Talk:1970 FA Cup Final

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force.
WikiProject Yorkshire (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 1970 FA Cup Final is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Incorrect flag is shown for John Dempsey who was a Republic of Ireland international.--Philseeker (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

European Final[edit]

Chelsea winning a European trophy in the subsequent 1971 season is the most tenuous connected to an article about an FA Cup final in 1970 and feels very unnecessary.-- (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


We need at least one image, donated or in the public domain, for this entry, since it concerns one of the most notable FA Cup finals.-The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

As various single edit IPs keep reverting out changes I have protected the article for now. Please discuss the wording of this rather than edit warring and just reverting out changes. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The "changes" that anonymous IP editors keep inserting are nothing but re-arranged wordings of text, with a splice of POV added (unsourced adjectives, etc). The only new input of substance were two articles from British tabloids, which were eventually allowed to be in it, though of dubious reliability. There was nothing justifying the constant changing of the text. (BTW, I was accused of owning the article: I've had little input in it, so far, and certainly nothing to do with the contested text.)
So, here we are: Could we have from the editor(s) some justification offered, at long last, for the "improved text"? Why exactly is re-arranging words around an improvement? Author!.. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If the changes are `nothing but re-arranged wordings of text` then why have you made a big issue of it?For a start the teams involved and the winner should be in the first paragraph. Two newspapers ranked it among the best F.A. Cup finals of all time so how is that not reliable? Its funny to see you complain about POV statements when there are unsourced POV statements like "uncompromising northerners" and "four hours of fiercely contested football" already in the intro. Whether you`ve written the contested text makes no difference because you`re sure acting like you own the page (No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.) You've given no good reason for undoing my edits. First you reverted without an edit summary. Then you said my version was not `appropriately sourced` (how??). Then you said the only way to improve an article is to add new info. (if you think that then maybe you should read the wiki policies you keep quoting). THen you said I must `explictly justify` my edits. Which wikipedia rule says i must do this?? Then you sent a link to an inactive page (Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion) which was irrelevant any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Complaints about ownership of articles are common when one's text is changed consistent with Wiki rules and guidelines. Nothing new, there.
You write "Two newspapers ranked it among the best F.A. Cup finals of all time so how is that not reliable?" You have a mistaken understanding of what's reliable, in wikipedia terms. Reliability depends on the quality of the sources, and not on what these sources are saying. As a conciliatory gesture, and in order to stop your edit-reverting, I allowed (but that's just me; someone else might treat this differently) the two sources you introduced to stay in, despite the fact they are both from tabloids, which are generally treated with caution in Wikipedia, as sources.
Wiki guidelines recommend that we add an explanation when we're making more than a minor change (typos, etc) to the text. That's one guideline you seem unfamiliar with. Of course, you could edit Wikipedia till the end of time without ever explaining anything. That's just one of the hazards of open editing and we all ahve to live with it. I simply invited you to be a Good Wikipedian.
You seem quite keen to edit Wikipedia articles by simply re-arranging words around. Perhaps this is a way of increasing one's edit number. But, since you're an anonymous IP contributor, I will assume good faith and not think bad things about such an approach. But don't you think you, at least, need to explain to us the usefulness of such "editing"? Wikipedia is not anarchy. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Complaints about ownership of articles are also common when someone behaves like they own an article.Once again you don`t seem to understand the wiki policies you keep quoting. They also state you should explain when you revert an edit which is not vandalism and NOT just use the default summary,which you did not do. Infact you have not given any proper justification for undoing my edits. Looks to me that you reverted first and then tried to think of a reason later.But for the time being I shall assume youre acting in good faith. Tabloids are not reliable for reports of sex scandals,but they are perfectly adequate in this context. And i stated my reasons for ``rearranging the text`,which you completely ignored and for some reason diverged into speculation on why i edit wikipedia. i also trust you'll agree to remove the above unsourced POV statements "uncompromising northerners" and "four hours of fiercely contested football". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
For the last time, what to you seems like "ownership", may be merely enforcing etiquette, rules and/or guidelines. Think about it. (Eternally hopeful me, says.) And I have no problem, personally, with removing non-neutral POV words, phrases, or paragraphs. So, do your worst! How's that for "ownership"?
"Sex scandals only"?! Nope, you are wrong about tabloids, but never mind. (Obviously, you didn't bother with any of the relevant links.)
You keep talking to yourself: I already explained why I edited your "changes". Because they are simple re-arrangement of words. The default space for providing justification for edits is small. I thought here would be your chance to expand on your "edits", yet you seem rather unwilling - and keen to turn this around. Well, I give up on this article - and your IP. You are free to re-arrange the text of this or any other Wikipedia article to your heart's content. Be some other editor's concern. Run up a hundred thousand edits in record time. Go for it.-The Gnome (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
What seems like ownership is the way youve reacted when i edited the page. Dont you think this is an overreaction to a rearrangement of words ??Which rule/etiquette says rearrangement of wording is not permitted and sufficient grounds to rearrange them back again?? In your version the opening para doesn`t even mention which teams were in the final or who won the match. Now it does and i think thats an improvement. A tabloid article is fine when the issue in question is how an F.A. Cup final is regarded. Use some common sense. I explained why I rearranged it but you seem more interested in speculating on why i edit wikipedia and trying to patronize me. And pointing me to obscure guiedlines but ignoring the most important. Now you`ve gone and spat your dummy out. Good bye and good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)