It's been given huge coverage over here, and presumably in France and Ireland as well. Far more than almost everyone else. WFCforLife (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on favoring to keep the arcticle for a little while longer at least and also possible inclusions into the arcticle. 21st June 14.00 GMT hundreds of Irish fans have organised to protest in the streets of Dublin. Also several hundred Irish have promised to boycott Gillette, endorsed by Henry, on social networks throughout the internet. There will be greater implications than you way think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.174.163 (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the main point of the RfC, I do not believe that this article is biased. It appears to present the information in accordance with the sources available. Most of those sources are about the handball, so it is no surprise that a significant portion of the article focuses on that. The only thing I would perhaps say is that the media and football personalities sections are a little over long. But, the language used is neutral, and the originator of this RfC does not raise specific concerns to be addressed. If the originator could articulate what specifically is wrong with the article, and why they believe there is undue weight, perhaps we could address those concerns. If that does not happen I suggest the RfC be closed and the tag removed from the article. Quantpole (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts and observations 1) There's almost no mention of the other 119 minutes of the game. Is this an article about the game? 2) No one has mentioned that Thierry's and Gallas's play after the infranction was beautiful, as in the 'beautiful game.' 3) I saw Robby Keane mentioned above but missed him in the article. I recognize that he is a controversial figure, expecially in Ireland. I'll leave others to hunt up the exact quote, but he roundly castigated the Irish defense for playing official instead of playing to the whistle. I've seen video and a still photo of the ball entering the net from behind the net. My observation: the goalie played to the whistle, but the rest of the defense had its collective hands in the air as the ball crossed the line. Methinks Keane has a point.

Hope this contributes to the discussion.

Tapered (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Stef

[edit]

The song by The Mighty Stef is about the handball incident in the second leg. It is part of the story, just as Finkielkraut and Roy Keane are part of the story. Richard Tol (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the song by the Corrigan Brothers. Richard Tol (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make it notable.--John (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's notability then? These songs are played on Irish radio and listened to on YouTube. Furthermore, the fact that artists take the time to respond signifies that either the events meant something to them or that they think this will resonate with their audience. Richard Tol (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added newspaper reports about the songs. Richard Tol (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established by the mere existence of these songs; they need significant coverage in reliable sources before we can even mention them. I removed the inline external links to Youtube per WP:EL. --John (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted another reference, so that the songs are now two clicks away (rather than one). Brilliant policy, WP:EL. Richard Tol (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a reference below... --candle•wicke 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews article

[edit]

Cantona reaction

[edit]

Should be mentioned? --Kevinharte (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, as it is different Richard Tol (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if its the one you meant, but I've just added this anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry

[edit]

The handball contravercy should also be mentioned on his page.--Kevinharte (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction: "Henry, previously seen by many in the sport as a fair footballer, was labelled by many in the aftermath as a cheat[2]" This needs an additional citation for the first part ([2] only refers to him now being labelled a cheat). Henry has never been a fair footballer, the match has just brought to light the foul play he has ALWAYS used to get an upper hand (even the biased french and arsenal fans realise). Furthermore, the quote by Wenger that "he is one of the fairest players I have managed" holds no weight since:

1) It is a biased view from a man who managed Henry for years.

2) It is a view from a man who has managed a great number of cheating players during many years at Arsenal so saying Henry is one of the fairest isn't saying much.

In summary I think that the line should be changed to:

"The incident brought to light the true extent of Henry's bad sportsmanship."

Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.155.203 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had a point until the last line, which is no way a neutral replacement. The bit about Henry's previous reputation is supported by citations in the rest of the article, stuff in the lead section doesn't necessarily require citations, but 'cheat' is a red-flag. As said below, Wenger's comment holds as much weight as Wenger as a notable person, but we aren't about to start adding qualifiers, certainly not when no reliable source has done so. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cascarino

[edit]

Cascarino said in his autobiography: "I didn't qualify for Ireland. I was a fraud. A fake Irishman". With a fixation on Henry maybe some balance should be brought in or alternatively remove all reference to Cascarino.Cathar11 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same qualifications for balance could be added to everybody named probably, but there really is no need. Cantona doesn't like the FFF much, Roy Keane clearly hates the FAI, Wenger has hardly been praised in the past as an arbiter of honesty, the list could go on and on. But they are listed as mere opinions of notbale people, and as such, they carry whatever weight they carry. Wikipedia is in no place to start analysing whether these people are are worthy of passing judgement on Henry, let alone adding counterbalancing judgements. If you find reliable sources disputing these people's right to comment on Henry in this specific case, that's one thing, but adding random qualifiers is quite different, and likely to be original thought. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that everyone who is notable is entitled to have their opinion directly quoted, as long as it is represented (even if that representation is through another's comments). I challenge you to name a manager, football journalist, Western European politician or international footballer who hasn't been asked for their thoughts on the matter, but surely even you aren't suggesting that every single one should be included here? WFCforLife (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say they were? My post is merely about the idea that balancing info needs to be added for those people who are included, that's all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Where did I say they were? My post is merely about the idea that balancing info needs to be added for those people who are included, that's all. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you did. I just don't understand how anyone can imply that we should be adding more opinions. Changing yes. Improving yes, but indiscriminately adding? No.
Ignoring FIFA, there are only six main permutations; French people who are or are not critical, Irish people who are or are not, and neutrals who are or are not. I appreciate that I've oversimplified slightly, but each of these groups should be given appropriate weighting (a little each, a bit more for groups which can be clearly demonstrated as majority viewpoints), and if more than one or two invidiuals in one of these "groups" is referenced specifically then a very good reason should be given (for example, the Prime Minister of Ireland and the Chief Executive of the FAI should clearly be quoted, and that shouldn't automatically rule out anyone else Irish from being referenced, provided anything extra is proportionate). WFCforLife (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections/suggestions aren't really clear to me, do you want quotes removed, or people removed, or something else? I don't think I implied anywhere above that we should be adding more opinions, so I'm not sure what you're on about there. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it needs trimming, but the question is how. If someone's added something then they obviously feel it's important, and if there's no consensus on what to do, any attempt to remove material isn't going to last long. What I'm saying is that we should be very selective about whose opinions we use (provided it's done in a neutral way, balancing the various opinions with appropriate weight). We haven't, and a huge sprawl of reaction to something we've barely described is the end result. WFCforLife (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be specific? You are once again expecting a finished article, when it isn't even a week old. It is far better to start of with a lot of info and pare it down, than the other way around, and just because somebody saw a source and added it, doesn't mean they feel its ultra important and aren't open to discussing it. And as far as I can see, nobody has even tested the consensus for inclusion of most of the 'sprawl' as you call it, so if you have specific ideas about what's wrong and how to fix it, please say so. Nobody is a mind reader here, and I'm not getting anything from these vague statements. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Weasel words' and whether referee saw it

[edit]

OK. The referee has made no statement that he saw the handball or not, despite most sources saying he didn't. User Cathar1 is obejcting [1] to the use of the qualifier 'reportedly' in the lede to clear this up, on the basis it is a weaseley way of saying he did see it. There is to my mind, there is a serious WP:BLP issue in simply stating as fact that he didn't see it, without a statement from him. And obviously, claiming that he couldn't have seen it because he did nothing, while pretty obvious, is open to a claim of being original research. Does anybody have a suggested wording to solve this? MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd weakly support "reportedly", on the basis that it's better than definitively stating that he did not see it, WP:LEAD shouldn't be applied at the expense of accuracy. WFCforLife (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if this latest info added here sheds any light or not. He seems to say, 'I can't talk about it, but we didn't see it and it wasn't our fault', pointing to an illustration in The Times. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The image of Henry's handball in this and this Guardian article(s) is described in its captions as "Public domain". Would it be legit to upload this and use it in this article; my main concern is whether it's ok to trust the Guardian on the image's license. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, the Guardian is one of the UK's most respected newspapers (nothing like the Sun, if that's what you're thinking of). Plus such an image could go here with fair use anyway: indespensible for describing the situation. ChrisDHDR 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for The Mighty Stef

[edit]

"Exclusive! Mighty Stef records football protest song"—Hot Press. Not sure where to put it but I'll leave it here as somebody might find it useful... --candle•wicke 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder (perhaps could be placed in article)

[edit]

At no stage during the 210 minutes (90 in leg 1, 90 in leg 2, 30 in extra time) were Ireland ever actually winning the tie. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland were playing better.If it went to penalties,who knows? --Kevinharte (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry FAR

[edit]

I have nominated Thierry Henry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

amount of reaction

[edit]

The amount of coverage given to the reaction needs to be reduced. For an idea of how overblown these sections are, see the response sections in September 11 attacks. I'm wary of being bold without initiating discussion first, because I will only be reverted. I'd be grateful if someone would be willing to help with this task or contribute to discussion about it, but otherwise I will start making the cuts myself. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any changes you want to make should be justified with reference to this article only. What happens in other irrelevant and incomparable articles is neither here nor there. I am not in the habit of reverting constructive changes made in good faith, but at a minimum, I am likely to object to the loss of any references from the article, and would prefer that if you feel the need to make changes, that they should be towards the goal of summarisation of already gathered information, rather than wholesale removal of bits and pieces here and there, based on subjective ideas of what is and isn't important. If you are unsure as to what response to any changes you might make, I suggest for simplicity you make each change as a singular edit, rather than making several changes in one single edit. This makes any future discussion of potential objections easier to follow. It would be even better although by no means required, if you propose them here, first. Having an actual proposed change to discuss is much easier than going around the houses talking in vauge terms. MickMacNee (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now I don't see speaking in vague terms as too much of a problem. In short, my issue is about redundancy. If we acknowledge a specific person/organisation/country's opinion, that person/organisation/country should either be in some way largely significant regardless of how similar it is to another view (e.g. the teams involved), or offer something substantially different to the other viewpoints being offered (e.g. Roy Keane).
There are currently 4401 words of prose dedicated solely to various parties' reaction to the handball incident. I disagree with but entirely understand the rationale behind letting an article like this grow organically while it is ongoing. But most of the reaction has passed now, and in anyone's book the current amount of he said/she said is too much. I'm hopeful that through this discussion someone who would like to retain more content will consider pruning the article to eliminate redundancy whilst minimising "loss" of "information". The "views of match participants" section seems long but in reality isn't bad, but I do not understand why the "reaction" section—28 paragraphs—could not be fully covered in 4 decenty sized ones. I accept that this is a hard, overly simplistic and controversial line, and that in reality the criteria should be qualitative rather than quantitative, but the current reaction section is of poor quality, repetitive, and far too long.
In this situation, I find it is best that someone who wants to keep as much content as possible reduces the prose to a level they find acceptable. That way, if others (these so called "deletionists") still think it is too much then discussion on specific points can more usefully be held. WFCforLife (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I can't say anything more without concrete examples, but I will definitely be opposed to drastic undiscussed changes like reducing 28 paragraphs to 4. That has nothing to do with me being against deletionists, and is probably more to do with the fact the article has been stable for ages, and read by thousands. I don't agree for example on things like Roy Keane being immune from trimming just because his opinion is an outlier, that seems to violate NPOV imo. My only other suggestion, if you really want to do it en masse, is to use a sub page as a draft. If you only use existing content to reduce from, then you don't need to worry about refs aswell, unless or until that new draft version is agreed on. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough to do it that way, but isn't it against policy for an article to have a subpage of that sort? WFCforLife (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it's grown from 83,000 bytes at the start of December to 112,000 now. While the World Cup Draw and Blatter's comments obviously need to be taken into account, I would hardly describe that as "stable for ages", nor does a brief glance at the edit history indicate stability. WFCforLife (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-pages in user space are fine. The last addition was 8 days ago, and even that wasn't very significant. 99% content wise it has been stable for ages bar vandalism, which is to be expected considering how high profile it still is, with it still getting 200+ views a day. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreak criteria

[edit]

Tiebreak criteria

  • The team scoring more goals on aggregate wins the play-off.
  • If scores are level on aggregate, away goals count double.
  • If teams are level on away goals, 30 minutes of extra time is played.
  • If the score is level after extra time (away goals once again counting double in the case of an aggregate tie), the match goes to penalties.

Is there a source, that away goals in the overtime count double in case of a tie? In the FIFA regulations, there is no word about counting away goals double in overtime, if the aggregate score is equal. --95.113.54.219 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term is something like "Higher number of away goals" - definitely not "count double" - that term is a fan/commentator name for it - since it is often the case that teams only score one away goal - however at no stage is any "doubling" of goals actually done. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant as a way to prevent penalty kicks, in other words to decide on a winner quicker. Say for example after Henry's handball which led to the French goal, had Ireland scored again in the remaining 17 minutes, Ireland would have gone through to the World Cup even though the Aggregate would have been 2-2. Since Ireland would have scored both their goals away from home, over France who scored one goal away and one goal at home.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 112 external links on 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Republic_of_Ireland_v_France_football_matches&oldid=1196549335"