This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Might need to be semi-protected for a while? Feudonym (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe a full protection? The un-registered users aren't the ones removing references because they don't like what they prove. 87.55.171.159 (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The references that have been removed are not required. There is no need for a link to view the incident or for any opinions on how the user thinks the incident will effect the 2009 title race. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a football blog! Johnelwaq (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course the references are requried. Half the article is concerning this specific moment of the players career. I like that your idea of a "compromise" is keeping everything your way. Instead I'll make a suggestion. We'll skip the championship race speculations but keep the refencences. 90.185.180.182 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The references on you tube have comments from viewers which can only be described as unsuitable and should not be connected to wikipedia. I really do not seen why you find this a problem. If you added references that contained no bad language or uses of the word "hun" then I would not protest. Johnelwaq (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
What does it matter what is written by viewers in the external link? Millions of WP references go to newspapers, TV-stations or other webpages, where readers can comment on articles, blogs eg. The only essential things in the links are the two videos, showing nothing but what happened, and produced by television broadcast of the match. You are only using the external surroundings (which you find on every single WP reference) to have an excuse for trying to play down the episode as much as possible - in other words - denying the reader a link to the conduct. 90.185.180.182 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Granted that many WP references go to webpages where readers can comment, however, I very much doubt that those webpages have headings or titles such as "hun cheat" or "winking hun". The external links on youtube cannot be impartial either if they have these headings. Hun is a derogatory term for a Rangers fan and should, where possible, be excluded from WP so as not to cause offence. If you can find a youtube article thats title is not "hun" including then I would reconsider my stance. Johnelwaq (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
