The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the Referees WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Referees. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.RefereesWikipedia:WikiProject RefereesTemplate:WikiProject RefereesReferees articles
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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Like with other public figures and referees such as John Gordon and Lu Jun, criticisms/controversies that are significant enough are worth mentioning, which I think the England v France game is - not to mention he has a lot of stick for his poor refereeing in Brazil. Truether1111 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @L1amw90 for your thoughts as you deleted the section which was sourced to (among others) The Times, The Guardian, and BBC sport. I would argue the extent of the coverage meets the notability criteria as it goes above the WP:ROUTINE you would expect. Vanteloop (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What I see here is just dissatisfaction on the part of the English because had their team eliminated. Just look at the sources to realize that only UK media that criticized the referee. If Wikipedia maintains information of the type, with a single bias, there will be no respect for the pillar of impartiality. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the level of coverage (multiple news stories in reliable sources specifically about the referee) indicates more than the usual complaining that would be covered in WP:ROUTINE. But as the content has been removed twice now I won't add it back. Nevertheless I have added some hopefully uncontroversial content not related to that game. Vanteloop (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vanteloop, I researched the referee's performance, and only saw the British media criticizing his performance. We need to observe if the referee's performance was evaluated as good or bad from a general point of view or if only in relation to one side. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.. then we can state it was primarily UK media who criticised his performance? not getting the argument put forward here. Besides that there are other sources which have covered at-least something to do with the referee, here is the New York Times. Tweedle (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Undue. Wait and see if it has any impact on his career. So far it seems like the usual knee-jerk reaction by fans to their team being eliminated and so blaming the referee. Aircorn(talk)15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Entirely undue. As a reminder, according to consensus on reliable sources, the English tabloids have been classed unsuitable for Wikipedia for years already. Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is fair on the poor man. It's very heated at the moment, give it a fortnight and if by that time reputable sources (i.e. not tabloid papers) are commenting on such matters with seriousness then you can revisit the issue. It's not fair to tar whole biographies with, 'controversies' sections without proper reason to. Give it time and see how the dust settles. EcheveriaJ (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have come around to agree with a wait for inclusion for now but for the record the majority of the sources used in the paragraph were not tabloid papers like the Mirror or the Daily Mail, a list of what was used which is reliable;
Sure, but a country blaiming the referee after losing a big game is, sadly, so very common that it in no way is notable. Especially not when England is concerned. We have had this discussion so many times on Wikipedia that I've lost count, after games involving either the English national team or English clubs playing clubs from other countries. If they win, they were great. If they don't, the referee was horrible and the opponents were cheats. Sorry to say, but these sources say a lot more about English media than about Wilton Sampaio. Jeppiz (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolute nonsense, the referee was widely criticised and was sent home in disgrace. The French publication L’Equipe scored his performance 4/10. 31.121.16.146 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think it warrants a section on its own, I don't see reason to censor any mention of controversies as happened in the most recent edit. The Lance article from 2020 https://www.lance.com.br/palmeiras/cbf-escala-irmao-arbitro-contra-inter-para-jogo-decisivo-semifinal-copa-brasil.html says "Embora tenha uma vasta coleção de erros e polêmicas..." which seems to translate as "Although he has a vast collection of errors and controversies..." The article does not expand on these errors and controversies but it is not surprising that a referee may have made errors or controversial decisions so seems odd not to mention it. Sudiani (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Support Even Wikipedia isn't this corrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.108.255 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2022
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)