Talk:Graham Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Graham Poll is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Graham Poll is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 17 August 2006

Contents

[edit] NPOV tag

I am removing the NPOV tag until someone actually talks about it. The point of the tag is not to place and walk away. You must discuss it when you put it on, and participate in the improvement of the article. Ansell 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Patience, I am writing.. --Denoir 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[1] This is a good cite. Slac speak up! 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

When it does go up, I'm all for it. It reads terribly for a wikipedia article. "In Šimunić's case, Poll almost certainly made history, booking him three times (61', 90', 93'). Having forgotten to send him off after his second yellow card, he did finally show him a red card in the second-half added time period." is fine, but "Graham Poll had a lot to answer for after his poor performance in this match." definitely is not. (Waiting for Denoir to put the tag on) Iorek85 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/ Weasel Words

It's a bit difficult to pick where to begin here, but the article is..well rubbish from a quality and neutrality point of view. But I'll just illustrate a few violations of wikipedia guidelines.

In the first paragraph, we have a typical example of weasel words: "Commentators have suggested that his many spectacular mistakes in the World Cup 2006 game between Australia and Croatia will end his career as a top referee.". A textbook violation of the guidelines.

If we move on to unsuitable language and also POV, we have "This was a strange game, ending in an unexpected victory for Croatia.." or "Chun - Soo netted a superb equaliser for Korea from the resultant free kick" and so on.

And finally we have completely overt bias like this section: "Graham Poll had a lot to answer for after his poor performance in this match. Inside the first 10 minutes of the game, Poll turned a blind eye to a rugby style tackle by Croatia's Joe Simunic. Poll later caused more controversy over a blatant handball from a Croation defender, however, confused spectators by acknowledging the ball went out of bounds off a Croations hand, but rather than awarding Australia the penalty shot, he made the Aussies play the corner kick"" --Denoir 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a bit of cleanup, including those strange words. In future don't rush for the tags. Get in and do something and if you can't fix it up sufficiently say so on the talk page and then as a last resort put the tag on. Ansell 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You have the order mixed up. First tag, then talk as specified in the template description --Denoir 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just being pragmatic. Why not fix up the article though? You have pointed out a number of things that you could have fixed as you were reading through the article. Ansell 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe fatigued like me ;~| --Huge Bananas 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Two reasons. First of all, I'm not qualified to do it as I don't know much about the subject at hand nor do I have any references that I could use. Second, the article is a complete mess starting with bad spelling and grammar, continuing with an unsuitable language and finally the NPOV issues. It requires major work and unfortunately I can't afford the time right now. --Denoir 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Completely concur with Denoir parent comment .. the recent edits are poor indeed but too sleep-deprived right now for a major cleanup.
--Huge Bananas 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I have removed what is worrying in the main complaints. Would people object if I removed the tag again? Spelling mistakes are not reasons for the tag, and I will get to them when I see them in the next little while. Ansell 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You removed some, but the article is permeated with npov violations:
"Togo's Kader gave his side the lead in the first half with a brilliant piece of control and a finely placed strike"
"Chun - Soo netted a superb equaliser for Korea.."
"..missing another blatant handball.."
and so on. It requires much more work. Why the hurry with the tag? IMO better to be on the safe side. --Denoir 00:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles are not any better whether they are tagged or not, therefore, I don't see how it is "safe" to have the tag there. Will check out those. Ansell 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's primary (perceived or real) problem is reliability. The tag system is a good method of flagging articles that are unreliable for one reason or another. Tagging an article won't make it better, but it will let the people who read it know that there are issues and that they should be careful before taking it at face value. --Denoir 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up those problems. The emphasis of the article has to be on the referee, not the games, so I just cleared out some of the excess commentary for the Korea match.
That is a good point about the tags. I am a bit sleep deprived myself, having watched the game, so seeing people place the tag without any prior discussion was a bit annoying, but I am over it now. Ansell 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Adding the tag was pretty drastic, once the hype about his questionable refereeing of the Aus-Cro match settles down, thae article can be cleared up and it will be fine. Philc TECI 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think is still needed in terms of improvement? Not saying its perfect but it is good to have another viewpoint. Ansell 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well for a start, there is not much written under any of the headings, maybe they should be expanded, or merged together, and also to me alot of the article seems to be DYK stats and trivia. Philc TECI 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles about sports officials are bound to include trivia. How much trivia is appropriate for a football referee, particularly one with his notability? The red card stats help give an objective view on his overall use of the cards, particularly in the last 5 minutes of a match. Some of the others aren't really that useful in a profile of the person.
Do you mean the headings for individual notable games? Each of them seem to fit under a separate heading, although a possibility is putting headings for each world cup, but it may not work that easily. Ansell 09:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--82.35.198.121 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)SORRY! new to wikipedia, but i changed the last paragraph of the first section from "as the final buzzer sounded" to "at the final whistle" as buzzers arn't used in football! Thanks

My bad, thanks for fixing it. Ansell 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's much better now, but there is still a bias issue, at least in one section. The Croatia v Australia section lists the mistakes he did that were a disadvantage to the Aussies but completely ignores a number of ref mistakes that hurt the Croats. --Denoir 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it disadvantaged the Aussies more than the Croats? The Croats worst call agianst them was allowing the offside goal, which is mentioned. The Aussies should have had three spot shots, one more player on the pitch than Croatia in the final minutes and a big bunch of flowers from Mr. Poll apologising for his abysmal performance. Let's face it, this guys a loser no matter what we say about him and he will be most remembered by that :P JRA WestyQld2 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's a very Aussie point of view. The commentators on Swedish television for instance were of the exact opposite opinion - that the ref was unjust to the Croats. The first penalty for example was questionable as camera later showed that it probably wasn't a handball (although the other very obvious handling should have led to a penalty shot). I think it all depends on which media you look at. British and Aussie commentators seem to be very upset with Poll while (at least what I could see by a quick read-through) Swedish, German and French commentators were much more forgiving. Personally, I think that he did a bloody awful job, but that is beside the point. Judging a football refs performance is a very subjective thing and unless we take a completely systematic approach of checking his every move against the rule book a balanced approach is to prefer. --Denoir 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The approach for this page is hopefully to point out the possible mistakes, where there is some evidence of a possible mistake. The evidence for the offside goal is pretty clear, which is why it is there, as is the evidence for missing the croatian handball in front of their goal, and still giving the corner to australia, is available even if it is confusing. The FIFA representative [2] comments on the three yellow cards for instance, saying that no judgement has been made yet on the overall referee performance. If the ref hadn't done a shocking job would they need to say these things.
Of course, this is not to say that it doesn't have a distinct Australian point of view. The FIFA representative stating the replay option for Australia if they had lost kind of demonstrates the total weight of give and take decisions for the two teams supported Croatia more than hindered them. Just the handball and the last three minutes are reasonably large errors. Do you have a source for questioning the first handball, I hadn't read that before. It looked reasonably clear to me in real time and replays. Ansell 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really a written reference - perhaps if I can find a transcript of the commentators' statements from Swedish TV4. Interesting enough though there seemed to be a noticable shift in the Swedish media yesterday towards blaming the ref more. However, it is also worth noting that the commentators and much of the media in Sweden had a very clear pro-Croatian bias, so perhaps they are not the most reliable source of information. But hey, finding objectivity in a football game analysis is nearly impossible.
By the way, the offiside goal is not mentioned in the section, so I'm going to add it. Beyond that, I don't think I have any more opinions on the neutrality of the article. --Denoir 10:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

I removed the disputed tag that Bazzajf had added. Please don't put up tags without even explaining why or consulting others. If there is indeed some disputed facts, bring them up to discussion first and don't just jump for a tag.

[edit] Inconsistency

Under 3 Red Cards in a game it lists a match with Sunderton, while under trivia it says he has never officiated for Sunderton. Since I don't really follow the Premiership, I'm not informed enough to fix it, although if someone could take a look at it that would be appreciated.--128.205.153.176 17:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It only says he didn't ref them in 2006 season. The red cards were in the 2001 season, no inconsistency there. Ansell 08:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the team (and city they play in) is Sunderland, not Sunderton.... 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charity work citation

Is there a source to indicate to support the statement that red and yellow card fines go to the SOS Charity? I will add a "citation needed" for this statement, as this is quite important for the accuracy of the article and for how refereeing is conducted at the World Cup. The fact that some referees support charities and the fines that come from their booking and sending off players go to their charities might raise questions about conflicts of interest.

smr 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)smrgeog

The following are the references needed to reinforce the statement. I am rushed for time so I am including them here as a list. They are enough to reinforce the statement fully with the already existing information that he is personally involved with SOS Children's Villages through FIFA
[3] Official SOS Childrens Villages page stating the disputed fact.
[4] This one states it plainly intext.
[5]
[6]
Thanks in advance for someone putting them into {{cite web}} format for me. Ansell 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement from International Tournament Football

Have re-added the pieces removed incorrectly by Ytny concerning Graham's retirement from Tournament football.

The statements were sourced from the link already in that part of the article. http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1809120,00.html

Graham Poll has announced his retirement from refereeing at international tournaments, following his disastrous performance in Australia's 2-2 draw with Croatia.

"I've had three major championships, Euro 2000, World Cup 2002 and World Cup 2006 and not one has gone right for me for various reasons. I have discussed this with the FA already. It's time for somebody else in England to have a go and I will do everything I can to prepare them. But for me tournament football is over."

He will continue to referee in the Champions League, UEFA Cup and on International Friendly and Qualification matches.

The only way he can retire from International Football full stop is if FIFA remove him from the FIFA List in December this year.

How do I know? I'm a referee myself who has contact with the guys on the Premiership and FIFA -- WCR 01:05 GMT - 02/07/06

I made the edit because"as he feels he's had his chance." at the end of the sentence wasn't clear to me and didn't realize which quote it referred to - so I apologize for saying it was unsourced. Though I still think it's a bit unclear and a direct quote would work better than writing what he "feels".
And point taken on retirement from international football vs international tournaments. Ytny 02:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article is not a Good Article. It has no images, and the World Cup 2002 and Statistics sections have no references.Some P. Erson 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Match fixing scandal

As you will see on Graham_Poll&oldid=85940948, I added a section about Poll's involvement in the match-fixing scandal, that was removed, presumably because the evidence I gave was not from a British newspaper (not sure why an Italian newspaper was less evidential, especially as it refers to the Italian Calcio.

However, I can assure you that this has been covered by the British papers as well, including the Observer Sport Monthly. I have taken a photo of the page here: Photo of Graham Poll piece in Observer Sport Monthly, August 2006.

The article on the website OSM does not unfortunately put any of the black-coloured 'insets', so this particular piece is not on the Guardian Unlimited website, but hopefully my photograph will suffice as proof.

I was therefore going to suggest that, in the interests of free speech, the paragraph should really be reinstated. I don't have any particular problem with Mr Poll's refereeing as such (although the three yellows in the WC was atrocious) and I'm sure he's a lovely man, but surely this can be backed up by sufficient sources (including the English press at the time) to be relevant to this Wiki article?

I mean, the transcripts are all over the net. Just do a Google Search for Graham Poll and Paul Green (Moggi kept saying the name wrong). Here, I'll do it for you. Tris2000 02:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason the material was removed was in part because it contained Original Research in that it was an editorialised translation from the Primary source (ie, an Italian language transcript). Due to these factors, I removed the section in line with the biographies of living people policy, which states that it is more important not to have allegations which are not completely founded, than it is to have sub-standard research allegations. If this "scandal" has been recognised by editor-reviewed published sources than it may have substance. A continuous set of blogs which latch onto a topic does not signify that it should be here.
Please note, Wikipedia is not a democracy and your statement about free speech is not accurate given official wikipedia policies. Ansell 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ansell, I'll gladly accept your point. Whilst I think that its inclusion in Observer Sport Monthly shows that it has been recognised by an editor-reviewed publication, I have no need to pursue the matter further... I just came across this item in the OSM, and thought that it was important enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia amongst the poor guy's other many controversial faux pas. One wonders though how many news sources need to cover something though before it becomes OK to publish on Wikipedia. Is there a consensus on this? But in the meantime, I'll leave it at that :-) Tris2000 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
At least two independent news reports, (ie, they are not syndicated), should be present to have a good chance at finding a neutral point of view. It is preferable that the two news reports are made by reputable sources, however, that is not a generalisable statement IMO. If there are multiple sources for the scandal then feel free to make it into a paragraph on the page. Ansell 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referee bashing

I made a couple of edits today as they seemed to have been written by biased fan or a referee hater with little idea of the correct terms used in football.Statto74 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on abbreviated expletives or full use of the words in the article.

Hi. An editor has recently replaced the (*) asterisks in a sentence of expletives (namely, "f***ing sh*t") with the actual letters, therefore exposing the offensive words. I have reverted this, as I believe a United Kingdom article does not need to entertain gratuitous bad language - English speaking persons will know what the words are. The editor may revert my revert, so you may need to reach consensus on the issue before 3RV is reached. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus on this, as Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this: WP:NOT#CENSORED. 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice broad sweeping statement. However, can I dig a little deeper and bring your attention to Wikipedia:Profanity, which is referenced by WP:NOT#CENSORED, to illustrate my point about interpretation of English profanity in a United Kingdom article, quoting "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I would suggest that the abbreviations you just removed would count as suitable alternatives. I have no intention of reverting further, just letting you know where I am coming from, and that it's always best to go a bit further into policy to find even more relevant guidelines. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I should've been clearer. If the choice is between "fucking shite" and "f****** s***", then there is no need for debate, because you always go with the former. Which isn't to say there aren't other options, but the way you framed the discussion, stating that your intent was to avoid "exposing the offensive words", you presented it as a simple choice between the full profanity and the asterisks. In which case, again, there is no need for consensus. Ytny (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And if you get yet further (not much further, actually) you find that Wikipedia:Profanity continues "In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." An exception can be made if the bowdlerised version is in a direct quotation. Ewen 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just corrected the spelling as McFadden is quouted as sayiing Shite and not Shit (as is common in the North/Scotland).Statto74 10:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Hi. Although there is no section in the article (at this time) called "Trivia", that does not mean that trivia does not exist. Trivia can be recognised in Wikipedia by short, to-the-point, unconnected sentences, usually preceded by an indent bullet point, intended to introduce into the article snippets of mostly non-notable occurrences in the life or career of the biographical subject.

Specific to this article at the moment, most of the "red card" information under the sub-head "Card Statistics" (which should actually read "Card statistics" per the MoS) are blatant trivia, and have been flagged as such. All that is required is to remove the non-notable completely and insert the notable into the text of the main body of the article. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the rationale there and have deleted what I consider to be non-notable trivia. Opinions on some of this content may differ, but I'm happy for other editors to re-include a fact that I deemed unimportant in the main article. I have duly removed the tag
However, I strongly disagree that Card statistics (apologies for my incorrect naming of it) constitutes trivia. Players have tables showing appearances and goals as a standard, so to classify what is in effect the same table for a notable referee as trivia seems strange to me.BeL1EveR 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The article already has a formatted card statistics table, showing number of yellow and red, and frequency of cards per match, by season - what more is there to know? Listing certain numbers of cards in certain matches IS trivia, and is easily recognisable as such. They are purely statements of fact, and don't make a solid point about notable parts of his career.
The only matches which should be featured individually for any reason in the Career section are the most notable (FA Cup Finals, League Cup Finals, even FA Trophy Finals and FA Youth Cup Finals if you like) - then there are matches which are notable in themselves because of some strange twist, or maybe something happens in them which is unusual or a first (the punch-up between the two Newcastle players springs to mind, or Graham getting in the way of Michael Tonge of Sheffield United, leading to a goal against them - those are examples of an unusual occurrence in a relevant match which it is encyclopedic to expand upon). Graham dishing out X number of red cards when AFC played BFC is not unusual - just a statistic.
If you were to create a standalone article called Graham Poll Career Statistics, you would be completely justified in dissecting all the relevant actions in all the relevant matches throughout his career, as that would be the purpose of the article. WP:BIO says we should create a lucid, prosaic and neutral description of a subject, and all the notable components of the subject's life and career, when the article's title contains only the name of the subject.
However, well done for being bold in removing the obvious trivia. I don't think the article suffers because of it. Ref (chew)(do) 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and for clarity that table was what I was referring to by card statistics.BeL1EveR 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finland v. Belgium, Euro 2008 qualifying, 6 June 2007

Hi. I was most surprised to find that, when it came to adding a reference for the result of the last ever game he refereed, it appears that the powers-that-be replaced him with Mike Riley of England. I have amended the article to reflect this. His final match, therefore, was actually the Championship play-off decider between Derby County and West Brom. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus building: Three yellow cards

Hi. It appears that some editors would like to insert a "three-yellows-equals-a-red" column into the small World Cup 2006 statistical table. Whilst it has been acknowledged many times over that Graham made a mistake in doing this to Simunic, the idea of displaying a formal table with information that is outside the Laws of the Game (there is no allowance for a referee to ever officially award three to any one player, therefore Simunic will go down in the FIFA record books as having been dismissed for two cautionable offences) is ludicrous, and it should reflect the official line, in my view.

This aspect needs consensus, as I am not the first to revert this article to the official line. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It should read either yellow, yellow-yellow (red), yellow-yellow-yellow (red) and straight red,
OR yellow, yellow-yellow (red), straight red.
I tend to favour the second option as the Simunic incident is already well-detailed in the article, and officially he cannot have been booked thrice. The statistics should reflect the official view, whereas I have no objection to it being made very clear what actually happened, including the addition of a footnote below the table to clarify that it includes the Y-Y-Y incident. BeL1EveR 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of sensitive information

Hi. Currently being reverted is an attempt (or two actually) to name Poll's wife and children in the article. Myself and another editor have already rolled this back once each. My reasons are that the extra information is not relevant to proving his notability on the football field, but mainly that naming minors increases their vulnerability. The first part is to do with encyclopedic value, but the second is purely compassionate. Since editing Wikipedia articles, I have always reverted the naming of children under 16, and other information such as their home locations or their schools, for the reasons given.

I am highlighting this on the talk page given the limited space in edit summaries to fully explain why a revert took place. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arsenal Sheffield United

I am trying to make changes to the Arsenal Sheffield United section, but it seems to merge it with thw world cup 2006 section and some data is lost. What's happening? Any ideas? (Namzie11 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew)(do) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)