Talk:Craig Joubert

Untitled

To all the French. Please refrain from making idiotic comments on this page. Just because you played like crap and the ref treated you FAIRLY does not mean that you can come and blame the ref. Maybe your team should have played better. It was a good game and a tough one. Fire your coach if you have a problem with your team. A punch that was given by one of the French to a Kiwi was not blown for, so be glad about that. That was the only thing that was not noticed. Further, Joubert is a brilliant and fair referee. He is the best. Deal with it! Alors ferme la bouche et vous améliorer votre équipe. Vous êtes extrêmement mauvais perdants! Typiquement Français! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey1986 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is this stupid boy ? A kiwi, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.53.252 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a fucking disgrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.142.81 (talk • contribs)

• No, it wasn't. Please, keep this for discussion about the article. If you would like to rant about how France were cheated etc, go find a forum or perhaps upload a video venting your anger onto youtube. (You can use this video about Bryce Lawrence as inspiration) --Chris 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes it was, but it's not the right place to discuss it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.118.21 (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 RWC final

Several players of the French team have publicly criticized the way he refereed the 2011 RWC final, minutes after the game. This is usually never the case from an International Rugby team and not what the France team usually do after losing a game, even on a small difference points. This information is of some importance and it should be considered for inclusion in some form on this page.

Rugby World Cup final: Dimitri Yachvili points finger at the referee

World Cup ref blowtorch turns on Craig Joubert

I suggest we let the heat cool down a bit and in a few days/weeks decide if something should be said about it on this page and what. Simon.huet (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE : This page MUST continue to respect the WP:BLP and not be twisted as it was with Wayne Barnes when New Zealand lost against France in the RWC2007 (please see this page for what this page should never turn into). --Simon Huet-- 10:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The critics doesn't come exclusively from France. Most rugby fans never seen≈ a game where the favourites were allowed to infringe so often without being pulled up . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.176.145 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree BUT this is not something that can be inserted without a lot of references, and not "comments from John Doe on a forum", but from sources of importance like referees, players (past and present) or highly recognized commentators/bloggers etc... --Simon Huet-- 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If the IRB issues a statement then we include it; otherwise leave it. The same thing happens every world cup (there was the same deal with Alain Rolland and the 2007 final) --Chris 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Why only "if the IRB issues a statement" policy??? 2) There was a "controversial" decision in 2007 that was cleared with video, but no comments from players about the quality of the refereeing on this scale. (Reference needed :) The players are criticizing not a single decision but the overall way the game was refereed. It is of a significant importance for his biography and career, for this one event but on future events too, as I don't think he could now walk in the streets of Paris nor referee a game there safely. --Simon Huet-- 07:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of referees from the losing team is not notable. If we included these then all referees articles will consist of criticisms, which violates WP:UNDUE. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:UNDUE here. That policy specify that minority opinions should not be weighted as much as a broad view. Is this a minority opinion? It comes from one of the team on the field, backed by internationals comments. I think it is fair to say that opinion is weighted proportionally being just a report of comments from the players and observers, NOT a direct criticism of the referee. I don't recall and can't find a game where an international rugby team criticized the referee, so it is notable unless you can recall/find some reference to prove it is not notable. --Simon Huet-- 09:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a minority view. A team loses and the players and fans criticise the referee. It is also undue because Joubert is the best referee in the game as judged by the IRB (otherwise he would not have had the final) so the article should if anything reflect that, not focus on a single game. Warren Gatland criticised Rolland after the red card, Fuimaono-Sapolu‎ criticised Owen on twitter, Smit had a dig at Lawerence and thats just at this world cup. AIRcorn (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not just the player and fans but also some other nationality observers point of view. Warren Gatland and Fuimaono-Sapolu criticisms are mentioned on their pages. So why not here? --Simon Huet-- 06:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just on the "best referee" claim. This is assuming that there wasn't a better NZ or French ref or that they didn't select Rolland because of a perceived conflict of interest.Hack (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, "one of the best referees" would have been more accurate. Could be pedantic and assume that because Rolland was the reserve referee the IRB probably weren't too worried about a COI with him, while Poite is most likely behind Barnes as he only assisted the bronze final and Lawrence hasn't even been involved beyond the quarters. Anyway assumptions aside, I don't want the article to actually say he is the best referee, just to reflect Jouberts status better than it currently does and not focus on perceived poor performances. AIRcorn (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The comments on Barnes about the 2007 World Cup are only included because the IRB defended him after he received death threats. I don't think this has reached that stage yet. This is a WP:BLP so care needs to be taken when including information. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the history of Wayne Barnes article, for months after the RWC2007 you could read :

Barnes refereed the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final match between France and New Zealand on 6 October 2007, which was his eleventh international match. His performance caused controversy among fans and commentators alike. Most notably, he missed a forward pass which resulted directly in a converted try for France late in the match.

Following the match former All Black Grant Fox suggested that while the French were moving forward in the competition Barnes should not. However, Paddy O'Brien, the head of theInternational Rugby Board referee's panel, said that the loss could not be blamed on refereeing. Both New Zealand's Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen and the New Zealand Rugby Union Chairman Jock Hobbs stated they believe some of Barnes' decisions were crucial to influencing the outcome of the match,while New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark stated that she would have hoped that the All Blacks played well enough for the refereeing not to be an issue. An interview with a 'top 10' New Zealand referee in the New Zealand Herald suggested that while Barnes' decisions may have cost New Zealand the match on the scoreboard, they still should have been good enough to win the game. He concluded that despite Barnes' errors, his performance in the game was adequate.

--Simon Huet-- 09:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the last revision of Wayne Barnes page before it was reformated to its current form, dated 22 September 2009. His page was a complete hatred of his performance as a referee. Compared to that this article is in full respect of both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. --Simon Huet-- 10:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And now it reads differently. Just because one article was poor is not an excuse for this one to be. AIRcorn (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, be objective. That page was full a hatred and deserved to be edited for not respecting the WP:BLP. It had a complete section for the refereeing controversies with 3 sections. This is hardly the case here. Please stay objective even if on something to criticizing a team you support (as seen on your page). --Simon Huet-- 11:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am objective enough. If you look closely I wanted the removal of the criticism of Barnes too, although I arrived late on the scene. I do not see the point of comparing this article to an old version of one that you agree violates BLP. Are you saying this is good because it is better than this bad one that doesn't exist anymore? This does not need to be compared to anything to violate WP:UNDUE. AIRcorn (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not interpret policies or naming them as you want. See Wikipedia:Policy shopping.

• WP:UNDUE : "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." // The comments from the French player ARE NOT a minority point of view as they were part of this event and it's backed by multiple, international sources.
• WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." // The previous article was not respecting at all this policy. This one is respecting it as it's only one sentence, with reliable secondary sources. --Simon Huet-- 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am only talking about two policies (WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP) so it is hardly shopping. These are two of our most inforced policies. It is undue because out of the six sentences on his career one is devoted to criticising a single game. Where is the report of his performance in the quarter-final, semi-final or any other game he has refereed. The sentence falls foul of other policies as well, but those two are the most important and enough in my opinion to justify removing that sentence. Lets see if anyone else chimes in over this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the most important game he refereed in his career and that sentence put his work into context. Let's be clear, I am against bashing the referee. Please if you find this against some other policies, feel free to specify which and on what ground. The neutrality of this sentence has been reinforced by adding praise by others. It's more neutral now. Better. Improved. :) --Simon Huet-- 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Synth is an obvious one. The only direct quotes from the french team come from two players (Dimitri Szarzewski and Maxime Mermoz) so it is a bit of an exaggeration to say the whole team. WP:RS is another, most of these are opinion pieces so should be attributed to the sports journalist writing them. WP:Recentism focusing almost exclusively on his most recent game. WP:Citation overkill although easily fixable is used in this case to support the synthesis. WP:WTW - "heavily criticised", "widely favoured". I know some are essays and not policies, but they contain good advice. The sentence as it is is not neutrally written and if consensus is reached to mention the response to this game it will have to be drastically re-worded. AIRcorn (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is Yachvili too, 3 to 1. "Heavily criticized", "widely favoured" meaning completely what he means : he is "accused" by some to not refereed fairly during the whole game. That's a heavy criticism of having widely favoured. --Simon Huet-- 06:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things, firstly, if you do want to add that section again, you now also have to add this this which is from a former international referee praising his performance. And secondly, also please add these worlds of wisdom from your captain:

“I am very disappointed with the result but I do not feel like criticising the referee,” said Dusautoir. “He is one of the best in the world and we did not do enough to get the vital penalty we needed at the end.”

(widely quoted in various new articles here's one)--Chris 01:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Added a sentence for those two comments. --Simon Huet-- 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the trouble, more and more needs to be added to keep everything in context. So instead of a single sentence we end up with a paragraph or a section. If the French captain is refusing to blame the ref then it is obviously a minority viewpoint even within the French team. This is a BLP so I think it should be removed until we have consensus to re-insert it and on how it should be worded and referenced. AIRcorn (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's one sentence more, not a paragraph or section. It's the French captain viewpoint that is a minority within the French team as he is the only player giving some credit to Joubert. You're the only one asking for removal of material you clearly didn't achieved a concensus on that. :) --Simon Huet-- 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually if anything, atm there is no consensus to keep it in the article either. I especially don't like the wording that he "widely favoured the home team", it seems particularly biased, and I don't think there is enough reliable sources to back that claim up. --Chris 04:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong but if there is no consensus to add something negative to a BLP then should it not be removed until there is? AIRcorn (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Widely favoured the home team" means not just missing something or badly refereeing one action but making sure one team won. I understand it can look biased but it is not as it is exactly what people are saying. See this video. We are not talking about if he did or not, we are only reporting what people are saying. There is enough reliable sources proving there is a general feeling that he "widely favoured the home team". And it's from international sources, not just French or NZ. --Simon Huet-- 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We can report what people are saying, but not make it up ourselves. We also have to say who is saying what. For example we can't say he was heavily criticised by the French team unless the French team releases an official statement, and especially not if we have some members specifically saying they are not criticising him. We should not even say criticised as that is too general. If we want to add material like this it needs to name who is saying what and attribute it to them, be they player, coach, sports journalist, fan or president. Justifying "many international observers" by adding lots of different match reports is original research. It needs a source that specifically says he was criticised by many international observers and even then that would have to be attributed to the source. AIRcorn (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that some NZ users are simply willing to rewrite history their ways, whatever the opinion expressed by a certain number of valid sources, most of them neutral. In order to achieve that, they are using biased views of WP editing policies, of which they are adapting the content in the way that suits them well. The issue is basically the fact that the assessment that the referring of Craig Joubert on the final was pretty unfair is completely denied by the NZ press and the NZers. Meanwhile Australian, South African (Craig Joubert being himself from SA) and European (Irish, British and of course French) press have a global consensus in favour of such an assessment (see all references already provided). The whole (including NZ) represents rugby union's main countries (with Argentina) and thus, their respective related opinions should indeed be considered as representative and exhaustive. So I suggest that a solution shall be found citing every source, including the one coming from the NZ Herald in favour of Craig Joubert, with the explicit mention of who emitted it (position, country, etc.). All of these materials could be located in a dedicated chapter within the main article (titled for instance "2011 WC Final controversy"). This will of course lead to a huge article expansion, but I hardly see any other way to get out of this. |--Jérôme Nédeau-- 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks since this game and I must say I pretty much changed my mind on this issue. I still think those comments on how he did a poor job as a referee are valid comments and should be noted somewhere but not on this page. According to the IRB he did a fine job and no sanction will be charged and he will even referee a game between Wales and France during the next 6 Nations. So accordingly to his career there is nothing to be said. If some comments on how this game was refereed must be included it must be on that game page or a dedicaded article (really its own article? not sure it's the best idea either). --Simon Huet-- 10:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Final to say the least... 217.136.63.185 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

References

VIDEO TO SEE

(Video) This is a video from Irish commentator who details a lot of details of this final. Look the shame on the referee. Listen them, look the video and you will understand what was going on on this final. SHAMEFUL! Chopin06 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Chopin06, (d)

Noticed that some article references, from the kiwi and british newspapers about the 'brilliant" referreing, were purely and simply deleted. Go figure 217.136.63.185 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

2015: that penalty

The paragraph on the 2015 quarter-final has been very usefully updated and copy-edited. I'm sure the sources are all very good. But the text now deftly skirts around the reason why "players, fans and pundits criticised this decision", which was, rather obviously, because it was an incorrect decision, as clearly seen, by millions of spectators across the world, in the replays. I'm rather surprised that such a fundamental fact is currently omitted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I’d just like to point out that, despite a Northern hemisphere Celtic connection, I am not, in fact, Scottish. I was wondering what your own national background was, User:TheMightyPeanut? Thanks.

Yes, said paragraph was rewritten to comply with Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. Nothing more. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the main fact, of the entire controversy, is missing. Joubert made a very big mistake. It's not contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL to report that fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone that views video replays will know that, according to the laws of Rugby Union, the last-minute penalty decision was wrong. However, for that important fact to be included in the article (and I agree that it should be) you need to find some authoritative sources that state that the referee's decision was wrong. That's just the way that WP works... BushelCandle (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be taking a view on the correctness of the decision. Just say it was controversial and quote others with their view of the call. Hack (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The decision was wrong. That's a fact. It's clearly captured on replay. The IBT source (Nick Howson) clearly explains this. I'm sure many more sources could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Without overblowing his latest decision: It would be appropriate to mention that some of his performances have been met with heavy criticism: The 2011 WC Final (for instance http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11509686), the Super 12 between the Highlanders and Warratahs and now the latest incident (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11939513/Referee-Craig-Joubert-sprints-off-pitch-Twitter-reacts-Australia-vs-Scotland.html) were all controversial incidents and widely disputed in the media. This is not about judging what was correct or wrong but simply a fact which should be added.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think his latest howler is about as bad as they get. But that's just my opinion. His sprinting off the field, seconds later, however, was quite unbelievable. I have never heard Gavin Hastings, who was commentating for BBC Radio 5 Live, sound quite so enraged and disgusted: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Michael G. Lind: – and previous controversies could be added in too. However, balancing aspects should also be considered; controversies are what make a referee (in)famous, but merely concentrating on them doesn't make for a balanced article. Most referees would make several uncontroversial decisions for every controversial one, but the former are never mentioned in match reports and articles. Since it's difficult to detail a referee's uncontroversial moments, care must be taken when adding controversies. With almost half of the "Refereeing" section dedicated to one match, I would argue that undue weight has already been given to a single match. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How about restoring a single fact? The fact that his decision was wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Now confirmed by World Rugby that the decision was wrong. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Barnes later said "Joubert ... has made the error of his career": [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Two further points: 1. Some sources suggest that Joubert ran off the pitch as he "may have needed bathroom": [3]. 2. There is now a petition underway to ban Joubert for life: [4]. Not sure how notable these are. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of my points are going to be similar to the comments above regarding the 2011 Final (WP:Undue and WP:BLP. I have trimmed for undue and removed some that is not notable at this time. AIRcorn (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(re other controversies) Only if someone is willing to add information regarding the other 50 tests and 80 odd super rugby games that he also refereed. Generally the IRB getting involved is used as a indicator as to whether a "mistake" is notable enough to be included. Otherwise all referee pages would be fill of criticisms[5]. AIRcorn (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(re petitions) I would be against including this. People start petitions for every little thing so by itself I don't think it is notable. If it leads to him being banned (extremely unlikely) then I will probably change my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheMightyPeanut:: I agree with you.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

2015: that rapid exit

Brett Gosper, the chief executive of World Rugby, (not me), in the The Daily Telegraph has very coyly suggested that Joubert may have sprinted off the pitch because "he needed the bathroom". But I'm not sure that anyone else believes him, and this suggestion has not been confirmed by Joubert himself. I'd suggest that the majority of WP:RS reporting the incident see his running off the pitch as equally notable as his mistaken penalty decision. If bottles were thrown at him, this may itself be worthy of mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thats the problem, its all just speculation at the moment. Lets wait and see what his response is to leaving the field in a rush before deciding it is notable. If he had run off the field without awarding the penalty this would not even be mentioned so I doubt it is equally notable. AIRcorn (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure your bit of speculation based on fantasy trumps Mr Gosper's speculation based on fact. An event may be notable with or without the underling reasons for that event being revealed. Gosper's suggestion was itself controversial. Michael Cheika said he was right to run off, suggesting the thrown bottle was a danger: [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I currently have no personal opinion on the "bathroom apology" (the first I heard of it was your mention in the previous section), but until Joubert gives his reasons then everyone (You, Myself, Cheika and Mr Gosper included) are just speculating. Either way we can't have speculation in a BLP. At the moment emotions are still running high and events are being dissected in great detail that probably wouldn't normally be. I will still contend that it is not equally notable, but we will never know what would have transpired had the penalty not been awarded. AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Joubert's running from the pitch immediately after he blew the whistle is not speculation, it's another fact As far as I know, it's unique in test rugby and thus extremely notable. But quite prepared to wait a day an hour or two. I think your "we'll never know" is a complete straw man. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What Gavin Hastings said...

The article completely misrepresents what Gavin Hastings said. The text is as follows: "Joubert was afterwards criticised by former Scottish captain Gavin Hastings, for awarding a last minute penalty to Australia." - both the source cited (and the original audio source on the BBC website) clearly show that Hastings primarily criticised him for running off. Given Hastings profile, I feel it is very important that this is corrected as it is deeply unfair to both Hastings and also to Joubert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.64.8 (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. After thinking about this overnight I am agree that running from the field should be mentioned so we can attribute that to Hastings. My reasoning is, like Mick says below, the awarded penalty was just a simple mistake, one of many that referees will make during a game. That it happened at a crucial stage and score is what makes it notable, nothing more. The running from the field was a decision by Jourbert for reasons that are not made clear yet, and the reasons could make it notable. Would still like to hear Jouberts account, but briefly mentioning he left the field in a rush is probably as a simple statement is fair enough. Is there someone prominent we can atrribute as criticising him for the last minute penalty?AIRcorn (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Jouberts decision.

The mistake Craig made was not to consult with the Touch Judge nearest that sequence of play if he had any doubts as the decision was of such importance, at least then it would have been 50/50. It only takes a player in the wrong place to prevent the Referee from seeing the knock forward. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...players constantly make mistakes but a crucial ONE by the Referee and, suddenly, he's the worst in the World.....Huh...

Mick Gillick....Former Leinster Referee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.18.111 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. It's surprising that none of the pundits nor World Rugby have made this point. The TMO is a bit of a red-herring. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Constant deletions

It's getting ever so slightly disruptive that one user keeps removing most criticism, claiming it's WP:UNDUE when it appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joubert has been very heavily criticised, even by the sport's official body; the latter is very rare. The media coverage about Joubert has never been this big, not even when he refereed the world cup final. Against that background, it's hard to see how anyone could argue UNDUE. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see the reasoning behind an argument of WP:UNDUE here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on the career of Craig Jourbert. An international career that has spanned more than a decade and includes over 50 matches. He was at one point ranked the best referee in the world. He has recently made a mistake in a game of rugby. He did nothing illegal, no one was harmed and it was a mistake that has been made by many international referees. The article should not focus on this mistake at the expense of providing proper perspective of his career. The quotes are completely unnecessary and in my opinion a violation of WP:BLP. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Per wp:NPOV and the BBC is a wp:reliable source, this important episode has to be mentioned. A biography is not a hagiography, all the important points/episodes have to be written. Woovee (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"During the final, he didn't award any penalties to France during the last part of the match despite several mistakes made by Richie McCaw and his team. According to the BBC, France would have won the world cup without Joubert." How is that neutral? It is not according to the BBC by the way, it is according to a commentator on the BBC. A you tube recording of commentary is not reliable enough to definitively make these statements. Commentators are notorious for being bias and unreliable when it comes to the rules. AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is written, according to the BBC. The word "Commentator" is not used here. The audio document is taken from the broadcast of the match on the BBC and BBC is a reliable'source. Woovee (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing attribution with reliable source. It is the commentator giving his opinion, the BBC is just the organistaion broadcasting it. If we were to use that source properly it should be located in the 2015 World Cup section for context and say "After the penalty was kicked an unnamed commentator from the BBC sports broadcast said that France should have been awarded a penalty at the end of the 2011 final." France still would have needed to kick the penalty so you can't say they would have won. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but if some recent contributions do not violate WP:UNDUE, they definitely do violate WP:BALASPS. There is a large part of the article devoted to criticism. However, there is very little said of any achievements prior to the recent quarter final. Also, several coaches and ex-players (most notably Michael Cheika – see here) have recently rallied behind Joubert. There is no mention of that either. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he's both defended the penalty decision and tried to explain the running off. Don't see why his view couldn't be added for balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

But I don't see why Cheika should get a quote, while Dawson and Nicol do not. The article is now unbalanced the other way .Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheika is the Australian coach. Nicol and Dawson are ex international players with no involvement in the match. What justification is there for Dawson or Nicol to get quotes. Why not quote Cotter or Laidlaw as Cheikas equivalents. AIRcorn (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Australia won the match, didn't they, thanks to Mr Joubert? Nicol and Dawson were seen and heard by millions, more or less as it happened, while Cheika was later interviewed by BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Cheika had time to digest the match and then make a comment. Cotter lost the match and gave a press conference afterwards, so his comments on the match are quotable and more relevant than Dawson and Nicol who are essentially fans. They are therefore more equivalent. AIRcorn (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I had another read through of the section and am relatively happy with how it stands at the moment[7] (Nicol, Dawson, Cheika etc mentioned, but no quotes from any). Will need to include any ramifications and Jourberts response if he gives one, but it seems a reasonably fair representation of the incident at this stage. AIRcorn (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• User Aircorn is doing wp:edit warring and has already violated the 3RR rule: he did more than 3 reverts on that issue in less than 24 hours (he did 4 reverts). BTW, he recognized in his post of 00:02 that it was just his "wp:opinion". Woovee (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my times are different, you will have to provide a diff of where I entered an opinion into the article. We are both borderline for edit warring. There is some leeway given for removing incorrect information to a biography of a living person, which is hopefully what I have demonstrated the information is. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated any such thing. You've claimed it's undue which is different from incorrect, and even the claim of undue is very much contested. You're actively edit warring, and have been reported for it. Jeppiz (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How about the claim of a lack of balancing aspects in the article? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has not been presented yet, so a bit hard to evaluate it. Jeppiz (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Like pulling teeth. @Jeppiz:, I herewith put it to you that there is a lack of balancing aspects in the article. (And this was presented twice before actually, once about an hour ago and once in the "2015: that penalty" section, which is effectively the same discussion as this.) TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, no offence but you seem to have a poor grasp of the policies you cite. If you want to argue balancing aspects, you need to make that argument. Just blurting out the name of a policy is not an argument, the onus is on you to make an argument for why balancing aspects would apply. Jeppiz (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't bother to scroll up to refer to the comment I pointed you in the direction of? Fine, I will reproduce everything here: "@Michael G. Lind: – and previous controversies could be added in too. However, balancing aspects should also be considered; controversies are what make a referee (in)famous, but merely concentrating on them doesn't make for a balanced article. Most referees would make several uncontroversial decisions for every controversial one, but the former are never mentioned in match reports and articles. Since it's difficult to detail a referee's uncontroversial moments, care must be taken when adding controversies. With almost half of the "Refereeing" section dedicated to one match, I would argue that undue weight has already been given to a single match." TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and "Not to be pedantic, but if some recent contributions do not violate WP:UNDUE, they definitely do violate WP:BALASPS. There is a large part of the article devoted to criticism. However, there is very little said of any achievements prior to the recent quarter final. Also, several coaches and ex-players (most notably Michael Cheika – see here) have recently rallied behind Joubert. There is no mention of that either." Both quotes seem to be explaining "why". TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• "BBC said: "In 2011, he saw three times Richie McCaw come in from the side at 8-7 with 15 minutes to go and didn't award a single penalty against him. Which if France have kicked, they would have won the world cup". Per wp:NPOV, this can be mentioned. Woovee (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC can not say anything, only people and parrots can say things. Do experienced editors here really think audio commentary after a decisive penalty should be used to provide opinions on the outcome of a game four years earlier. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Of course not. Published articles are subjected to fact-checking; audio commentary are made up on the spot and also contain opinions from pundits; it's not restricted to encyclopaedic facts and can therefore easily contain inaccuracies. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A show from the BBC radio is a source.Woovee (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• In a biography the onus is on the editors wishing to include controversial information to justify its presence. AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That does not mean that one user has a veto, you might benefit from reading WP:OWN. Plenty of justification has been given, you're refusal to WP:HEAR it does not mean it has not been presented. Jeppiz (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have veto, but I can definitely critique poorly added information. Can you at least give a reason why a small section of radio commentary is relevant for expressing a strong opinion on a game that happened four years previously and why the only two quotes in the entire article should call Joubert a "coward" and "a disgrace". AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Per wp:STICKTOSOURCE, a neutral sentence with the BBC as a wp:reliable source, has been added. The youtube link doesn't appear anymore, due to copyright infringements. TheMightyPeanut, you have to explain your removal as all the guidelines are now respected, like Wp:NPOV.Woovee (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Another source, this time from The New Zealand Herald dated from 2015, mentions that many felt there were problems in the decisions of the referee. It is complimentary of The Telegraph source.Woovee (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent disruptive editing by TheMightyPeanut

TheMightyPeanut has crossed from "just" edit warring into full-scale disruptions with their latest edits. By marking massive and contested reverts as "minor", knowing full well it's far from WP:MINOR, the user loses any right to WP:AGF. I've reverted these edits as pure vandalism and warned the user. Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it was just a very minor mistake? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

'twas. If only Joubert was the ref... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but your "re-writing" of the opening section was really just a revert of what I added. The cause of his (now) worldwide fame belongs in the lede. We can't just pretend it didn't happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not pretending it didn't happen; it is clearly references further down, in what has pretty much become a section of its own now. Have a quick look at WP:COATRACK and WP:CHERRY in particular, which I feel applies here – this article is about Craig Joubert; not about his performance in a certain match. Yes, it's worthy of a mention, but not of a lot of detail (personally, I think there's way too much already). If this really needs to be discussed in detail, it would belong in this article; that is the subject being discussed. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And while I'm having a quick look at WP:CRYSTAL I'll just suggest that the match on Sunday will define Joubert for the rest of his career. "His performance in a certain match" defines him. That entire section belongs here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC) And as we're talking "personally", I was still wondering about my earlier question as to your national background. Thanks.

The lead does need to be expanded now that the article has. Generally they reflect the body of the article so the 2015 quarter-final should get a mention proportional to the mention it has in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Live commentary used as a source

"According to the BBC, he didn't award any penalty against Richie McCaw who came in from the side several times in the last 15 minutes of the match."

First up a lot of good work was done recently and the article is in much better shape. Most of my undue concerns are addressed so thank you TheMightyPeanut. I still take issue with this statement though. It is worse now as the youtube clip it was sourced to has apparently disappeared, making it harder to properly evaluate its worth. It was a live radio feed by commentators broadcast through BBC sport. The part referenced occurred after the penalty was taken and one of the commentators started referencing Jourbert and the 2011 final.

First, is live commentary a good source for evaluating a referees performance? They are inherently bias as each country supplies there own broadcasters and they target there countries supporters. They are also not necessarily hired for in depth knowledge on rugby, but more for their entertainment value. Another issue is that in being live the commentators have less chance to think their comments through before making them. This may lead to off the cuff comments. A better source would surely be a respected column where the author has had time to digest the game before commenting.

If live commentary is a good source, then which would you use. Here we have the Scottish, but why should this get prominence over the Australian commentators. There are TV commentators and in the World Cup commentators from countries not even competing. The commentary used here as a source also references a game that occurred four years ago and occurred while emotions were high after the penalty, so that would need to be presented to provide context.

The biggest issue is that it starts "according to the BBC". Since when is an opinion on a station attributed to that station. If some shock jock says something controversial we don't say according to the "BBC the world is flat", we attribute it to the person making the claim. It is like saying according to the Lancet vaccines may cause autism, because they published the Wakefield paper. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, Ritchie MaCaw. Always a bit controversial. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What are we doing arguing here. Thats the real story we should be focussing on.AIRcorn (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And now User Aircorn opens a new topic. Have we changed of subject? No. Woovee (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has changed considerably and the above was a jumble so I though this was best. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If the commentary was broadcast by the BBC, I see nothing wrong in saying "According to the BBC"... although it would probably be better to say "According to <name> of the BBC..", especially if the commentator him/herself is notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I find this a bit maddening as it seems so obviously wrong to me. The BBC is a big organisation with lots of people in it. I doubt a live radio comment can be taken as the official line. Does anyone even know who the commentator was? AIRcorn (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think somebody must know. Otherwise it definitely would just be "the BBC", wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCE, "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". In the WP:NEWSBLOG section, it states that blogs should be used with caution, since it's usually not "subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Do you honestly think that audio commentary during a match is sufficiently "subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" to be acceptable as a reliable source? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

2011 final

There are two possibilities. This first version, using The Guardian as a source or this 2nd version using The Irish Times as a source, the latter seems more apt.Woovee (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Changed the attribution to the author as it is an opinion piece. AIRcorn (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Craig Joubert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019121814/http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid%3D2059257.html to http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid%3D2059257.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)