Talk:Martin Johnson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Martin Johnson is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit Martin Johnson, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and view a list of open tasks |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Obvious bias in this article
There is an obvious lack of objectiveness about this article in the following quote...
"....The only downpoint to this season was Johnson's perceived snub of the President of Ireland at the pre-kick off presentation. This was caused by the Irish trying to disrupt England's pre-game preparation by messing them around. Johnson was instructed to the wrong part of the red carpet, and then told to move. Johnson refused to rise to the occasion and so the Irish team lined up on the grass, and the Irish president had to walk on the grass to meet them."
All italisized words are my emphasis for illustrative purposes.
Firstly, the snub was not merely "perceived" - here the author is clearly trying to downplay an incident which has caused a major controversy in an attempt to turn the reader's opinion against the Irish.
"messing them around" - is a remarkably poor use of English; a colloquialism that is appropriate on the pages of Wiki. When the author mentions "caused by the Irish", who are they referring to? The Irish spectators? The Irish team? London Irish rugby club? The Irish Times? Again, poor use of English (language). According to BBC's web report on the match, Johnson "refused to move his players from the left-hand side of the pitch where the Irish side customarily line up." (Full Article) The BBC accept that they know where Ireland line up by their choice of words. It is also worth noting that Martin Johnson has played at Lansdowne Road before, so it would be reasonable to suggest he knew where he was supposed to stand.
"instructed" - is the author telling us that Johnson was actually told where to stand? What evidence does the author have? I ask because in the same BBC online article as quoted above, Johnson himself affirmed that "nobody had explained anything about the positioning to him before the game". So we have it from Johnson that he was not instructed to stand where he did. Author, please explain your actions.
"rise to the occasion" - this is yet another attempt to get sympathy for the English team by continuing to imply that the whole event was orchestrated. To rubber stamp the point that this was NOT contrived, the (English) Rugby Football Union later sent a letter of apology to President McAleese for the team's behaviour regarding the incident.
I would like to ask the author if the situation was the other way around, and an Irish team captain had made Queen Elizabeth II stand off the red carpet and onto the grass in Tickenham, would the English public be expected to not comment on the affair?
Regardless of the what led to the situation (which was not, as we have seen, part of a plot to upset the British) forcing a guest of honour to step off a red carpet and onto turf displays a complete lack of respect - something that is very unbecoming of a professional sportsman and national representative.
Unless I am convinced otherwise by discussion here, I will edit the paragraph in question shortly to more accurately reflect the incident.
Broddo 19:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Broddo if you go back to the edit on 2 March 2006 you will see the wording of the original entry which appears to be more accurate and impartial.
Have just checked that out. Well, perhaps when I revise this, I'll use most of the wording from the March 2nd version, although there is still some inaccuracy within that. Basically, I want the facts there, without opinion - i.e. lets present what happened without commenting on who was right or wrong. (if that's possible) - now, does anyhone want to help open this cans of worms I've just picked up?? Broddo 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well it is a touchy one isnt it. However it was a pretty significant event at the time as I would say it deserves to be mentioned here without any bias. To leave it out would be like mentioning Tana Umaga and ommiting 'that' tackle or ignoring Scott Quinell's addiction to pies. Adam777 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked up the edit that changed the paragraph in question into the Irish bashing and followed the links to the user in question and read over other edits he takes it upon himself to administer. I have reverted the article to its prior version as the edit in question was, quite frankly, nonsense.
Adam777 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am still not keen on the current wording of the incident. "downpoint" seems a little negative, surely it would be better mentioned as a "controversy". "customary position", i'd argue that it was actually the IRFU departing from the customary position that caused the problems. If no one minds, i'll post a revised edition later. Mjs59 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that MJ had played at Landsdowne Road before and the team positions were supposed to be identical to each of the prior occasions then I think 'customary' is the correct use of language. This wasnt his first rodeo, however the paragraph is neutral enough. Adam777 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello Duncharris
Hello there, how are you? Right then, one would assume that as a wikipedia editor that you would be committed to adding neutral, balanced material to Wikipedia...or we could all behave like you pal.
So if you want to revert to your racist postings PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE continue to do so. As for the issue in question please provide me with one single article nay-saying the information I added. Johnsons PERCERVIED sunb of the Irish President was big news in 2003 and your racist labeling of 'Irish Whinging' doesnt do wikipedia any good.
I look forward to discussing this issue with you like adults (that means grown ups). Wikiepedia asks that we discuss our difference of opinion. I have reported the 2003 controversy in what I consider to be neutral language, if you wish to validate your claim of 'Irish Whinging' then I look forward to your reply. Adam777 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed POV from header
I've removed the POV statements in the header which laud Johnson as the greatest Rugby player/captain/forward of all time. If someone has a noteworthy source which lists him as one of the greats, we can add a statement along the lines of: "Source listed Johnson as the greatest lock forward of all time". Until this happens, the article should not have such a blatent bias in the header, even with tags. →Bobby← 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
