Talk:1995 Rugby World Cup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union. This project provides a central approach to rugby union-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing 1995 Rugby World Cup, and help us assess and improve articles to good and featured standards, or visit the project page, where you can join and view the list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
 To-do list for 1995 Rugby World Cup: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
The food poisoning just before the final was disgusting. If the Springboks really wanted to stop the All Blacks from getting their hands on a second title, they could have just used Ebola - there was a reservoir of the stuff in nearby Zaire (as it was called at the time.) Scott Gall 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Given recent events, I guess there was no need, LOL 122.57.179.18 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is the completely unsubstantiated food poisoning claim relevant? The relevant section reads like a tabloid article. Surely if anyone (other than conspiracists) really believed the All Blacks had been poisoned an investigation would have taken place. This shouldn't be included in an encyclopaedic work.
- Sounds like a case of sore loser to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.101.172 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is the completely unsubstantiated food poisoning claim relevant? The relevant section reads like a tabloid article. Surely if anyone (other than conspiracists) really believed the All Blacks had been poisoned an investigation would have taken place. This shouldn't be included in an encyclopaedic work.
I have removed some of the pro springbok bias in the Final section. As the food poisoning issue was not proved one way or the other, a simple mention of it without exclamation empowered perspectives is adequate :) Also a comment there about how the springboks should have won more decisively doesnt seem appropriate either, so I removed that to. --Havoc8844 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of opinion on this page rather than hard fact. A French person has clearly written the biased comments about Derek Bevan's refereeing of the semi-final. I think this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbailward (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but we could quote this article of the Guardian http://sport.guardian.co.uk/rugbyworldcup2003/story/0,13904,1048813,00.html about Derek Bevan and his "neutrality" and more generally the behaviour of the south-africans hosts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobolafcadio (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? What on EARTH are you on about? If you bothered to read the article you'd not bother libelling Derek Bevan. I'm removing half the section on the final because it is completely unreferenced. The Angel of Islington 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The location of Stellenbosch on the map is hopelessly inacurate - Stellenbosch is about 50km from Cape Town. Graaf1 20:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
