Talk:List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleList of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
August 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 24, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA nomination[edit]

I've put the GA nomination on hold, because the introduction is one sentence long, I really don't think that summarizes an article of this size very well as per WP:LEAD, it will need to be expanded out to summarize the article, preferably in one or two paragraphs detailing the most important stuff or something. Homestarmy 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise is it fine? I'll do the lead in the next 24 hours. Daniel.Bryant 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Daniel.Bryant 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status[edit]

This article has taken what appears to be a somewhat unique topic and made a pretty good article out of it, now that the lead is longer I think it summarizes the article pretty well since it mentions specific bits of the article, I see no way you could get away with calling this article not well referenced, the one image is properly tagged, (Try to find more) and the articles seems pretty stable. The NPOV thing seems the most iffy part of the article, I think it could just barely qualify as passing, you need to attribute sentences to their source such as "To add to the game's controversy, the 79th minute goal by Australian striker Harry Kewell appears to have been scored while Kewell was in an offside position." (who does it appear to?) and "but the common opinion was that the expulsion was unfair and excessive" (Who's common opinion?), though I suspect that by the lead stating that the controversy was among the media, the reader might be able to pick up on this without checking every reference. (It's still inconvienent however). Also, make sure to cut down on drama-inducing language, I know the topic is sort of intense, but sentences such as "Following months of confusion over who would be managing the African debutants Togo" seems to make the article more intensive than an encyclopedia :/. (Plus, that one doesn't say who is being confused). I suspect many reviewers wouldn't pass this article, but you've got the references which sort of seem to try and show both sides of issues, you've just gotta attribute them more properly. Homestarmy 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and fix up the article removing the ambiguous and weasel wording. Daniel.Bryant 07:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions[edit]

I notice that the Portugal v. Netherlands game is described in similar detail (even using almost the same quotes) in both the "disputed decisions" section and the "other issues" section. It's described a third time in Fair-play decisions, but I can understand the reason for that. I was wondering if it is really necessary for that match to be in there twice. I don't see much of a difference between the two descriptions.

Also, Blatter is referred to as "Sepp Blatter" on all occasions but one, in which he is called "Joseph 'Sepp' Blatter". I think this should be made consistent with the rest of the article. Cfrydj 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ou est Zizou?[edit]

Shouldn't Zinedine Zidane#Confrontation with Marco Materazzi be in there somewhere? It was controversial because of (a) allegations that Materazzi provoked Zidane (b) allegations that the fourth official relied on the video replay to see the error. jnestorius(talk) 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia vs Italy Round of 16[edit]

Re: my recent edit; Removed POV language about the Neill/Grosso collision. Corrected or rather updated Sepp Blatter's later comments-he retracted seeming criticism of the referee. Couldn't figure out how to edit the references section to update to the correct reference. For Australian fans: if you watch video of the incident, the referee is in perfect postion and orientation to have watched the incident. If it makes you feel better, watching video convinced me that Materazzi's red card was spot on. Please note that Coach Lippi didn't lift an eyebrow in protest. Please refrain replaying the game with POV material. Thanks

Tapered (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup controversies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm reassessing this article for GA sweeps. Do to a couple major issues, it currently doesn't meet GA guidelines. Here's the issues:

  • The lead needs a definite expansion; 2 full paragraphs at the bare minimum.
  • Make sure all refs have the full details (publisher, date, accessdate, etc.)
  • The following refs are deadlinks and need replacement: Refs # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38 (might be available later, LA times was busy), 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57, 60, 63, 66, 74, 75, and 76.

I'll put this on hold for 5 days in hopes that some good progress is made. If it is I'll do a prose review, if not I'll delist it. Wizardman 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been 5 days and no progress; I found more issues as well, so I'm delisting as a GA. May be better off, being reread and modified now that it's several years past. Can always be re-nommed down the line after things are fixed. Wizardman 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 11[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 12[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 13[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 14[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 15[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 16[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 17[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 18[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 19[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 20[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 21[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 22[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy vs. Australia edit[edit]

This is old news and not really an issue in Australia nowadays. But I do hate diving, and I am not alone in that. When I saw the red card initially I thought it was a bit soft. Subsequently seeing the footage on youtube, I could see why the referee gave it, but still I would regard it as a decision that could go either way.

I must admit I don't think the penalty was deserved. Fabio chose to dive. He could have played on and kicked the goal. As he said, he ran out of strength after a long and tiring game and that's what brought him down.

Either way, these things happen. I do wish that all that diving panzy stuff could be eliminated. Play like Messi. Get fouled, keep running, and put the ball in the net. Nobody can argue with that ;-)

Thepigdog (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Hi everyone.

As we approach yet another WC tournament, I believe that now is an appropriate time to revisit some key issues (at least IMHO).

I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 1998 and 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies articles (see here).

Those of you who followed the process will remember the 2002 article was the subject of two deletion debates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort.

Regards. Asoccer maniac (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue focus on refereeing[edit]

In any world cup there are going to be a number of decisions that fans disagree with. The media will also write about the decisions from their point of view. Despite some hyperbole I don't think these always rise to the level of being an actual controversy. A while ago I trimmed some of the minor incidents out (see this diff collection, but it was reverted. I discussed this with Crowsus at my talk page (User_ talk:Aircorn/Archive 9#List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies) at the time.

I am starting a discussion here to gauge other editors opinions on what should be included, in p[articular regarding individual game incidents. Personally I feel it is getting into WP:Indiscriminate territory and has become a WP:POV fork from the tournament article. As far as the games I think could deserve a mention here are the Australia vs. Croatia (definitely), Australia vs. Japan (maybe if trimmed back), France vs. Korea Republic (focus on goal line technology), Portugal vs. Netherlands (definitely - even has its own article) and Italy vs. France (although more focused on the headbutt). The others seem like the usual incidents seen in most games and are not particularly controversial from a neutral point of view. There are a few other "world cup controversies" articles that this discussion could potentially influence notably List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies, but this is the worst in terms of number of incidents recorded and with a focus on referee. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no response here I trimmed these incidents again. I will wait a while before continuing. AIRcorn (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn - Didn't see this when posted a few months ago, but I pretty much agree with your take. Some mentioning of refereeing I think is ok, but I think you're right that not all rises to the level of "controversy". Let me know if you'd like some help with the clean up. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It could probably do with a bit of an overhaul in general. List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies is far from perfect, but we had a tighter control of it during the world cup, so I would use that as an example of how to lay this out. I get the feeling this was probably just a dumping ground for undue material added at the main world cup page. AIRcorn (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies&oldid=1203616815"