Jump to content

Talk:2012 Africa Cup of Nations

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

Not Clear

[edit]

"Equatorial Guinea hui will host the opening game with Gabon hosting the rest of the tournament." Not quite sure what is meant by this. E. Guinea has 2 stadium according to the article to be used for the tournament but this line implies that only the opening game will be played in the country. If it is only hosting the one game then how come it has two stadiums? 94.196.41.68 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria ban

[edit]

It is a grand mistake to remove Nigeria from the table of the competition, the country's president says in no way interferes with the football federation of Nigeria, is independent, he has no power to revoke the selection of the country.

Fifa, who actively discourage government intervention in national associations, issued a response, saying: "We have no official information on this matter. However, in general, Fifa's position regarding political interference in football is well known." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.15.207 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified teams

[edit]

Why are the 2 host countries listed with different qualification dates? Surely they should both have the same date, the date that they won the bid. Crazydude22 (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group stage & Knockout phase

[edit]

Please be kind enough not to remove these sections again. Even if the cafonline.com website doesn't show them yet, the competition dates have been communicated officially during the 33rd CAF Ordinary General Assembly last 25th of February (Source: lequipe.fr [[1]]). Knowing the first and last dates of the competition, it is quite easy to figure out the schedule and order of the matches, based on the previous CAF Africa Cup of Nations and the allocation of the 2 co-hosts in the group A and D, based on previous 2 nations CAF CANs. If you wait for the cafonline.com to give you info, you will never be on time... This website is unworthy of an organization such as CAF, and has been very slow and very untidy indeed in the refreshing of its pages during CAF CHAN 2011! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1985 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you the CAF website is not a timely source of data for scheduling and results. However, "figuring out" specific dates of future events based on how a similar event happened in the past is just not valid in this forum. LarryJeff (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The map needs the island of Bioko to be coloured in as it is part of Equatorial Guinea. Delusion23 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

[edit]

Where did the attendance figures come from? The match reports do not specify them. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty section

[edit]

the section on squads is nothing but a wikilink with no content (and has been reverted without any explanation, possible once by a sockpuppet, despite the reasons given for moving it). Thus there is a SEE ALSO section fo r "related" content which this clearly is.(Lihaas (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

See other tournament articles, squads has its own section. And how the hell can you constitute removing the "see also" section and putting back the squads section as vandalism? For you it's not just "vandalism", its "VANDALISM" when its not! Ridiculous! lol. Banana Fingers (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, then fill in the section with prose.
See the editor who was told several times to explain not blindly revert yet insists on doing so on a whim without any reason whatesoever.(Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Why I'm correcting the inaccurate Group D breakdown

[edit]

I tried correcting it but somebody changed it back, so I'll fix it again and explain here why I'm right. Currently it says:

  • Mali will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
    • they do not lose to Botswana and Guinea fail to defeat Ghana, or
    • they defeat Botswana and Guinea defeat Ghana by a margin of at least four goals.

This is wrong. It's not just down to the Guinea-Ghana result; how many goals Mali scores counts as well towards the goal difference calculations. If Guinea only defeat Ghana by only one goal, Ghana's goal difference would be +2, and Mali would still qualify if they win by at least four goals against Botswana, ending up with a goal difference of +3 (Ghana would beat Mali on head-to-head if tied). It's the combined margin that counts here. Mali will qualify as long as the combined margin of the wins is at least five goals. I'm fixing this to say:

  • Mali will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if:
    • they do not lose to Botswana and Guinea fail to defeat Ghana, or
    • they defeat Botswana and Guinea defeat Ghana, and the combined margin of the two wins is at least five goals.

And similarly with Botswana. Currently it says:

  • Botswana will advance to the quarterfinals as the second-placed team in the group if they defeat Mali by a margin of at least nine goals and Ghana defeat Guinea.

This is also wrong. Botswana will advance even if they only score one goal against Mali, provided Ghana score enough goals against Guinea to bring Guinea's goal difference below Botswana's. In this case, Botswana needs a combined margin of ten goals, since they would lose to Guinea on head-to-head if tied. I'm fixing this to say:

Why the Group D breakdown is accurate and needn't be corrected

[edit]

Take a look at the #Tie-breaking criteria section (emphasis added).

If two or more teams end the group stage with the same number of points, their ranking is determined by the following criteria:

  1. points earned in the matches between the teams concerned;
  2. goal difference in the matches between the teams concerned;
  3. number of goals scored in the matches between the teams concerned;
  4. goal difference in all group matches;

and so on

So if a three-way tie involves Ghana, Mali and Guinea, points and goal differences from the Botswana games will not matter.

In order for this to happen, Mali and Guinea have to beat Botswana and Ghana - and each of the three teams in question will have earned three points against the other two. The current goal difference standings among those teams are as follows:

Team GD +/−
 Ghana 2:0 +2
 Mali 1:2 −1
 Guinea 0:1 −1

Mali have already played both their matches against Guinea and Ghana, so their records cannot change any longer. If Guinea beat Ghana, Guinea will have a ±0 goal difference at worst, and Ghana will have a +1 goal difference at best.

Thus, the final rankings will only depend on the exact margin of Guinea's victory. If it's one goal, we'll have GHA (+1), GUI (±0), MLI (−1). If the margin is two goals, that will produce GUI (+1), GHA (±0), MLI (−1). A three-goal margin will result in GUI (+2), GHA (−1 and at least 2 goals scored), MLI (−1 and exactly one goal scored). And finally, if the margin is four goals (with rankings not changing any more if it expands further), we'll have GUI (+3), MLI (−1), GHA (−2).

Similarly, if a three-way tie involves Mali, Guinea and Botswana, points and goal differences from the Ghana games will not matter.

The current standings are:

Team GD +/−
 Guinea 6:2 +4
 Mali 1:0 +1
 Botswana 1:6 −5

The tie is only achievable with a Botswana victory against Mali and a Ghana victory against Guinea - so, again, the three teams concerned will then stay level on head-to-head points. Guinea's records can no longer change, and this time we're only interested in the team that will top the group of three. If Botswana win by a margin of eight goals, they'll get a +3 goal difference which won't be enough for them to overtake Guinea. But if they manage a margin of nine goals, their goal difference will be +4 with at least ten goals scored, and this will place them above Guinea (+4 goal difference and exactly six goals scored). --Theurgist (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reports & Map

[edit]

I'm going to complete the now-missing lineups at the subarticles for each group, but I observe that the CAF website reports that we're using for sources are bad at indicating things like substitutions or yellow cards, and thus that kind of information we're having in our articles is actually not supported by the respective sources which are cited to support it (EQG vs LBY, NIG vs TUN). Then, how about using some other website as the main source instead, like Soccerway for example? (EQG vs LBY, NIG vs TUN)

Also, how about replacing the two separate maps for the two host countries with a single one for both of them?

They've got this map on the Italian Wikipedia. --Theurgist (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used soccerway for the lineups and actions. Kante4 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countries distinction

[edit]

Shouldn't we clarify where the matches are played in the Football box template? I mean, I think we would have to say in which country, Gabon or Equatorial Guinea, every match takes place apart from the city. --1969 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't necessary for WC2002 or Euro2012. There is a map right above. Jlsa (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Article protection

[edit]

Why is the article protected? Is it so special or important? --1969 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of persistent edit warring over a map. I'm currently evaluating other options, but it'll expire in any case soon.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. Warned main editor who insists on inserting his custom made POV map. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So one view is POV and the other isn't. Are we supposed to guess. Jlsa (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the map on your user page NPOV? The issue is simply someone pushing their POV by creating and repeatedly inserting a map with a different country representation than other related maps into an ongoing sports event. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map for Morocco

[edit]
Again, you actually haven't said which is the POV one (even in your answer) - note that both editors (K and PK) have (according to their edit logs) just sprung into existence to edit these maps/pages. However, there is a broader point. This map follows on from the qualification version, where the region is marked as "not a member of CAF" (not "disputed territory" or whatever). There is no POV on that, if CAF says WS is part of Morocco then that is really ALL that matters. Similarly, the WCQual pages say "not a member of FIFA". This is where the problem lies, because FIFA clearly indicates the region as part of Morocco (see http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=mar/index.html under association info). While that definitely surprised me, having gone to the FIFA page mainly to show the opposite was true and end the mpa debate properly (and note I haven't edited the maps in part because I hope the issue never comes up) it does suggest that the "WS in MAR" view may be correct in the context of football maps. This is no different from maps for rugby union that include Northern Ireland as part of "Ireland" without implying a political view regarding the reunification of Ireland. Jlsa (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you didn't offer much in your initial answer, thanks for elaborating now. I certainly didn't know about the rugby maps nor would i be sure that the respective sports body is all that matters. I initially protect it for edit warring and as you note also avoided later to declare one side as NPOV, because that isn't really possible for a simple map regarding a complex issue. If CaF says WS is part of Morocco then such a map will represent the 'official' CAF view. Rather I tried to focus on the edit warring and pushing of one particular POV where I felt that K has done this over multiple wikis with his forked maps replacing the status quo without any discussion and then with indeed P going after him, but not only P.
Anyways feel free to pursue the broader issue. If edit warring or disruption flare-up, please use the usual boards. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tikiwont. Let me join in this interesting discussion. As Jlsa, I am surprised that WS in considered as being part of morocco from FIFA point of view. Fine with that. Now, I know. I thought it was the contrary. Is it the case for CAF? The info is quite hard to find as their official web site is not...that clear and fancy. However, after thorough search, the only page I could find dealing with this subject is either in french[[2]] or arabic[[3]]. The english [[4]] version of the page is oddly empty. However, french and arabic being official languages of CAF, I relied on the info from those pages.
Using a translator, it turns out that western sahara is treated apart from morocco as far as CAF is concerned (though WS not being a member of CAF!!). Indeed, WS belong to african zone 2 and morocco to zone 1. Is it foreseen in case of WS issue gets sorted out?? I don't have any clue. So, what to do with the map problem? Should the CAF view prevail? is FIFA the one to follow? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific kiribati (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the english and French version of CAF's website there's no mention of "sahrawi republic" or "western sahara" because WS is a disputed territory not a sovereign country, and in CAF's website there's no mention of any card which shows morocco separate from western sahara, then all what Pacific Kiribati saying is False. In addition to that the international governing body of all football associations is FIFA not CAF, we must respect then FIFA's maps not personal opinion's maps. we should not mix up football with politics--Karakizi (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few considerations:
  • The map of nations participating in the 2012 cup seems to be an original work of this project. I'm not aware published maps with 16 countries on CAF or FIFA a site or anywhere else. They provide lists and tables. In that sense our Wikipedia map isn't referenced directly to anything. Personally I could easily do without it. Logically it is a a derivative of the parent map of eligible countries (CAF) highlighting those who actually participate. Where one expects for each country would the same territory in the cup map as in the association map. That is of course mostly an argument for internal consistency but also explains why repeatedly here inserting one with a different shape is disruptive, especially as there was no mention of the FIFI site before Jlsa brought it up...)
  • FIFA and CAF are sports bodies and when we write about them and their events, their own websites are for wikipedia merely primary sources as is the case for any other organization. Theirs is a point of view to be considered or qualified, but in no way binding here, especially not with respect to an disputed issue. Moreover, the (indeed surprising) map mentioned above is an illustrative picture that can be there for any number of possible reasons from indeed being affirmative, over merely thoughtless up to being the result of lobbying. Moreover it isn't quotable otherwise we could write something like "FIFA recognizes Morocco as an administrative power of the WS territory"[citation needed].
  • WS is a disputed territory and in wikipedia we're trying to cover that in a neutral point of view. Part of this is the article on Morocco national football team which has no separate map as it would of course be the same as in Morocco which by current consensus is File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg linked also by Karakizi on my talk page. There the disputed territory Western Sahara is shown as striped. In the absence of multiple independent reliable third party sources that would testify to a definite status of Western Sahara in international football being different than that of it in general, the most neutral version seems to be doing the same on football related maps: that is mark it as striped. ---Tikiwont (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we see maps of articles African Union, Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa, FIFA. we can see Western Sahara separate to Morocco in all the maps of these articles.
What about Africa Cup of Nations, we can also see these maps here wich represent some of editions of the CAN. Greetings. --Faycal.09 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tikiwont,
I now see that map of africa has disappeared from 2012_Africa_Cup_of_Nations. Although, I understand your decision for doing so, I just felt it's a shame. To me, putting a map was making things more fancy and allows to get the info about engaging teams at a glance. Too bad.
For you Karakizi, alleging that CAF web site does not mention western sahara is just unbelievable. It's cristal clear that morocco belongs to zone 1 and western sahara to zone 2 and defined by CAF. Ref [[5]] where maroc=morocco and sahara occidetal=western sahara. Have you visited the page at least?? Only french and arabic pages do contain data, english one is empty, unfortunately.Pacific kiribati (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Tikiwont, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakizi (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fisrt : Fayçal.09 and Pacific Kiribati are the same user, in other words Pacific Kiribati is a suckpuppet of Fayçal.09, in my knwoledge suckpuppet is forbidden in wikipedia
Second : the user Pacific Kiribati insult me by naming me "Khara krizi", Khara is an insult in arabic and it means "shit"
Third : Thers is No CAF website show western sahara separated from morocco (I'm saying map not Logo)
Fourth : The most high organism body football wich is FIFA (more higher than CAF) shows morocco with western sahara
Fifth : Football teams from western sahara plays in moroccan League, then Futbolistically western sahara is moroccan
Sixth : The map puted by Kiribati is not neutral at all, because it shows WS like a sovereign country not qualified (with international borders) and this is FALSE
Seventh : Pacific Kiribati (Fayçal.09) is from Algeria ans he's defending The Algerian view point of the conflict, which consider WS as an independent coutry, but he must now that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia not a tool of Algerian propaganda.

--Karakizi (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

first: My Goodness, I am feeling we're in kindergarden, now. Stop being paranoid, I am NOT Fayçal.09 and Fayçal.09 is NOT me. How could you be so sure??? Are you an admin and have access to logs? Minimizing the number of people who disagree with you does not help though it's convenient for you. This means we are at least several persons against your POV.
second: I did not insult you. Give some evidence for God's sake!
third: Come on, the web site is cristal clear though being in french. Very easy to guess countries name. See the page screenshot
CAF Africa zones
fourth: African Cup of Nations is governed by CAF, CAF rules and CAF point of view.
fifth: argument irrelevant. Political dispute ongoing. Some consider WS being under occupation, some others (you included) as part of morocco.
sixth: It's not MY map. It's someone else's map and the one used across Wikipedia. Contrary to the one you're trying to impose which is YOURS and only yours!! It's clearly politics driven and not looking for any consensus to achieve NPOV.
Seventh: Funny.....you're all the time trying to impose your POV (I guess you're moroccan) which is far from being neutral. Just have a look at any map of Wikipedia. Only a very small minority encompasses your POV.

Pacific kiribati (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I d'ont want to speak at lot, but I want to said that I agree with Pacific kiribati, I confirm I'm not you and you're not me, I think that user Karakizi is parano, he was blocked these last days in Wikimedia because he destroy articles. I think that administrators will see who and how is this user.
In the end I want to said that Morocco and WS are separated in all maps .From the CAN 1957, maps are the same. How suddenly it's changed this year? No sorry it's impossible. Greetings. --Faycal.09 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the map temporarily as this is currently a high profile artcile and we can't edit war here about it. It needs to be upodated after the finals anyways. Please stay both of you on topic and try to comment on content. As already said on my talk page allegations about Sock puppetry and insults on another wiki do not belong here. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Hi, by checking your IP adress an administrator can find easily that you're using suckpupetry to deceive users and administrators, only you and your suckpupet are against me, no others users have reverted my map. You've insulted me in English Wikipedia and used suckpupetry in the same wikipedia too, so, normaly you must be blocked by an admin... It's quite clear that FIFA recongnize WS as part of Morocco...look at this clearly and think about it

File:FIFA's morocco Map.png
FIFA's morocco MAP

Your argument about CAF zone is not valid and does not justify puting morocco without western sahara and also puting western sahara with international border similar to an independent country (it's a POV)..a Zone is not a country or a map but just an area. No maps were found in CAF's website (I'm saying maps not logos). The most high body which manage all the football associations is FIFA, we can not ignore FIFA's morocco map and put your own map. Western sahara football teams plays in moroccan League, this is an article about Football not politics, then in the context of football maps it's not wrong to put western sahara as part of morocco... Remeber, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a political referee..Maps of political entities have nothing to do here --Karakizi (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,
Fine with me, any Admin can check and then figure out that Faycal.09 and I are not the same person. Stop calling me sockpuppet, it's abusive. You have already been warned by User:Tikiwont. Stop repeating I insulted you. This is called defamation and is abusive. Your inconvenient and impolite behavior may lead you to IP blocking. Watch your words.
That being said, let's get back to the subject: African Cup of Nations. You are either not listening or not wanting to understand any opinion which is not yours.
Fine, FIFA web site illustrates morocco as being a mix of morocco mainland and Western Sahara. There's a map showing that and only a map. Nowhere else, the FIFA seem to mention or give hints that morocco = morocco + western sahara. However, on the same web site there's another image depicting sudan as being actual sudan + south sudan [[6]]. Reliability of this kind of info is subject to doubt.
On the other hand, CAF web site CLEARLY distinguishes them out (just have a neutral look at the picture on the right) as they are sorted in 2 DIFFERENTS zones. CAF rules in africa and CAF POV should prevail, I think. Moreover, this POV is not only mine but seems to be the one shared by the vast majority of maps on Wikipedia. As there's still an ongoing political dispute between morocco and western sahara and given the fact that ONLY morocco considers WS as being part of it's land, neutrality imposes to use a map where, at least, morocco is not totally overlapping western sahara thus making it disappear.
Your reminder is quite funny coming from you where you seem to be totally blinded by politics. You shall apply this advice to you first. I try to be neutral and still seeking consensus though you're really hard to talk to as you don't seem to listen and turn down all arguments with no reason.
Pacific kiribati (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]




Hi everyone, my reply to Pacific Kiribati : you're saying nothing except banalities, you're just repeating the same thing without giving anything new or clear and you're using suckpuppetry to deceive admins and people ...you're just replying my sentences with banalities, you're here to force the map which arrange the point of view of your government, you're purpose is not to discuss...

How many time I've to tell you that the article is about Football not Politics !! so we have to put maps in a football context not in political one

The most high body which manage all the football associations is FIFA not CAF, moreover it's FAF which manage CAF not the opposite (when there's a football problem, associations consult FIFA not CAF)

CAF has not published officially a map of morocco without WS (it'only your interpretation).

The zone is an area not a country, you're misinterpreting informations to distort the truth.

Western saharan Football teams plays in moroccan league, and every player ho plays in moroccan league can be a member of The moroccan football team, see this : JS Massira is located in western sahara but plays in moroccan league [7].

I'll not discuss with you infinitely beacause your true purpose is not to discuss but talking non sense in order to force your point of view and deceive people...

--Karakizi (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are calling me a sockpuppet and this is more than enough. You have been warned. I will file an official complaint to an Admin.
Fine, for God's sake, stop talking politics and be so blinded by your political bias. African matters are governed by CAF rules and CAF POV. Just as an example, the Tie-Break rules are different from those used by FIFA. If you do not seem wanting to understand the zones scheme, here how it goes: CAF splits african countries into zones so as they can organize their own regional tournaments. Endorsing your point of view, how could a national federation be departed and belonging to 2 different zones??? Zone 1 for morocco and zone 2 for western sahara. Does not make sense, right?
What I am desperately trying to explain are not "banalities" but just common sense you pretend not understanding. Each confederation is free to self organize as long as it does bot contervene FIFA general rules and principles. Like it or not, CAF decided to consider Western Sahara as not being part of morocco then fine, let's accept it as it is.
It's that simple to understand. No misinterpretation, not deceiving and no sockpuppet.
On the contrary, you try to mislead people with your political one sided opinion and want to impose it to the rest of Wikipedian.
Stop mixing politics into sports.

Pacific kiribati (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, once again Kiribati is talking non sense, well, read this in the encyclopedia [8] CAF is one of the biggest of six continental confederations of FIFA. Then CAF and FIFA are not 2 different organisms but CAF is only a continental confederation of FIFA, it's CAF which belongs to FIFA ant not the opposite.... Kiribati is trying desesperately to make understand that CAF and FIFA are 2 organisms completely separated one to other...we should take the opinion of the highest body which manage all football associations. It's FIFA's map which has to prevail.--Karakizi (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fyou like to rely that much on FIFA maps then explain to us why are they inconsistent between each other.
For example, on FIFA web site, have a look at maps of Mauritania [[9]] and Algeria [[10]] and you'll CLEARLY see that there is a border between morocco and western sahara. I cannot include them here for copyright reasons but the links work. Same think with Sudan which is still including south sudan [[11]]
Whatever. Let me laugh. That's all you can answer. LoL. All Football confederations are separate bodies. FIFA is there only to edict principles, enforce common rules, organizes World Cup and acts as supreme courts on football disputes and matters. Just like the United Nations versus countries. Does not mean the US or China belong to the UN.
Stop being so politically blinded and accept to reach a consensus on this subject. Western Sahara cannot be considered as a whole, part of morocco.
Most people think that, even in morocco with no doubt.

Pacific kiribati (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made both your points and it is clear that you're disagreeing with each other. Let me try to summarize what I've been trying to say above and draw a conlusion:

  • Neither of the two sources you name amounts to a cite able quotation regarding the status of Western Sahara in international football.
  • Both organization being affiliated with each other, i see no reason to insist that one poorly sourced view prevails over the other. Rather I'd take into account that the disputed situation is already poorly and inconsistently documented within sports bodies themselves.
  • Even if there were clear written statements, they would still not automatically be the highest authority for wikipedia but rather a point of view coming from a primary source, namely from the sports organizations by whose activities we try to cover here in neutral manner based on independent sources. None have been mentioned here so far.

We do maps here to keep things easier for our readers whilst trying to adhere to a neutral point of view. Which means to me that in lack of good external coverage and a mere FIFA map that can mean anything such as an area of activity, marking WS as part of Morocco on our maps isn't warranted and depicting it with its internationally recognized borders is the cautious default. If somebody can dig up a source saying that players from WS are eligible for the Morroco national side, I'd consider the striped version. Not that they would necessarily want to.[12]. The matter is controversial enough to rule out Western Sahara as full part of Morroco on a NPOV sports map. Hope that helps whilst I'll be off for a work assignment. Anybody else wanting to comment? --Tikiwont (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reality there is no conflict and no contradictions. Africa have 2 high political authorities, 1 high sport authority and 1 high football authority:
  • In politic:
    • In the United Nations official website, the statue of WS till now is like there.
    • In the African Union, Morocco was banned from the organisation in 1984 because political problem with WS. We can see here or here.
  • In sport:
    • In the Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa (ANOCA), Morroco was banned from All-Africa Games from 1987 by following the African Union decison of 1984 when Morocco was banned from the organisation.
  • In football:
    • In the Confederation of African Football clubs of WS don't participate in the confederation competitions as mentionned here. It participated only in the Moroccan league.
Greetings. --Faycal.09 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2012 Africa Cup of Nations. 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) 17:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: African Politics

[edit]

Informality

[edit]

There are many sections in the introduction of this article that use language such as "dramatic penalty shootout" which are subjective, and generally informal. jan Keso (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Africa_Cup_of_Nations&oldid=1196609195"