Talk:Hugh Dallas

Dallas

As requested, I feel the article as it stands is well sourced and should remain. Obviously I would welcome additional improvements, but would ask that these are equally well-sourced and coherent.

Supporters of Rangers or other Dallas enthusiasts are of course welcome to contribute after they have read and understood WP:COI and WP:NPOV. But it is not acceptable to simply revert sourced material which does not cast Dallas in a favourable light.

We have the space to outline all the "significant flashpoints" from May 1999, so why not do so? The abridged version is POV because it leaves out a significant, sourced and widely-held view that Dallas' poor performance was a contributory factor. 194.80.49.252 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where do we begin.

Dallas had his first match ‘in a’ world cup not ‘at the’.

laughter and ridicule

your source does not say that, YOU have said that, a NPOV would be that he received criticism.

the source says they "rubbished" the Pardo red and "laughed off" Verheyen's... I toned down 'rubbished' to 'ridiculed' to ensure NPOV.

In what was to become a regular occurrence throughout Dallas' career, the Scottish tabloid media then lept to his defence.

Your source does not say that YOU have said that.

I suppose it is possible that this was not a choreographed media campaign but you need a source. I've amended the article.

ex-Rangers players,

I think you will find that the player in question has played for four different teams and commented on it after watching it for French tv

He was also Waddle's understudy for England for a few years. But in this (Scottish) context rangers are his most significant club.

The most significant moment in the match was Dallas being hit by the coin. Virtually every link contains that, both in the opening sentences about the match, but also in image.

Let's see some sources to that effect then? Even if it was, why marginalise the other significant flashpoints?

Despite being the champions Celtic had not won a league match all season which Hugh Dallas had refereed

POV that this is not coincidental

I never said it was not coincidental. Rather, in the spirit of wikipedia, I made a sober and objective statement of fact. Again I've amended the article but if you expect it to stay like that I would find a source.

In addition, Dallas had applied for the Celtic general manager job two years earlier, but been rejected in favour of Jock Brown.

This is your opinion and POV that this had something to do with the match

See above

crowd pelt Dallas with missiles including coins, fruit, bottles and cigarette lighters

the ref simply states missiles.

Have you even read the ref? See [1]

Never one to shun the limelight, Dallas considered himself the refereeing "equivalent" of Alessandro Del Piero and Zinedine Zidane. It was with great sadness and reluctance that he departed what he called his "stage" when finally made to retire from top level refereeing.

That whole section is questionable as the refs cannot be checked for proof.

As for anything I have missed your wording is hardly appropriate tone and is not written in a NPOV.

sourced and widely-held view that Dallas' poor performance was a contributory factor

According to who? You? Monkeymanman (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the (ref'd) reports in (IIRC) The Times (London), The Independent, The Mirror and the Herald. Read them.

Further;

Rename of title due to majority being just about euro 2000

I reverted to ensure consistency with his other controversies

offered Dallas police protection

Your source does not say that

Ok, I found one here: [2]

heavily criticised

I would think criticism ‘just’ from the losing team would not justify this wording

I would think it depends how heavy the criticism was. In this case, I would argue, it is heavy.

shock and disappointment

your ref simply states ‘disappointment’

Actually "bitter disappointment" and "dashed hopes". After he had allegedly been "the hot favourite".

printed unchallenged

it was what Dallas actually said

I know, unbelievable isn't it?!

I have added more information from your refs to try to gain some form of neutral balance. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to accomodate some of your points. The problem is you have come to the table with plenty of strong opinions but no sources whatsoever - obviously the onus is now on you to try to get some, or your stuff might get reverted by less indulgent editors than me. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you write your response below the previous so that it is easier to tell who has said what here, thank you.

You have just included numerous new refs that you did not have before, which is good, but you need to try to write things in more of a neutral manner. I would be in favour of reverting the page right back so that an example can be discussed here before including it? Monkeymanman (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact I included two new refs which say the same as those already there! I am still trying to assume good faith, but it is difficult when you insist upon wholesale reverts instead of proper contributions involving re-wording or finding sources to back up your position. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to AGF but when you continually include POV words in the article, arguable statements and accusations. Roughly 14 sources cannot be checked and with your record of POV inclusions i am not happy with taking your word for each of them. I say the article should be reverted back to the original before you attempted to expand it and a new version discussed here. Monkeymanman (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But all the things you think are arguable are referenced with RSs. If you think the sources are wrong you should seek to balance them with your own sources. The supposedly arguable statements or accusations could be re-worded without deleting the recent improvements en masse. It's disappointing that I responded to each of your concerns above and incorporated changes - only for you to persist with your disruptive pattern of edit warring, wholesale reversions and ownership issues.

Any idea you may have that the May 1999 section will remain a completely biased stub, you should let go of. The sources are certainly there to afford a detailed description of all the facts. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RS’s that conveniently for you cannot be cross checked to make sure you have not added POV wording or taken them out of context, which you have been known to do on various articles recently.

and incorporated changes

All you have attempted is to revert the article, including various grammatical and formatting errors that had been fixed.

What is this a review of the match or a BLP for the former ref Hugh Dallas?

I have reverted back to that last revision that i painstakingly went through removing your POV biased inclusions. If you really want to improve the article make proposals here so that it can form consensus. If you are not happy with the current revision i am in favour of reverting back to the original (with some minor changes to the intro and removal of a couple of sentences) before building consensus for a new version. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is quite a serious allegation. Please detail the cases where I took sources out of context. You made several specific accusations of this above which I demonstrated to be false and you have subsequently ignored.

You did not painstaking go through it, you hit revert. In fact you have follow followed me all over wikipedia recently making bad faith, Rangers-friendly reversions to my edits. Suppressing and making disingenuous quibbles over sources that I've taken the trouble to find, while not bothering to find any of your own. It is standard practice for controversy sections to be in such articles. And since this particular controversy is how Hugh made himself notable it should be suitably detailed. Wikipedia does not censor. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Initially I tried my best to go through your inclusion amending sections that were incorrect for a Wikipedia article (as have other users), you uncooperatively reverted. I have noticed you have been making changes over Wikipedia as I watch many articles within the football community including this one. I am not the one trying to include new material into the article you are, so the onus is one you to find sources and convince others that they should be included (which you have not done).

Your statements of Rangers-friendly , follow followed me and this particular controversy is how Hugh made himself notable does not lend itself to good faith. Or any belief that you have taken these 'sources' neutraly.

In what was to become a regular occurrence throughout Dallas' career, the Scottish tabloid media then lept to his defence

That’s one for a start where you claimed to have a source for it.

I will ask again will we start afresh on this discussion page to try to get some form of consensus over the article content and try to get outside opinions? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You unilaterally reverted the article to a largely unsourced nonsense version (esp. 'Post Retirement'). The example you provide was one of several sentences amended by me at your request - but again you hit revert without making any attempt at dialogue, compromise or co-operation. I have looked at at your history of POV edit warring etc. across the Rangers article and elsewhere. Perhaps you might consider a voluntary period away from the articles (perhaps to consult WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:BITE, WP:CIV, WP:OWN etc.) before the decision is taken out of your hands - which no-one wants to see. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

largely unsourced nonsense version,have you actually read your inclusion and thought, is this appropriate for someone’s BLP on Wikipedia, perhaps it should be yourself who reads those Wikipedia guidelines. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Vidmar handball

The move which brought about the first goal started with Tony Vidmar handballing in his own half - but i've been unable to find confirmation in a WP:RS. Can anyone else find a source? Thanks 194.80.49.252 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I may know less than nothing about Dallas, or football for that matter, but I know a little bit about encyclopaedias and I know that this is not an acceptable article. It is a hatchet job. It is full of weasel words used to fudge points in Dallas' favour and to boost minor points against him. I suspect that the references have been cherry-picked to find only the rotten cherries. Its overall tone is snide and the criticism is disproportionate to the main body of the article. I have tagged for a complete rewrite. For all I know, Dallas may be a poor referee but Wikipedia is not the place to put the boot in. I doubt very much that Dallas could care less what is written about him here. Those who wish to disparage Dallas should realise that the only thing they are hurting here is Wikipedia itself --DanielRigal (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. However, it would be helpful if you could be more specific than "suspecting" users of various serious offences. Before the recent improvements the article was full of cloying, unreferenced garbage such as "Dallas was considered one of the best referees of his time." Those attempting to revert the page (and circumvent discussion) are trying to re-insert "Dallas is now assisting his long time friend Pierluigi Collina as boss of all European referees with European federation UEFA at the direct behest of president Michel Platini."

So, as ever, the line to walk is a fine one. Some people might think that in rectifying the initial imbalance we have now gone too far in the other direction. But let me reassure you that I am as committed as anyone to objectivity, even-handedness and working towards a solution wikipedia can be proud of. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While running the line at the 1993 Toulon Tournament Dallas stopped a match between Czechoslovakia and Portugal after spotting a serious injury to Martin Svedik. Dallas was credited with saving the player's life and widely praised for his intervention.

This is exactly the kind of inclusion which is argued, you inserted this statement into the article (for dubious reasons) and from what I can see (and I have read through the whole ref here) it is not even mentioned. This is why I cannot take your word for refs which are not cross checkable. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, if you edit the page you will see the statement is cited but that I mistakenly left the at the front which obviously diverted the citation to the wrong ref. Using a simple error like this to try and discredit fellow editors is poor form, Monkeymanman. As is squealing to ANI before even attempting 3rd party dialogue. You will see above that I was good enough to answer many more allegations from yourself - please show the same courtesy, revisit them and withdraw them as appropriate. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup 1998 commentators

I disagree with the attempted revision here. The terms "laughter and ridicule" more accurately reflect the source and indeed the reality. The words were not weasel words but chosen advisedly in preference to 'criticism' which would be appropriate had the commentators merely said "I think Dallas was wrong because xyz." Unpalatable as it may be to some, this is not what happened. The term "commentators were divided" is not only woolly and imprecise but factually in error. That is unless other commentators are sourced as backing Dallas' decisions?

I used "quipped" in the case of Waddle purely to avoid repetition with Joke(r). 90.197.224.58 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Quip is distinctly different from joke/comment. Without decent sourcing we can really only say comment. The terms "laughter and ridicule" more accurately reflect the source and indeed the reality is it possible for you to directly quote the source so I can see that? I assume you have access to it? Irrespective of that the phrasing fails pretty much all WP policy on how to word things. Laughter and ridicule introduces a bias/opinion in interpreting his refereeing decisions - if readers want opinion on the decision they can read the sources. We are only charged with reporting that there is controversy.

Of notes is the fact that the other source suggests that some commentators agreed with the decisions - why is the BBC commentary considered prominent/notable? Football commentators quip, joke, moan and disagree with the ref in just about every game - why is this a particularly notable occurrence? I am strongly tempted to remove it entirely - but will leave it open to discussion for the moment --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see I did remove the text about the joker "quip" (just had food :D my attention wavered). I'd really like to have you post the text of your source before I feel happy about supporting it's inclusion. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The (linked) source says: "That explanation was clearly unacceptable to TV pundit Alan Hansen and Leicester City manager Martin O'Neill. They rubbished the ref's dismissal of Mexican Pavel Pardo for a tackle from behind and laughed off the red card shown to Gert Verheyen when he conceded a penalty to Mexico." The BBC commentary is only given its place alongside those who spoke up in favour of Dallas. Saying anything about anything introduces a bias/opinion which is why we attribute directly to sources. The BBC, while not perfect, is a RS and I would suggest more neutral and objective (and expert) than Dallas' bosses, colleagues, favoured players etc. whose opinions I also introduced via sources, giving them as much space if not more. This despite their more tenuous claim to neutrality.

Per WP:COPYVIO I'm limited to excerpts, but the relevant portion of the Waddle source is: "TV pundits had lambasted the Scot's performance, with the BBC's Chris Waddle suggesting sarcastically at one stage that Dallas would "bring out a joker" as his next card." I also found "...Chris Waddle who, as the Scots referee, Hugh Dallas, reached for another card during the Belgium-Mexico game, remarked: "The way he's refereed, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the joker." which I will add to the article at such time as the text is restored. I would be happy with 'remark' or 'comment' as an alternative to 'quip', but strongly disagree with removing the text. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, interesting. The first source I read, don't worry :), and there is nothing in there to justify the words "laughter and ridicule". It would have to be a really solid reasoning behind those words to use them. r.e. WP:COPYVIO - please don't cite "get outs" like that ;) you can email the full reference to me (in fact, that would work well) via the WP options. The main issue really is that it doesn't seem particularly notable for inclusion. You see the thing that is making me suspicious is the way you added the same material to only tentatively related article - even in the Chris Waddle article is has absolutely no place (it is simply trivia. he has made all sorts of comments when commentating we cannot document them all)

Saying anything about anything introduces a bias/opinion which is why we attribute directly to sources, no. We avoid saying any form of opinion - we stick to facts and documenting overriding consensus.

and I would suggest more neutral and objective (and expert) than Dallas' bosses, colleagues, favoured players etc. whose opinions I also introduced via sources, giving them as much space if not more. This despite their more tenuous claim to neutrality. My main concern is that your first source introduces the fact that another pundit entirely agreed with Dallas' decisions (when reporting for French radio). So it is confusing why the BBC is considered notable (from that reference) over another. The next paragraph really needs to be reworded for reasons I have not yet addressed.

I believe the text I have added cover the fact it is a controversy sufficiently - anything else gives pretty undue weight to a single match and, particularly, the opinion of one stations commentators. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why including a commentators opinion on the matter makes the article any better. The recently included text in controversial circumstances with commentators divided over his decisions covers all commentators opinions without editorializing and judging who was correct in their assumptions.

With that text included it is unnecessary to include the next sentence In the following days numerous articles appeared, citing protagonists,[6] SFA employees,[7] other Scottish referees[6] and ex-Rangers players[4] to the effect that Dallas had in fact been correct in all his decisions. And your opinion driven sentence However, it could be the case that this was not a concerted PR effort on the part of the Scottish tabloid media has no place in the article whatsoever. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem main problem with that is imprecision/lack of clarity. Better to just stick to the facts: outline what was said and who said it. Obviously we need to make clear that those backing Dallas were mostly related to him in some way while the BBC's experts, who were neutral, were by their own standards fairly scathing.

I don't think doing this is editorialising or passing comment on who is correct. After all, objectivity and neutrality is not a passive process. It is only proper to critically appraise each attribution on its merits. This was one of the largest matches Dallas had in his career and if this article is to achieve its full potential then "controversy left commentators divided" is totally inadequate. We could use mealy-mouthed cop-outs like this about every controversy ever, but Wikipedia would be much the poorer for it. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem main problem with that is imprecision/lack of clarity - no, the sentence as it stands is clear; there was controversy. If we want to clarify that we dont need to discuss pundits opinions. We need to discuss the actual events that happened (i.e. the fouls). But that is far too much coverage of the issue in my mind.

Obviously we need to make clear that those backing Dallas were mostly related to him in some way this does not appear to be backed by the sources. Also; we may do so but not quite in the way you appear to have done. What we should do is describe who the people agreeing with him are - it is not our place to insinuate that because they were close to him attempted to justify his choices (which is what the article currently does).

The sentence: However, it could be the case that this was not a concerted PR effort on the part of the Scottish tabloid media is a key example of this. It is pure opinion/analysis and entirely inappropriate. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we need to make clear that those backing Dallas were mostly related to him in some way. That statement shows you are trying to discredit these commentators opinions in a biased POV. And it IS passing comment on who is correct. BLP’s must be written conservatively. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Again you are quoting selectively and making bad faith accusations of bias where none exists. Go back and respond to the cases where you have done this previously and I have demonstrated that you are wrong. To repeat, I only want to bring all the facts to the article, then cite and attribute them accordingly. Equally we should guard against a bogus equivalence to creep in through sloppy use of vague weasel words. Eg. "Controversy left (anonymous) commentators divided". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.224.58 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography about Hugh Dallas not about match reviews or the opinions of numerous match commentators and media. You know all about making bad faith accusations about bias, dont you. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Monkeymanman You've made numerous specific allegations, I answered them and you made no reply. Either go back and address them or kindly desist from making more. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy left (anonymous) commentators divided" my sentence is entirely accurate based on the source - I am willing to add, perhaps, ",such as French TV and BBC," to the sentence. But it is not really appropriate because that give weight to those two stations - and many people reported it. The idea is to point out that a controversy exists over the sending off's, if the reader wants more detail then the sources are readily available. Being pedantic what I have used is not weasel words (see WP:WEASEL). Weaseling is about expressing a view but obscuring the source of that view from the reader :) (this is what makes e suspicious of your claim to have read WP policies)

I am going to ask this sensibly and outright; do you have a WP:COI with this subject matter? It seems best to clear this up before things go the way of "your biased". For me; I am English, live in Lincolnshire, am a Football supporter but this is all before my time --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure misleading generalisations would come under weasel words. Obviously you are failing to clearly attribute the source of the views, denying the reader the opportunity to assess their validity for themselves. Drawing an equivalence between the BBC and 'French TV' is not supported by the sources, unless you have a source showing Trevor Steven made his comments on air. As he says, Steven knew Dallas beforehand and had preconcieved ideas about him being "a good referee". He was also prominent among those lavishing praise on Dallas after the Celtic-Rangers debacle in May 1999. Presenting that, and the opinion of Dallas' colleagues, boss etc as commensurate with those of the BBC experts is seriously misleading in my view.

No WP:COI, I also live in Lincolnshire and am a football supporter although I remember most of the events here and have also conducted considerable research into them. Perhaps if you are to accomplish your stated goal of re-writing the article you might familiarise yourself with the subject too? While all contributions are welcome, I admit to surprise at the way you have presumed to lecture others on BLP issues, WP policy and copyediting. Are you able to point to any particular expertise in these areas? From what I've seen of your contributions the overall quality of your writing is, with respect, fairly poor. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely disrespectful what you have just said. This user (Tom) has gone out of his way to try to help you write articles which meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines, he has also went out of his way to try and rewrite many of your inclusions to meet policy. Tom has brought an outside opinion to this debate and has tried to get outside opinions from others which I applaud him for doing. He has also kept very cool when you fire remarks around like you just did.

I disagree with the remark that his writing is ‘poor’. It meets guidelines for WP TEN FOLD over your own and I am sure many other ‘neutral’ experienced editors would feel the same. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this was late and I can't be sure if drink was involved or whatever I am willing to overlook your childish antics, SHOUTING and incivility. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

• No WP:COI, I also live in Lincolnshire and am a football supporter - thanks for that, I was just trying to clear up any future accusations of COI etc.
• I'm sure misleading generalisations would come under weasel words, no, actually :) I appreciate what you are saying but I am at a loss to understand how saying it was a controversial decision and that pundits disagreed is misleading? According to the sources it is accurate.
• Obviously you are failing to clearly attribute the source of the views - this is what the sources are for.
• Drawing an equivalence between the BBC and 'French TV' is not supported by the sources, unless you have a source showing Trevor Steven made his comments on air. - you have given on-air comments greater precedence here.
• As he says, Steven knew Dallas beforehand and had preconcieved ideas about him being a good referee. - sorry I am not sure I see where in the sources this is explained?
• He was also prominent among those lavishing praise on Dallas after the Celtic-Rangers debacle in May 1999. this information is useful (i.e. the fact he was handing out praise at an earlier game) - unfortunately it must be either a) a conclusion made by a reputable source or b) left up to the reader to interpret. We can't really draw the conclusion.
• am a football supporter although I remember most of the events here and have also conducted considerable research into them this is all great stuff - my concern is about the way content is being presented in a non-encyclopedic way. This has always been my concern no matter the specifics! Bear in mind that you knowledge and research is useful - but unless it is sourced by third party reputable sources then it is OR/Hearsay - and this is particularly discouraged in BLP articles.

Another issue is that what you, I or Monkeymanman think about the events or how it went down is irrelevant. When editing we need to step back from our opinions and deal with matters objectively - I think I have tried to do that. But, just so you know, the reason I contacted DGG is because I was concerned I had failed to do this. I trust his judgement and value his opinion - he is uninvolved and we have never really talked before so I figured his objective assessment would be useful. Particularly as I trust him to, whatever I said on his talk page, take a look at the edits for himself and get a feel for it. I'm happy and would actively encourage you to find other uninvolved editors to come in and comment on these matters. Although I don't think I have misinterpreted the source material/policy here it could well be I have some tunnel vision.... fresh eyes are always appreciated.

Are you able to point to any particular expertise in these areas? well technically I am an author :) but you are right sometimes my writing needs improving - which is why WP rocks because we can massage that over time. I'm sorry if you felt I was lecturing; it's always hard to find a balance between advice/discussion/informing - I'll try to avoid it in future. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

'

1. You need to explain why you are giving equal weighting to the pro and anti-Dallas views here. Obviously NPOV policy suggests Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Were I to become 'notable,' I would hope that sources with some editorial integrity and reputation would be given due weight beside what my mates/boss/aunty/Trevor Steven said about me afterwards in the Daily Record! What is your rationale for giving equal precedence in this case? Will you answer this time?
2. "I remember him from my time at Ibrox and I thought then that he was a good referee," said Steven. We should present the relevant information and allow the reader to make up their mind, obviously. I am not sure why you suggest otherwise?
3. I'd remind you again that all my contributions are sourced and faithful to those sources. On occasion you have accused me of particular examples of misusing sources, I have answered you and then you have failed to reply - moving on to more accusations. You accused me, amongst other things, of inserting the word 'horrendous' (which was inserted by someone else) and of a nefarious subtext in calling an overseas player an 'import.'
4. While quoting chapter and verse on policy it became clear that my grasp of policy exceeds yours: at which point you ran to an admin complaining, inevitably, about "wikilawyering"! The appeal read to me as "you've helped me out before with this type of thing". Your admin then produced a hasty, half-baked verdict on the ANI and placed a warning on on obselete IP address. Going forward I would like to see more honesty in our collaboration. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is your rationale for giving equal precedence in this case? Will you answer this time? - I've dealt with this. IF you can find a source that equivocates that one is a more relevant comment than the other then we can let it in. Otherwise it is not for us to bring in any particular comment by third parties over and above any in particular - there is no need to list what everyone thought of the controversy, that is what the sources are for. More to the point is it still not established that what was said is particularly notable in terms of commentary on a football match (and the source makes no comment on that)
• we should present the relevant information and allow the reader to make up their mind, obviously - nah, afraid not. It's far better just to highlight the controversy and leave the commentary in the sources. Also it is not acceptable to put that in this section because, as you can imagine, the point would be for people to realise a bias. Which seems to be your view (I have little opinion on the matter; I don't know a lot about Steve). We must avoid making insinuations about comments - usually by leaving them out unless particularly notable. We are not here to present relevant information and allow a reader to make up their mind. We are here to present factual information. Opinion must be reliably sourced - stringently so for BLP. This does not mean a news article about the commentary is sufficient sourcing for it's inclusion. We are not here to report the opinions of others - except where particularly notable.
• I'd remind you again that all my contributions are sourced and faithful to those sources. - I'm not sure this is true. see other discussions on this talk page.
• and of a nefarious subtext in calling an overseas player an 'import.' - I'm a football fan, in my footballing vocab that is an underhand term :) there was no real need for it. My point was to highlight the danger of words like that
• You accused me, amongst other things, of inserting the word 'horrendous' - yes, sorry about that. I did make a Good Faith attempt at picking out issues to try and highlight my point and that slipped by. It was the main reason I then asked for someone else to come in and comment - because I feared I was failing at areas.
• at which point you ran to an admin complaining, inevitably, about... - DGG has never helped me before with this kind of thing. He de-prodded an article that I had prodded and then contributed to sourcing the article with me - I watch his talk page (due to having replied on it once) and find his responses helpful and constructive. I picked him because I don't have any particular wiki-dealings with him other than that & he seems a decent sort. As I said - please do bring other editors into this discussion. That way we can build a wider consensus on this.
• While quoting chapter and verse on policy it became clear that my grasp of policy exceeds yours: - what is concerning me is that you cite WP:RS a lot. Unfortunately that is not always sufficient in BLP articles per BLP policy. You always seem to dismiss that policy when it is brought up - and it really cannot be ignored. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1. It's far better just to highlight the controversy and leave the commentary in the sources. I disagree with your interpretation here. The current wording does not present the competing views accurately - or at all. This would not be considered adequate at Gaza War so why here?
2. What are your grounds for presuming the non-notability of Waddle's comment? Did it not recieve significant coverage in reliable third-party sources?
3. It might be unwitting, but you seem to be of the opinion that your edits are are a result of some neutral, divinely unperturbed springing forth of objectivity. You make vague claims to WP policy in this regard. But in reality I would suggest that you are exercising editorial judgement the same as everyone else, in terms of what you take out and what you leave in. Why for example do you give precedence to the coin incident above the other flashpoints of May 1999?
4. I thank you for your apology on 'horrendous' but confess to finding your aversion to 'import' slightly bewildering. I'm disappointed you again accuse me of misusing sources when every specific accusation thus far has been shown to be false. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On the advice of Brian McGinlay, his mentor, Dallas operated a double standard by refereeing domestic matches differently from those abroad. Dallas also posits a correllation between non-Scottish players and diving, which he attributes to the superiority of Scottish referees'

I have removed this sentence and will explain why.

The ref does not state McGinlay is his mentor. It does not state he operated a double standard. In effect what it says that with regards to getting a point across to a player who might not understand (the language or terminology) what you mean (in this case about diving) you have to act differently at home and abroad (i.e. you need to use body language abroad). He does not state that referees up in Scotland are superior. The ref says because of referee standards foreign players tend to learn that in this country as opposed to abroad, we don’t have a problem with simulation or spitting or shirt pulling, especially compared to football elsewhere and I think referees in Scotland need to be given credit for that. I think the guys have got it pretty well mastered up here. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He also attempted to ward off criticism from Roberto Carlos by likening himself to Alex Ferguson and Kenny Dalglish.[60]

I have removed this sentence and will explain why.

In the ref he does not state ‘I am like Alex Ferguson and Kenny Dalglish’ which is in effect what the sentence above makes out.

Meanwhile the actual quote from the ref is, I accepted his explanation, but I made sure that I got my point across by saying that, if small countries could not produce good referees, that must mean that Alex Ferguson was not a good manager and Kenny Dalglish was not a good player.

Reworded what he says is that if a small country can produce good footballers then why can it not produce good referees.

Due to this ref being 'taken out of context' i refuse to accept that the next sentence has not been Never one to shun the limelight, Dallas considered himself the refereeing "equivalent"[59] of Alessandro Del Piero and Zinedine Zidane. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this as well. It was with great sadness and reluctance that he departed what he called his "stage" when finally made to retire from top level refereeing.

Same ref as the first i have mentioned today, in effect what this sentence says is that Dallas said 'this is my stage', which he did not. Another example of taking a ref out of context. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with your rationale (that first sentence had been bothering me also ;)). The most important thing in all of those cases is that they appear to be interpreting the source; more to the point most of those sources are written by Dallas - which fails primary source rules. It seems fine to use a number of those sources to give the article context BUT I don't think we can actually take any information from them (i.e. his opinion) other than actual facts. Good work :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

During 2009–2010 Dallas expressed "disappointment"[55] at refereeing standards in the SPL, after another series of high-profile errors apparently favoured Rangers at Celtic's expense.[56] The ref here actually links to a list of new year honours and nothing about football (might be a mistake but who knows) the other is about how Neil Lennon thought decisions were against celtics favour (nothing about Dallas), Goal.com is probably borderline RS anyway. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how people feel about the previous line but it needs reworded. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The honours list source is reasonable as it actually mentions Dallas was on the honours list - I seem to recall that was in the article but I can't see it for now. Regardless you're right it had nothing relevant to that sentence :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the last of these sinceThe goal.com source says "In October, the Hoops had two penalty appeals turned down by referee Craig Thomson, who later admitted to making errors." This is not Lennon speaking but is reported as fact. I see you've been busy and I'll go through the others later - in general primary sources are acceptable in BLPs as long as the material is published in a reputable source. I'll grant you that Hugh's Scotsman ramblings could be construed as "unduly self serving"!

In general, Monkeymanman, I am pleased that you are now availing yourself of the talk page and contributing in a more mature manner. I thank Tmorton166 for his assistance is this regard. In this spirit I think you might declare your WP:COI towards the Rangers material here? Given that HD is the boss of Scottish referees there is zero chance of you keeping his reaction to last season's major decisions off this article. I had earmarked that setion for expansion, not removal! 90.197.224.58 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you have only contributed to Rangers F.C player / former player BLP’s on WP in a negative manner I think you should refrain from trying to point out COI to people. Why are the actions of Craig Thomson in any way related with a BLP of Hugh Dallas? I think you are confused with what this article is actually meant to be about. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how do you intend to present Dallas' first season as Head of Refereeing Development? Are we to exclude/wish away the controversy and criticism (including Dallas' own) altogether? Please stop your 'whataboutery.' I have been open enough to make a good faith disclosure of my background/interests: will you admit that you are a staunch Rangers' man? 90.197.224.58 (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with that sentence? Well the first part of the sentence would work - except the source is on an entirely different topic (I am trying to find the right one). As to the second part of the sentence; after another series of high-profile errors apparently favoured Rangers at Celtic's expense. The main problem with this is the source; the errors are factual, the pro-Rangers bias is opinion. Even then it could be included as opinion... just not in this context. The article appears to have no link to Dallas' comments; as a result the sentence is synthesis of sources. The bias is not a factual thing (as the sentence implies) and there is no sourcing as to that being the reason for Dallas' disappointment. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. This is the cite we wanted :) [3] He actually explicitly indicates that he believe the errors were a result of human error - not bias. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work, now what about the previous line, the wording of 'public spat' does not seem to fit, perhaps 'public disagreement' 'over refereeing standards'. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC?

Thinking about this - I wonder if it is a good idea to do a WP:RFC. I am confident that the material, as proposed, is not correctly represented in the article. My concern, though, is that there are only really three of us here and comments from other users would help build consensus over what can be included. If you're both happy to try it it could be a good resolution process --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be an idea Tom, maybe raising it at the related projects also, but if we can get a decent reply from RFC then why not. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)