Talk:Koman Coulibaly/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you're looking to discuss the calls of the last match, this is not the place to do it. Don't start blaming regular Wikipedia users or admins for doing things you don't like, if you're going to misuse articles and talk pages to express your emotions. Either find sources with the intent of improving a compendium of facts that can be backed up, or get a Twitter. backstabb 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Malicious edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Done Admins, get this page under control. The entry's been maliciously edited and is now locked. It needs editing ASAP. These talk comments are also ridiculous.

> I agree. This page is maliciously edited perhaps by people who have no in-depth knowledge of the sport. Opinions from biased soccer analysts should have no place in an encyclopedia entry and should all be removed. We know enough about Coulibaly, his profession, and his statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperorubby (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

I think that the 2010 football box is worthy of inclusion, as it is a major game that he had officiated. Along with that, a separate and referenced controversy section is not out of bounds of inclusion on wikipedia. -Dscarth (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If we were to remove the football box, might as well remove the one for the african game. And at that, this article is no more than a stub, and might as well be a speedy deletion, because it adds nothing to wikipedia. Lets include all the information we can, and look to improve the article. -Dscarth (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think all the football boxes should be removed, Jorge Larrionda's article doesn't have them, and he's one of the better-developed ref pages on Wiki. I also don't think we need to expand the article for the sake of expansion at the moment; it's got basically everything we know about this guy right now, so I don't think we need a separate controversy section. His officiating one group stage match at the World Cup wouldn't be noteworthy without the controversy, so in essence, the section on the match is functioning as a controversy section. If we were to find out that the 2010 ACN Final was controversial in some way, then we might separate it out. (PS, I wrote on your talk page.)Kingnavland (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The football boxes only mention him as a referee, and they mention the date and time the match took place, but the rest of the information is not exactly relevant to Coulibaly as a person. If they would detail the amount of cards, offsides, free kicks and so on i could understand inclusion as these factors are directly related to the actions of the referee. The current information however, is more related to player performance then referee performance.

I would also point out that this is a BLP page detailing Koman Coulibaly. It should not become a coatrack where we discuss needless details that are not directly related to him as a person - that is, his personal record and his actions in several games. I would equally point out that we should be careful to give undue weight to the recent match. Coulibaly has been a referee for 10 years or so it seems, but 4 out of 11 lines in his biography detail just one particular match. Its understandable since this is the English wikipedia (Thus subjects involved with the US and UK receive more coverage in general), but we should be careful not to over-focus on just a small blip in his career. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, this definitely runs the risk of being a coatrack. I think the solution to this (which I don't have time to do at the moment) is to go back through his ACN career and add information to this article regarding notable matches he officiated in those tournaments. Additionally, a couple of the US quotes could be trimmed. (If I were choosing, I would cut Donovan's quote and the sentence about the caution given to Findley, leaving Lalas and Wynalda, but I'll wait for consensus, because I don't want to lose the information and not get it back if other people have different opinions about what should be cut.) Kingnavland (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the edits on this man's profile have become too ridiculous. He has been refereeing for about 10 years and there's nothing there showing matches that he officiated in the past. There may be a place for the recent views and accusations by a few biased and emotional sports analysts but I do not believe that their opinions should have any place in this entry unless the governing body of the sports take action over it. I'm afraid that allowing such edits to remain will be misguiding readers and imply an unconfirmed conspiracy involving FIFA against the United States. It will stretch beyond the scope of writing about Mr Coulibaly and demean the credibility of Wikipedia. Emperorubby (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While you have one or two valid points, there is absolutely no way that anyone can call this information irrelevant. It, or at least a solid bit of information about this, needs to remain in the article. A simple google search will show wide range of news sources that are covering this. I do, however, agree that the potential for it to make the page disproportionate is there. I feel the answer is not to simply blank relevant information, but instead to fill the article with more information about this official to balance the article. If this referee is as prominent and experienced as you say, it should be fairly easy to find such information.Dashren2001 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The information is very irrelevant and at this point can even be considered a tabloid piece. Although news worthy, the facts may stay that he officiated a recent USA-Slovenia match, along with many other matches he has officiated. But the opinions should have absolutely no place on the article until there has been a response from FIFA regarding the matter. For now, it's a tabloid piece, not Wiki-worthy. It almost comes as an emotional reaction from many USA fans and pundits and is slandering. There shouldn't be a place for that. Emperorubby (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconding keeping the FIFA World Cup 2010 information. All the sports news sources are beginning to report on it, as well as many general news sites. We will continue to see and hear about the effects of this over the next few days, possibly weeks, especially if USA does not move onto the next round. EDIT: Someone has removed the section without explaining why they have done-so here. Is that not malicious? I have reverted the information back into the article. Please do not blank sections of this article without discussing it here first.Dashren2001 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Would whoever keeps reverting this section please stop, and discuss it here? I will revert it one more time, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would request assistance in stopping this blatant vandalism until we reach a consensus on the wording of the section. Dashren2001 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree wholeheartedly with User:Emperorubby, who should also be using edit summaries and careful of violating the Three revert rule. We're not saying that those people are right, we're saying this is what they said about the match. There's a lot of articles about his calls, this is more press than he's probably ever gotten, and it deserves to be in the article. --AW (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Emperorubby has blanked the section once again. I have reverted it, but I cannot do-so again without violating Three revert rule. This has become blatant vandalism. How do i go about bringing in assistance, or would someone else mind asking for it?Dashren2001 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's vandalism, but he does seem to believe strongly in it. Let's discuss it here. EmperorRuby? --AW (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in the article as it certainly received enough coverage, but the article is called "Koman Coulibaly", and not "2010 Fifa World Cup - The Koman Coulibaly Incident". Do we really need to quote every random sports commentator that disagreed, while also showing their credentials? We could also say:

"Coulibaly took charge of the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. After conceding two first half goals, the United States fought back to equalize and had scored an apparent third goal to take the lead; however, Coulibaly disallowed the goal which led to harsh criticism from players and sport analysts alike (Add all the references here)"

That way we can prevent the over coverage and recentism, while also taking care that this entry doesn't become to biased towards a certain viewpoint. All the present quotes will still be available in the references, thus nothing is truly lost. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The italicized quotes above sounds good to me. But people, get serious here. The entry is slandering. Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid entries. The quotes in that section is not credible. It's opinionated. Read my posts above. Until there is a response from FIFA acknowledging the outcry and accusations from a few biased analysts, then there's nothing factual about their opinions. If the entry stays, you're pretty much saying that any opinion I may have against any one of you is who you are. Come on, be real here. I may be a one man army, but Wikipedia would have to stop me for this nonsense to remain up here, and then they would have to explain to me what was so credible about it. Emperorubby (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest - important viewpoints are generally included. If there is a massive outcry in the press it may be worth covering, even if it are technically all opinions. And i would point out that reverting eachother back and forth will not solve this issue at all - it will merely result in an edit war where people get blocked for being disruptive. That being said, there is no deadline for finishing Wikipedia, so a discussion here should solve the issue soon enough. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the italicized part and I agree with User:Excirial. I disagree that it's slander though, there are many articles where different and potentially divisive opinions are included. --AW (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no slander. All the information is factual. Whether FIFA says something or not, is of no consequence. He missed a call badly, everyone agrees he did, and the article is completely factual and referenced. What rubby was doing was not only edit-warring, but borderline vandalism. Enigma^msg 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked, so it'll hopefully stay like this for awhile. --AW (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not necessarily slander, but we should keep in mind that this man has been a referee for 10 years, and that he led more then one event. A biographies intention is to give an overview of someone's entire career - it is not intended to highlight only the bad decisions he or she made during a single event, even if they are sourced. In other words: The criticism in this biography should be balanced with neutral information on his other activities as a referee as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed "unbiased parties" to "International parties", as "unbiased" is a bit of a loaded word, and implies that all parties listed before it are expressly biased.Dashren2001 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kind of ridiculous to say this is slander or that the information should be left out. We're not talking about one poor call here, we're talking about a good amount of outright terrible calls. Disallowing the goal was just the icing on the proverbial cake. Now I know this guy has a career of ten years and yadda yadda yadda, but this is a World Cup game. This is a major event for a referee, and even if nothing unusual had happened we'd have to include it because so far it's arguably the biggest game he's reffed (the ANC final I imagine is about as important on the world stage.) It would be like not including Andres Escobar's own goal in the 94 world cup because he had 10 years experience playing for his club and Colombia. Yes, we should try to include both things, but when the idea that we're gonna disallow one of if not the most notable aspect of his career thus is insanity. Similarly, the idea that the complaints are only by "emotional US fans" is crazy. Analysts of just about every nationality have stated that this wasn't even CLOSE to being a right call. I would add more countries if necessary, although including the French and the German seems like enough to me. It says the Slovenian media disagreed that it was a bad call, but as far as I could tell (and this is from a Google translation so correct me if I'm wrong) the first two links are game summaries: one doesn't mention the disallowed goal at all and the other merely says "the goal was disallowed" without saying whether it was a good or bad call. The final article is a link where the Slovenian manager states that he didn't think the ref influenced the game which is definitely not the Slovenian media. I would invite someone to double check these links and make sure my descriptions are accurate, because if they are they should be thrown out or at the very least re-worded. ElAnimalSalvaje (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That refs (before the text was modified) said that the referee drew a great part of criticism from Slovenian side as well for not showing some cards and allowing tough game. Some of this could be included to show that the other side did not see the referee being pro-Slovenia at all. Anyway, it is good to see the section has been trimmed considerably. --Tone 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously... merge?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This guy is in no way notable. One bad call (and yes, I'm American) does not make you notable. I suggest merging with 2010 FIFA World Cup Group C.

See WP:N - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. The article meets all these criteria easily. It equally doesn't quality for WP:BLP1E as he received coverage before this entire incident took place. Hence, the article itself was originally created somewhere in 2007. Equally take note that he was a referee at more then one competition. Currently the article is slanted towards one particular event, but that can be ironed out out over time. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Excirial, he has become an internationally-known figure at this point, and was well-known in professional Football circles before hand. Merge is not right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashren2001 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This should not be merged. He was notable before the World Cup and there's been an article on him for a while. Enigma^msg 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Coulibaly's Expedited Performance Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This referee's review was in no way concluded as "poor" as implied by the author of the referenced article. Geez American Wiki Editors, FIFA has not released a single report on his review AS YET! Even the quoted FIFA source from the referenced article 19 did not describe his performance as poor. Due to the pending statement from FIFA, I am asking that the last statement "which determined his performance was "poor."[19][20]" be removed from the article and perhaps be accurately replaced with "with results yet to be released by FIFA." I'm asking this now in the discussion and if not done, I will edit it myself and you would have to block me again... don't say I didn't warn you. Let me remind everybody that Wikipedia is read around the WORLD, not just in America! Thanks. Emperorubby (talk) 6:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh*. The reason for discussion is forming concensus among editors as to what should, and what shouldn't be done. Threating to edit anyway even if it results in a block is a bad way to start a conversation, and a likely reason to block for an extended time if it would come to that.

Either way, i have removed the "poor" part as none of the sources state that this is the conclusion. They only state that he received negative reviews, but those were from the media. The response of the FIFA can be called "No comment until we investigated it". Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagged POV

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Since the conclusion of the FIFA World Cup 2010 Group C match between the USA and Slovenia, I have witnessed many unbalances and misrepresentation on this article about Mr. Coulibaly who served as the match official. Most of the editors of this article are notably Americans and appear to use opinionated and emotionally driven reporting from American sports analysts and pundits who disagreed on "one (1)" single decision that Mr. Coulibaly made against Team USA. It is well known that over the course of the tournament, there's been many other blunders by some of the other match officials in their respective assignments, none of whom's Wikipedia article have been altered any bit despite media outrage from the media in the other respective countries. In my observation, the outcry against Mr. Coulibaly's decision as a match official derived from only ONE country, the USA. The argument that the incident has gotten enough global media coverage is a mockery against the idea that articles on Wikipedia must be factually relevant, fair and balanced. I am flagging this article as BIASED because it does not share Mr. Coulibaly's 10+ years as a FIFA match official, and it does not exhibit the fair and balance idea of Wikipedia, in my opinion of course. If anybody is wondering, I am an American too and a passionate but a well educated soccer fan. Emperorubby (talk) 6:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How is the article biased? Unless someone is putting in biased third party references, then the article is not biased. Soccer has rules (Laws of the Game) and every player must adhere to the rules. The referee must also adhere to the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Game_(association_football). The Laws of the Game were created by FIFA members. The FIFA 2010 Laws of the Game handbook [1] states what constitutes a foul and offsides. It is apparent that Edu did not commit a foul.(see the 2010 FIFA Laws of the Game handbook). The article is not biased. Sweetfornow (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources don't work. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are paramount here. --John (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not POV just because one editor wants to remove all criticism from it. The tag is blatantly inaccurate. Enigma^msg 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

write

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Write.chose the strongest three citations and find one that clearly quotes FIFA for the citation required tag. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86 minute Coulaby called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2, this decision was criticized in the sports press.[1][2]. Coulibaly's performance was reported to have undergone a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.[4] The match ended in a 2-2 draw.[3]

This is probably the best solution. Short and factual and not particularly POV on either side. --Tone 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good suggestion. One minor issue though: The main reason for the current situation is the question if there was a foul to begin with. If there was a clear foul there would be no question as to whether the goal would or wouldn't count. I'm not sure how that should be mentioned though; "Alleged foul" sounds bad, and something akin to "Stopped the game moments before..." is slightly inaccurate.

Besides this, i found two more article's that might be handy as a reference:

The first one is a CNN article that seems to be nicely unbiased towards either side of the conflict, the latter one is an NBC Sports article dealing with the "Expedited review" in a neutral tone. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA comments

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone please provide me a good citation to support this comment Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Due to the influence of his decisions on the outcome of the match, FIFA scheduled Coulibaly for an expedited performance review^{[citation needed]}

After the match Martin Roberts reported for Yahoo Sports that according to a FIFA source the referee committee had evaluated Coulibaly’s performance on a series of factors, including his condition, positioning and decision-making and given him a poor rating.http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/source-u-s-slovenia-ref-gets-poor-rating--fbintl_ro-referee061910.html

From this citation it claims the review has happened .. The referee who disallowed a potential game-winning goal for the U.S. against Slovenia was given a poor rating following an expedited review of his performance Saturday, according to a FIFA source.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37792364/ - NBC Sports, claiming the review is up for Monday (Neutral point of view)
http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/source-u-s-slovenia-ref-gets-poor-rating--fbintl_ro-referee061910.html - Yahoo Sports, seems to be the initial source for many of the other article's talking about this.
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/referee-back-to-work-but-without-his-whistle/ - New York times related, but it is one of their blog posters. Not exactly a "Neutral" representation of the event, so i doubt this will be usefull
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704365204575316442793201922.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird - Wall Street Journal. Interestingly this source states it is a "Standard review" that every referee is subjected to after their match.

Hope this helps Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

- "Interestingly this source states it is a "Standard review" that every referee is subjected to after their match". Yes that would be imo clearly correct. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Others talk of a comment on Monday, tomorrow. I saw a comment in one of the citations from Sepp Blatter that refused to comment. Referees have a hard job and FIFA will not leave them out to dry and neither should we. I would leave the review comment out for a day and see what the outcome actually is. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This cite from Excirial does look like a quality report and should be included

Coulibaly's performance is undergoing a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704365204575316442793201922.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird - Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Coulibaly's performance is undergoing a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.

finished and formated cites, if there are changes we can update.

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86 minute Coulaby called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2, a decision which was criticized in the sports press.^[1]^[2]^[3] The match ended in a 2-2 draw.^[4]

^ "Robbed at the World Cup! Late goal disallowed as U.S. forced to settle for 2-2 draw with Slovenia". New York Daily News. June 19, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
^ "Slovenia 2-2 United States". The Daily Mail. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
^ "FIFA Studies Referee's Call in Slovenia-U.S. Match". The Wall Street Journal. June 19, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
^ "U.S soccer stars, Blogosphere slam world cup referee". NBC Chicago. June 18, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.

Can I add this? are there any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not neutral and does not accurately reflect the sources. If the review is standard, as the WSJ piece states, then it's unnecessary to include. Just remove the mention of a review, and if FIFA says anything later, that can be added. The major sources in the article are, on the whole, rather critical, and that should be reflected. Enigma^msg 19:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So you want the review comment removed? You then support the content? Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not exactly happy with the "Standard review" part. The majority of the sources call it "expedited review", with only the WSJ stating otherwise. There is also some conflict regarding the review itself - one source states it is Monday, another states he has received "a poor review" and others claim that it is still to be held - date and outcome undertain. Besides, the standard review part seems overly long and complex in comparison to the rest of the section. If anything i would suggest "Coulibaly's performance was reviewed after this match". At the very least every source agrees there is a review. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the review as per Enigmaman's comment, feel free to tweak if you still have issues. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a minor tweak in the wording, but other then that i think it is fine. Unless someone else sees a clear problem, i would support inserting it in the article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So there are User:Excirial and User:Off2riorob and User :Enigmaman and User:John that support the trim, John has also opened a new thread on the BLPN, that is four experienced wikipedia editors and presently we have content in the article that is clearly disputable with differing reports in different citations, I am going to add this content Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I don't support the changes. My only point was that if you're going to go by the WSJ instead of the other sources, then you may as well not mention the review at all, because if it's a standard review, why does it merit a mention? I felt the previous text was better. Enigma^msg 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You people have lost the plot. Reading this article, I get no idea that Coulibaly is a horrible referee who created a firestorm of controversy for his performance in the World Cup, the article is just "ho, hum, a typical day at the office for our man Koman, nothing to see here, just move along." That's total nonsense. These are the facts:

1. Coulibaly was an obscure government inspector until the World Cup came along.
2. He had his 15 minutes of fame in the US - Slovenia match.
3. He made a number of bad calls, against both sides, failed to control the match.
4. He became a lightning rod for criticism around the world. South African TV said he was a disgrace
to Africa and showed the world that African football officiating is third rate.
5. No one, with the possible exception of some Wikipedians with strong anti-American sentiments, has 
come forward to defend Coulibably. His poor performance and the wall of mystery FIFA erected around it, 
is an indictment of FIFA. You can read sentiments to that effect in the sports press in virtually 
every country in the world.
6. It is not the case that the pro-Coulibably element here is better informed about football than the 
anti-Coulibaly and anti-FIFA element.

This article needs to be reflect the controversy about the system that selects incompetent officials for the World Cup. One billion people saw this man totally screw up the match because he was clearly over his head. You can't hide that fact from the world, you simply undermine WikiCredility by refusing to own up to it.

Coulibably's 15 minutes of fame came from screwing up USA-Slovenia. Deal with it.RichardBennett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm going to stress that I think more international criticism should be added. It's been established that both Slovenia, the US, and several countries disliked how he handled the game, for more reasons than just one possibly miscalled foul. Other than the extremely adamant ones who treat this as a case of 'Americans being whiny', most people who are lenient on Coulibaly mention human error and "these things happen". They don't deny that the calls may or may not have been wrong. I'd also like more information on how he handled the game in general; sources have criticized how Americans weren't penalized harshly enough, some Slovenian's physical moves were ignored, the strange calls made throughout the game, and, of course, the called foul that people are struggling to understand. He's in the spotlight for these reasons and I don't see how adding the information makes the article more or less neutral, as long as it's not presenting the criticism as fact and (hopefully) some sources that treat the situation as an example of human error can be located. If a book receives almost completely negative reception, we're still obligated to add the reviews. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteArcticWolf. The section has been trimmed far too much and it was better the way it was before. Enigma^msg 02:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Inept football refs struggling to control a match will sometimes resort to issuing excessive cards. Spanish Alberto Undiano did that in Serbia - Germany, nine yellows and one red. How many cards did Coulibaly issue? Five against Slovenia alone, as I recall. I don't know why the article can't list the card count and a comparison to the normal level of cards in an international match. RichardBennett (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a biography detailing Koman Coulibaly, and not a summary and analysis of the match. I guess that listing the card count is fine, but this article is not intended to analyze and pick-apart a match with details on international card counts and whatsnot. That is exactly the main point here - this is a BLP article on a referee who has been doing matches for the past 10 years in several Africa cups and the world cup. This match, while important, is still only a blip in his total career, which means that we should not be dedicating long critical sections loaded with analysis in this article.

As for the new criticism section: Here is a comparison with the top being current, and the bottom being old.

On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86th minute, Coulibaly called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu scored, which would have put the Americans ahead 3–2; the decision was widely criticized in the international sports press.[10][11][12] The match ended in a 2–2 draw.[13]

On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. After the U.S. recovered from a two goal deficit, Coulibaly called an unidentified foul, later stated to be an attacker impeding a defender[10], against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2 in the 86th minute. [11][12] This led to widespread criticism in the international sports media.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Due to the influence of his decisions on the outcome of the match, FIFA scheduled Coulibaly for an expedited performance review. [20][10]

What was removed is the "Two goal deficit", the "Reason for the foul" and the "Expedited performance review" part, along with some of the weaker sources. The fightback and two goal deficit isn't really that relevant for the section (The third goal is). The impeding a defender part could be relevant but more then one source would be nice - still no complain from me if that is added back. Last, the "Expedited review" part has the trouble that there is no good sourcing. WSJ claims it is a regular review, Yahoo states it was an expedited review that was already held, and other sources claim that it is still to be held. For now, all we can conclude is that there is some kind of review. If anyone can find a clear source on this, please post it here. But to conclude: This is not an article intended to criticize this match. It should be included of course, but we don't need entire paragraphs on just one match. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should dedicate long sections to analyzing one match, but rather add that he received criticism for the game in general. It's as simple as writing "[he received criticism for...] as well as his ability to control the match, [etc]". Just an addition to paragraph, as well as finding any international sources. While definitely only one game, it's proven fairly notable and the reason he's been talked about as of late. I agree that anything in-depth should be left out and probably would fit in on a criticism page or section for FIFA 2010. I think the reported reasoning for the foul could be added, but I'd also like at least one more source. If only one source has it, then I'm inclined to say it's either an opinion or someone reported it incorrectly. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

removal of the match details

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit [2] the details of the match has been removed with the edit summary of Should not be included; he was not the referee of that match; not even a linesman. imo this is clearly wrong and requires reverting, the subject was a fourth official in that game and the details should be included if he was officially involved. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA does consider fourth officials to be important and have authourity in the match and are also there to substitute any injury. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He was not the referee. Show me one other article where the scores of a match are included in the page for a 4th official? That score could be included for the guatemalan ref for that match, but not Coulibaly. That fact that he held up a scoreboard to announce the Subs is not important or notable to his career. Should we include that Coulibaly went to the grocery story this morning? It would be only notable if the guatemalan ref had to be relieved by Coulibaly, which he was not. Dfourni (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So what if he wasn't the referee, he was a trusted official and the details of the match are totally fine to add. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the 2010 World Cup section. The article gives equal amount of attention to his blown call that is does to his ability to hold up a scoreboard. How is that at all indicative of Coulibaly? In 20 years, are people going to remember the blown call or his scoreboard holding abilities. If you want to keep that match in the article, then the controversy has to be greatly expanded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good that article is better to add such content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

excluded

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

This content is being added with the edit summary of,,add more on the current exclusion. imo it is excessive and POV, he was involved yesterday and may not have even been scheduladed to be involved in the next daysd match, are all the refereess involved every day? No. Is there an official statement from FIFA that he has been excluded? Or are there other quality citations supporting this claim that he has been excluded officially or because of this one bad call? Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

“

FIFA later excluded him from the next round, and reports indicated he would not work any more matches at the 2010 World Cup.^[1]

”

I disagree that it's POV at all, it's from a news article. What if we change it to "Reports indicated that FIFA excluded..." The article I cited says "FIFA confirmed Sunday that Coulibaly will not play any part in Tuesday or Wednesday’s matches, which will include the USA’s critical Group C finale against Algeria." Are we not supposed to believe news articles? --AW (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please present the additional reports that support your desired addition, thanks. It is total POV and should not be includsed without a stronger claim. We have no claim that he was to have been included, so it is incorrect to assert that he was excluded. 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

How is it POV? I fail to understand that. It's a news article saying that FIFA told them (the writers of the news article) that Coulibaly wouldn't be in the next round. And here's an ESPN article: "Interestingly, Coulibaly is not among the officials selected for the second round group of matches..." which to me confirms the first article. --AW (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, there is no need for additional sources, please return this sentence where it was. There is no POV in the sentence.--Gilisa (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He is not involved in some matches, that is all, he was involved yesterday and he is not excluded at all , FIFA have not saisd that, if they have provide the citations here please. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Both the Yahoo and ESPN articles were posted today. They are referring to matches after Sunday, as both articles state directly. --AW (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The referees are not involved in all matches, it is totally possible that he was not scheduled to take any part in these upcoming matches, have you got a citation that supports that FIFA has excluded him from these matches or a comment from FIFA that they have or intend to punish him or exclude him in any way|? no FIFA have not said that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, that is possible, except that in the Yahoo Sports article which I quoted above, it says "FIFA confirmed Sunday that Coulibaly will not play any part in Tuesday or Wednesday’s matches, which will include the USA’s critical Group C finale against Algeria." It's a quote in a news article, FIFA said that to the author. I don't understand how you can ignore that. We don't need an audio recording to trust a news article. --AW (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

AW, there is no problem with the quoted sources, and POV is realy far fetched here. I think you can reinsert the excluded sentence again. --Gilisa (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just did, with some hopefully clearer language. Would you mind taking a look? --AW (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done job! Hope it won't be reverted. --Gilisa (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

References

^ "FIFA drops referee after dropped call". Yahoo Sports. Retrieved 21 June 2010.

Controversial/Incorrect

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I added the word controversial in the opening section. Can the word just be changed to incorrect? There is no real controversy about whether the call was correct. Almost everyone agrees that the call was wrong. Saying he made the wrong call is as controversial as saying the Earth is round. While there are people who believe the call was right...there are also people who believe the earth is flat. Dfourni (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think controversial is fine, as "incorrect" is more of an opinion, not a fact. --AW (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Denkinger's article starts off with incorrect. I'm just not sure if controversial does the decision justice. It would be one thing if there was a 50:50 split on whether the call was wrong, but it seems like an overwhelming majority agree the call was wrong. Dfourni (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but I'd argue that in baseball it's a little more cut and dry -- you beat the throw, or you didn't. In this case it's more up to the ref what's too much contact or no contact or what have you. Also please take a look at the welcome message I posted on your talk page, there's some useful stuff there. --AW (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stick with "controversial" unless there is something far more definitive, such as FIFA, or Coulibaly himself, admitting he was wrong (not that I would expect that to happen anytime soon). The call is defensible in theory. My reading of the media is that the vast majority agree that it was a bad call, because whatever the Americans were doing, Slovenia was doing more of it, and under those circumstances, whistling the US was a bad use of discretion. I personally agree with that, and I am not arguing that the call was "right". But I don't know that we can say with encyclopedic certainty that he was absolutely, factually, wrong. AW is right to point out that these sorts of calls depend on discretion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps labeling the call as "highly criticized" in the lede would convey the proper impact while avoiding the use of opinion? Ronnotel (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with highly criticized Dfourni (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV template again

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I have tagged the article as NPOV , weak claims all about how he has been excluded by FIFA etc. fifa later confirmed to yahoo sports that they had excluded Coliby from the second round.. fifa did no such thing at all. What fifa did was choose from a pool of referees say 100 the 20 it needs and as the tournament goes on less and less referees are needed and they start sending some home, all fifa did was sent out a list of names that they have chosen to referee the next games, Coliby is simply one of the names not chosen, fifa will not comment about a specific referee, there is also no quote for the claim in the article from fifa that it is highly unlikely that Couliby was work anymore matches. Also POV is adding that so far Couliby has offered no explanation for the call,-why should he? Its like adding a double negative- so far jonny hasn't said anything about it. we don't add POV like that. We report what has happened not what has not. Off2riorob (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Yahoo! Sports citation was a complete mess - The "highly unlikely" bit came from the phrase Yahoo! Sports revealed on Friday that Coulibaly was “highly unlikely” to take any further part in the tournament after being given a poor evaluation by assessors following his decision to disallow Maurice Edu’s 85th-minute goal. FIFA confirmed Sunday that Coulibaly will not play any part in Tuesday or Wednesday’s matches, which will include the USA’s critical Group C finale against Algeria. Obviously the "highly unlikely" came from Yahoo Sports, not from FIFA. So that entire bit has been removed, since it is just Yahoo Sports' guess, not an actual FIFA statement. Only the bit about not being selected for second round has been left in.

As far as "no explanation" - if you think that's POV, you should have seen what was there earlier about "why he blew the call". Honestly, I think it is helpful to know that it hasn't been explained - the natural question in any controversial topic is, what's the other side of the story? However, it would be nice if there were also something to the effect that it isn't normal for refs to have to explain or justify their decisions, so that readers would know it isn't unusual. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know good sources to offer that balance, or I'd do it myself. For now, I've settled for excising the Yahoo guess.

-- Joren (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I agree about the "no explanation" becoming part of the story and absolutely mandatory for inclusion. I know that FIFA doesn't have requirements/expectations of openness that Americans have come to expect in our sports, but the fact that there has been no comment on the matter from the ref or FIFA has become part of the story here. This morning on Mike and Mike on ESPN radio they were comparing the response of MLB and Jim Joyce after Joyce blew a call with FIFA and Coulibaly. Needless to say, they were not too complimentary towards FIFA. There has also been a fair amount of commentary, here in the US, about how there are different expectations. Off2roirob, I am guessing that you are probably not from the US, and having soccer officials not comment on the sport is part of your cultural expectation. To you, it is normal that they don't bring it up, "why should he?" That is NOT the expectation in the US. Our expectation is that he explain what he saw and stands by his call or he apologizes, the perception (right or wrong) is that his failure to do so is cowardly and an admission of guilt. I am not going to say it is right or wrong, hell, objectively it is probably better to have a "no comment policy", but that is not the cultural expectation in the US. As this story (probably) has the most traction in the US, his failure to comment and FIFA's silence, have become a key part of the story. Off2rio, I bet you that if you looked at 100 articles on this published in US sources, 95% of them would mention that he hasn't commented---and 10-20% of them are making a big deal out of this. It might not be fair, as Coulibaly is probably acting within his normals cultural expectations (the ref doesn't comment) but his silence is providing a feeding frenzy among US sports commentators.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be cultural, in fifa referees never commet as to why they made any decision and fifa also never comment.as for the feeding frenzy if the USA go through tomorrow this article will be a ghost town. He should not and cannot comment, I will answer for him, he did what he thought was correct at the time and he did not hace the benefit of cameras and afterthought. Referee do not comment adding that he hasn't commented is like saying Ihave a shadow in the sun.

That's fine, but it does not make it any less of the story. He may be doing what he is expected to do, and we can include that in the article, but the fact that he isn't talking/explaining is part of the story.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he won't officiate another match is rather telling. The article can state that he was not chosen to officiate matches in the ensuing rounds. Enigma^msg 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Enigma, Rob's point is that we don't know why he isn't officiating another match. Is it because of some unspecified sanction or is it because the pool of referees is going down? Rob is arguing that his reduced role is a result of natural attrition rather than cognizant sanctions. (I do think that rob is wrong, Coulibaly was originally scheduled to officiate a game on Sunday and according to ESPN(?) he was replaced on Saturday night.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We have this Coulibaly was not chosen to officiate in the second round through June 23, 2010. beyond that we don't know and fifa have yet to say. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This quote from the assistant referee from the Yahoo article "When asked if the controversy following the Edu no-goal had affected Coulibaly, Candido replied: “A referee is like a player. When they lose an opportunity to score a goal, they put it behind them." is an admission that Coulibaly blew the call. So much harsh language merits inclusion. Further, if Yahoo is using their sources to state that he is "highly unlikey" to ref a match again, then that can be included. It is a news article, not a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't hard to find the article that has "highly unlikely" in it, guys, I just Googled it to answer these questions. However, it's still not too certain: "“If he is found to have made a serious mistake, especially one that affected the outcome, then he would be highly unlikely to play any further part in the tournament,” said the (FIFA) source, who is close to senior figures on the refereeing panel." However, I did find this article, stating that FIFA gave him a poor rating, which I will add. --AW (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the research; it is good to know where that came from. However, asking our readers to do that is a bit like giving someone a broken glass and saying "here, duct tape it." :) Google or not, if something in an article contradicts its own reference, it either needs to be removed or a different, supporting, reference used. Now that we *do* have support, it would be possible to re-add the "highly unlikely" quote with a citation to this article, since it clearly and unambiguously attributes the quote to FIFA. Of course as you pointed out, it's still rather vague about specifically who within FIFA said this, and possibly rather sensational. I suppose one could say "An anonymous source within FIFA claimed, according to Yahoo Sports, that..." oh bleh. Never mind, maybe it's better left out after all.

-- Joren (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Poorly cited POV content

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Discussion

This content is just an attack, poorly cited and just an attack by American editors on a poor referee (living person) that it is normal to make the occasional misjudgment, and easy to claim this sort of rubbish, content results in an attack, with all of those valueless citations, awful. The content is clearly not neutral and opini0onated, as in imagine what the content would look like and cited to Slovenian reports, answer, a lot different.Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I spend the last couple of days guarding this article to prevent citations akin to "According to newspapers XYZ, the decision was awful" from entering the article, with other editors working just as hard to prevent recentism, judgments and vandalism. I would equally point out that the BLP policy does not forbid criticism as a whole, as long as it is well sourced. Currently we have citations from the New York times, NBC Chicago and others, including a French and a German source to reference the "International" claim.

If you see something that is poorly worded, please go ahead and reword it to be more neutral, and if something is especially bad, go ahead and remove it altogether. However, there is no reason to remove the entire section. The incident received plenty of coverage and therefor at least warrants a mention. Our job is making sure that this mention is proportional to the rest of his career, and that it is in no way judgmental. In other words: There was an incident, The media commented on it and a review was scheduled. If we stick along those lines we should be fine, as long as we don't start judging whether or not this was a bad claim.

Besides, you should have a look at the user pages of people who work on this page. Quite a few identify themselves as non-us. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's an attack on a referee. He did draw criticism, people didn't see the foul, and he is slated to have a review; that's fact. It's notable because several countries have criticized him and it's a pretty big deal currently, even if the US team is trying to move on. People are doubting his ability to handle a game, both for that call and for other strange calls, as well as the way he responded to players and heated situations. Commentators have mentioned that it wasn't just one misjudgment, but several (for example, I believe a US player should have been given a red card, but was given a yellow). All that I think should be done is to clean it up and cite the sources in a proper format, and, if they can be found, sources mentioning the other calls he made, towards both the US and Slovenia. Also, where are these Slovenian reports? This one has several sources in different languages and reputable English sources; what makes them "rubbish"? We can't assume that the Slovenian reports look that different if we don't have any. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You could add, the Slovakians thought he refereed the game very well but the American supporters thought he was wrong and as usual a lot of people blamed the referee. He made two mistakes and 5000 correct decisions. As you can see from the addition of todays match, that is more like it, neutral and not pointing the finger of blame, he also made some incorrect decisions today and some correct ones, the way it has been written it results in a tabloid match report style titillating attack. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We used to have some content on the Slovenian PoV but it ended up being removed as WP:Undue and over coverage; In general the Slovenian conclusion could be summed up as: "He made some mistake's on either side, so he did a good job in general". As for todays matches: I am exceedingly glad that the article is receiving some more content besides this "controversy" to balance things out. My opinion is that the current wording is more or less neutral, but as i said: If things should be worded differently, feel free to make a suggestion. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It does need a write in a slightly more neutral way, less accusatory more balanced, choose the strongest of the citations especially for the claim the he is going to be under a official review and that he was given a low rating, where are the official FIFA comments regarding those claims? Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about the Slovakian perspective (or did you mean Slovenian?), and nothing's been added about the Slovenian's thoughts. It doesn't matter who supports the team or not; fact is, there's controversy internationally. If you have reliable sources and don't depend on just POV and original research (which your first suggested inclusion is), then feel free to add it as long as it doesn't create a bias for or against the ref. Also, how would you make it less accusatory? I don't think FIFA ever published a statement on a website; I think it may have been verbal a announcement. In any case, the sources used are reliable and commentators have mentioned it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Slovenian user here. Not much of a soccer buff myself, so I haven't actively pursued the matter, but I did watch the match, and the general feeling of the commentator (at least in the first half) was that he let slide several dirty moves by the US side and was therefore somewhat leaning towards being supportive of the US team. Again, this was the first half, I went out to see the second half on a big screen in a noisy bar, so I couldn't quite follow what the commentators had to say about the referee then. I did however look this up in a Slovene newspaper that I happen to have lying around right now, and the article on the game says that "the third goal was annulled for a foul that may very well not have occurred". The only other thing there is in the article on the referee is that "it became obvious from the very start that the referee would allow wrestling moves and kung-fu punches by the US side, for instance, Dempsey hit Ljubijankič in the head with his elbow and did not get a yellow card for it". TomorrowTime (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! Then it seems both sides were fairly critical, and I agree. He seemed to have trouble controlling the game and making good calls, and both sides suffered because of it. I don't consider the called foul a single misjudgment, but rather one made on top of several others. I think the article should reflect that it's not just a bunch of Americans sore over a call, but several people upset by how the game was handled. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I can provide sources for the above, but they'll be Slovene only... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That would actually be useful, if not for this article then for other FIFA 2010 articles. It's fine if they're in Slovenian, as long as someone can provide an accurate translation of the important bits and translated quotes if possible. And don't feel pressured to translate or anything; there is a Slovenia Wikiproject, so I'm sure we can find someone. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's something I dug up on the go: [3]. It's an interview with Mr. Drago Kos, a public personality (specialized in corruption cases) and international soccer referee. The questions pertinent to the discussion are Nos. 5 and 6, the ones beginning with "Obrnimo se na" and "Napako pa je". The questions and answers translate as follows:

Let's discuss the matches of the Slovene team. How would you comment on the work of the Malinese referee Koman Coulibaly, who was in charge of the Slovenia:USA match?

That was some of the worst referee work on this WC. I have to say, I can't tell why he disallowed the third goal for team USA, so the American side is justified in complaining. But in the end, complaining doesn't help, and we can only be satisfied.

On the other hand, not penalizing the American player for striking Zlatan Lubijankič in the opening seconds of the game was also wrong, don't you agree?

There should have been a penalty for that transgression, and from there on it became obvious he doesn't have the best feeling for the game and for the fouls committed. The whole thing only got worse, up to the point where a misjudgment gave us an advantage.

As I said, that's just on the go, I don't have time right now to go further, but I'll look around and try to provide a couple more links. This particular one seems to be appropriate, since it's the words of an actual licensed referee. BTW, I know blogs can't be used as sources, but just as a point of interest, here's a short write-up in a blog that pretty much sums up how Slovenes in general feel about the game. It's in English: [4]. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Very interesting and helpful. This definitely will provide an alternate look at the game and give an/some article(s) a world POV. Also nice to see that both sides seem to agree, for one reason or another, that the ref did a bad job overall. The article helps to clarify that it wasn't just a tiny misjudgment, but wrong calls throughout. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note that this article has been placed in the Flagged revisions trial due to ongoing vandalism. Changes to this article by non-auto-confirmed users will not normally be visible unless "accepted" by a more experienced user. Please see this article for more information on flagged revisions. Ronnotel (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

In the next match the referee also disallowed a clear goal for offside, this was clearly visible in the videos., everyone shouted referee in the end USA football team went through top of their group to the next phase and they all lived happily ever after. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And nobody cared about the goal... it didn't generate the outrage or coverage that Coulibaly's miscall did. Ergo, it wasn't noteworthy. If Coulibaly had said what the call was at the getgo, it would not have materialized into an issue. But refusing to say what the call was, is what created the air of secrecy.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

tweak... In the next USA football team match the another referee Frank De Bleeckere also disallowed an American goal, this time for offside., everyone shouted referee in the end USA football team went through top of their group to the next phase and they all lived happily ever after. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this lessens the controversy surrounding Coulibaly...WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And in the previous match, Coulibaly blew a call that cost the USA the match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's a red herring.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why that matters to this article, or why you're on such a crusade here. Enigma^msg 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, he does seem to have some sort of agenda... namely that he's upset that this incident has garnered international attention and rather than dealing with the facts, that there was a controversy over the call, he seems to want to make it about "why the call doesn't matter." If that's his agenda, fine, it is a dumb thing to get worked up about. But guess what, it happened. I mean, it's not as if we are dealing with a sport whose fans have prestine reputations for behavior and decorum.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede, again

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments15 people in discussion

I agree with (or at least would not contest) some of Off2riorob's other changes, but I do not agree with the deletion from the lede of the following sentence: "He is best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia." This is true, and neutrally stated. No one outside Africa would know who he was otherwise. Opinions? --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you should put it back in. No one can really argue that he is not best known for that.128.12.134.172 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

merits inclusionDfourni (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is what he is best known for... it is like many other isolated incidents which often become defining moments of a persons career. This is what he will be known for in 90+% of the world.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that the most notable thing about him is one decision that is questioned is a bit much imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And imo adding such a comment to the lead is nothing less that an attack. He is most notable for making a mistake in not allowing America a have a goal. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That wording would be attack, but not the way it originally was. Further, there is precedent in other articles to include it ( Don Denkinger and Jim Joyce ) In those articles, they mention the umpire's mistake as what they are best known for. In this lede, it is not even outright stated that he made a mistake (even though it should). Dfourni (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He is a football referee they by there very nature make decisions supporters of teams don't like. Don denk is no president for this article, I fail to see what I am even talking to a person that makes edits to italian articles adding a famous for diving category. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, it seems like you are the only one against including it. I think you need to edit it back in at this point. Dfourni (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A ton of people are best known for making mistakes. Being best known for making a mistake is not an attack, if it is factual. Would we be discussing this if he wasn't best known for it? Hint, the article has been edited almost 400 times since the incident and less than 30 prior to it. All but 3 edits to this page have stemmed since the incident. Would 99% of the people who have commented here be here if it wasn't for this incident? Have any of them commented on ANY of the other referees? Do ANY of the other referees have a fraction of the coverage/google hits that Coulibaly has? What percentage of Google hits for Coulibaly reference this event? Sorry, but while he may have had a stellar career, this bad call will be what he is best known for. (Now if the US goes on to make it to the second round, and this botched call ends up not mattering, then the furvor might die down, but if this refs call changes the course of the World Cup...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh another interesting point. In June, this page has had over 167,000 hits. Do you know how many occurred before the match? Less than 1400.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Who says it is a mistake, its all POV keep it out of the lede, leave him alone move on the tomorrows match. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

All Referees make controversial decisions that is there job, one side doesn't like it (thats your side) and the other side does, please move along to tomorrows match, that should be your interest now. This person will not be remembered at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So by one side you mean the rest of the world? America, Germany, France, England, South Africa, Greece, etc... are all closet USA fans? The face that you keep claiming this is a USA - Slovenia controversy shows that you are out of touch with what happened. It would be difficult to find a reputable Slovenia article which states that the call was correct. Dfourni (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point? Judges make court rulings all the time, but some judges are best known for specific rulings. Athletes are paid to play sports, but some are best known for making a great play or blunder. Actors are paid to act, but some are best known for specific roles or even scenes. The fact that somebody is best known for a specific act is not a new (or difficult) concept. Yes, referees make controversial decisions all the time. Coulibaly made other controversial calls (some in the game in question) but that isn't the question, what is the reaction to the calls? How often does a controversial call get international attention? Hell, how often does the coverage of said controversy garner coverage? The coverage of this controversy has garnered coverage! The facts of life are that people often garner notoreity/fame from a single point in time. A lot of famous people, would have gone unnoticed if not for a single incident that (often unfairly) defines their carreer in the public eye.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@Off2riorob - you appear to be arguing against consensus here. If the edit in question was poorly sourced or unnecessarily negative then I would agree with you per WP:BLP. However, IMHO, neither applies and on balance it is a service to the reader to state up front why the subject is notable. I'd like to see some sort of statement included. Ronnotel (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not an attack, and it's not just the USA that disagrees with the call. I haven't found one source that actually says it was a correct call, and (though this is OR), not even one person. Bring us a source that says Slovenia liked the call. Bring us a source that says any team/nation liked it. The sentence doesn't call it a mistake (it calls it a controversy) and doesn't even state which side had the goal disallowed. People can be best known for mistakes. People can be best known for affairs, plagiarism, riots, and much more. It doesn't make it an attack to say it. And, yes, referees often make bad calls, but it's not uncommon to become known for one. We should still locate a source that says he made mistakes throughout the game, of course; commentators and such have stated that it was more than just that huge error, but he was making all sorts of strange, disagreeable calls throughout the match (such as not giving a US player a red card). But it still remains that the most important part of the match in which he became notable was disallowing the US goal. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WhiteArcticWolf and rest, he's by far best known for that call, and saying it's a controversial call is not a violation of POV or BLP or anything else. I understand your concerns Off2riorob, but I think they are overstated. --AW (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing i would point out though - he didn't disallow the goal, he whistled before that goal ever happened (Actually, he whistled right before Maurice Edu actually hit the ball). In other words: He called a controversial foul which cost the US a goal. The Lede should probably be modified to reflect this, as it is currently not entirely accurate. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? I have not heard that and if it were true, then that would change the entirety of public comments here in the US. Blowing the play dead is a very common theme here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've personally heard it both ways, but I don't think it necessarily changes the controversy. Commentators and other have analyzed the footage to find anything that would be appropriate for a foul, but they still haven't found anything substantial. In any case, if disallowing must be changed to calling a foul, then it's fine--nothing really changes as far as the criticism/controversy goes. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And if the blow was before the whistle, then wouldn't the ref have reset the field and have them re-kick it?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the assumption is that a foul was whistled against a US player immediately prior to Edu scoring the goal, but I have only hearsay that supports such a notion. I would suggest the most balanced way to describe the event is that an apparent goal was disallowed because a foul was called on the play. We know a foul occured during the play which ended with an apparent goal, but not exactly when the foul was whistled. Jogurney (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, we had the text "In the 86th minute, Coulibaly called a foul against the U.S. less than a second before Maurice Edu scored". I'm not sure why it was taken out. The Wall Street Journal source has this to say: Slow-motion instant replays show Mr. Coulibaly starting to raise his hand and blow his whistle as Mr. Donovan approaches the ball. Mr. Coulibaly's eyes are focused on the center of the penalty area where U.S. players Jozy Altidore, Clint Dempsey, and Michael Bradley are all in contact with Slovenian defenders. Mr. Dempsey is closest to Mr. Coulibaly and appears to try to shove his defender aside as he begins a run for the goal, though such a move is typical on free kicks that are sent into the penalty area. Further confusing things, the NY Daily News source says that "Maurice Edu's goal was disallowed in the 85th minute" and that "Coulibaly whistled no goal. At first, it was assumed he called offside. There was a foul, but it was a mystery as to which player was guilty.". I dunno, seems like the WSJ's account is pretty detailed and refers to slow-motion replays, and for that reason I'd be inclined to trust it over the other; however, I'll leave that to everyone's better judgment. (it could simply be that the Daily News is referring to Coulibaly's call effectively disallowing the goal since it took place after the call, even if by a fraction of a second)

-- Joren (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though the whistle blew a fraction of a second before the ball went in, I think it's perfectly accurate to call it a disallowed goal the same way in say, a scenario in which a basketball player took a game winning-shot that was waved off because time expired would be a disallowed basket. Technically you could say the play was "blown dead" before the ball hit the net, so there never was a goal to disallow, and though I can sort of get the argument I don't quite understand how it's more correct (again, what source is there to its correctness) and especially not any more useful. Let's be clear here, when the ref blew the whistle, a fraction of a second after the ball hit the net or a fraction before, is really unimportant. ElAnimalSalvaje (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment This should absolutely be in the lead. It is what he is known for, like it or not. Enigma^msg 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether or not he should be known for this does not change the fact that he is.

-- Joren (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment For all the claims about how no one has defended the call, I came across one, linked to from one of the article's refs, without even looking for it [5]. I'm not surprised, saying 'no source' has done something for such a hot topic is a sure way to be wrong. And yes AFAIK it's generally accepted that he blew the whistle before the goal was scored. I wasn't even aware there was any dispute about this to be honest since it was something that was commented on and replays show even in the live coverage I saw so I would be wary about using any source which doesn't at least note this possibility (that it was before the goal was scored) since it calls into question whether they analysed the situation or really paid any attention at all. It would also be helpful if we use better sources the the tabloidish Daily Mail & New York Daily News. For something like this they must exist surely? Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some qualms about using that one. While the Associate Press is notable and the writer seems experienced, it plainly states that they have the reason for the foul, no question about it. I'm fine with saying that there has been criticism, but not saying outright he messed up. Likewise, we haven't had any indication that Coulibaly called a foul for that particular reason, as no official, be it Coulibaly himself or someone from FIFA, is actually talking. Others sources definitely exist; it's wont be too difficult to track them down. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Football referees make controversial decisions in many, many games (read: most). I accept that such decisions are the main source of coverage and interest in referees, and the World Cup is a large stage. Still, the statement in the lead about "best known for controversially disallowing a goal" in the recent World Cup match comes across as too heavy. I'd settle for something more like "has recently received attention." It's been his performance over the entire match that was called into question, and the foul before the invalid "goal" was the climax.

A note on the word choice: it's constantly referred to as a "disallowed goal," but for what it's worth, Coulibaly didn't actually "disallow" the goal because he didn't have to. He stopped play with his whistle before the ball was kicked by Maurice Edu. A player kicked the ball into the goal after the referee blew the whistle to stop play. This goal isn't disallowed. It was never valid to begin with because play was stopped immediately when the referee blew the whistle. That the player(s) continued is of no relevance. A "disallowed goal" is when an apparent goal is scored, then ruled out afterwards because of an infraction - that is, not whistled until after the apparent goal has seemingly been scored.

Wikipedia's articles on football referees should not become a compendium of transgressions against the United States. Jorge Larrionda is another example (and in desperate need of cleaning up). The articles should be careful not to give too much attention to the opinions of television commentators as if they are unbias or even qualified assessors. For example, John Harkes, who covered Slovenia vs. United States, has often demonstrated a lack of knowledge when it comes to the rules of football. Slow Graffiti (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Disallowed goal not decisive

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Is it worth mentioning (briefly, of course) that the disallowed goal had no effect on USA's match since the ended up winning their group? How about something like: "USA went on to finish first in their group." Ronnotel (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting, it would have definitely been noted if the point would have resulted in the US not making it. I also think the fact that the US made it, the animosity towards Coulibaly will decline.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To say it wasn't decisive is incorrect. As, had it been allowed, the result of the game would have been different. So in that regard it was decisive. It proved less decisive, or less damaging, or less important, once the United States won the group and progressed to the second round. It was most certainly decisive though. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the "decisive" wording either. It was very decisive in that it affected the outcome of the game, but like you said, it wasn't as damaging as it might have been had the outcome negatively impacted the US' progressing to the next level.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How about: "The impact of the disallowed goal on USA's tournament was limited to the first round as they finished first in their group." Ronnotel (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, how about instead "Despite the controversial call, the United States progressed to the second round as the top team in the group"? How does that flow? SirFozzie (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Ronnotel (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Much better than what was there.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How about instead "While the controversial call affected the outcome of the game, the United States progressed to the second round as the top team in the group"? I think it should be clear that the goal in question was crucial for the game, but beyond that didn't impact the World Cup---except maybe to get the USA to actually watch it!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go along with that. SirFozzie (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede, again, again.

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

Looks like another couple edits attempting to remove this sentence from the lede: He is best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia.

We already discussed this above, and it seemed that most people agreed with the idea that he is indeed best known for his performance, while a few postings suggested tweaking the wording away from the single call made during the America-Slovenia game, and a couple others disagreed with the whole sentence. I have restored this sentence because it was the result of discussion here, however it certainly isn't written in stone by any means. I would encourage those editing to make their comments and suggestions for how it could be improved here, rather than slugging it out on the article's history page. It is best that everyone be fully represented here on the talk page, so that an honest consensus can be reached. Thanks :)

-- Joren (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... This seems to me to be a case of systemic bias. Your claim that he is "best known" for his one controversial decision is based on a discussion between Wikipedians. The average perspective of Wikipedians does not reflect an average human perspective, due to systemic bias. He is perhaps best known in the United States for that one decision, but he officiates primarily in Africa. Given the outright erroneous referee calls in the 2010 World Cup in the England v Germany and Mexico v Argentina games, which attracted international attention and sparked significant debate on FIFA officiating rules, I very much doubt Coulibaly's decision has much lasting notability beyond (or perhaps even within) the one country it affected. Saying that he is "best known" for his one controversial call means that he is best known for it not just in the US, but around the world. I would suggest that, outside Africa and the US, he isn't particularly known for anything at all, and that his notability stems from his being an experienced referee who has officiated many games in the Confederation of African Football, rather than from one incidental call in one other game. To put it differently: Have those who claim he is "best known" for that call read the African press (including in its paper-only versions) over the course of Coulibaly's career, to get some idea of what he is known for? If not, you can only state what he is known for in the narrow context of US football fans, and not within the broader and more notable context within which he is better known. Aridd (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Referees/Umpires should generally fly under the radar. You should not know who they are and they should not become household names. Jim Joyce has had a stellar career as a baseball ref, but his reputation will forever be tied to the blown call that cost Galaraga a perfect game. Heck, just a few weeks AFTER that blown call, baseball players voted him the best referee in baseball! But he is best known for that game changing call. Don Denkinger is another referee who is best known for blowing a call, this time in the World Series. Everytime somebody blows a call in baseball, Denkinger is the one the sports people call to get his perspective. Don too had an amazing career, but this one blown call dominates his legacy. Or how about Walt Coleman, you know (to quote WP) is most notable for being the referee in the game that became known as the "The Tuck Rule Game. Tim Tschida is probably best known for a widely disputed "phantom tag." We have books that highlight bad officiating calls. The fact is, that Coulibaly's career will be noted by this high profile game. In May Coublibaly's page was visited 843 times, in June over 190,000 times---the vast majority AFTER the game. Everytime there is a controversial call in soccer in America, this play will be brought up. Do a web search on Coulibaly, it will be hard to find articles that don't mention this play because it has come to define his career. Similarly, in the future, because of the coverage this play received, it will linger. Coulibaly may have a successful career outside of this call, but this play made him a household name among millions of people.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an important service to the reader to establish the subject's notability up front. One of the occupational hazards of being a referee in a high profile match such as the World Cup is the possibility of blowing a call - as happened here. The statement in the lede is well-supported by the reliable sources and NPOV. It should stay in. Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for replying here instead of continuing the edits. It is encouraging that you are attempting to help find consensus before editing again.

As to "Your claim" - no, please don't make it about me. I did not author the sentence; I am simply trying to implement consensus. If consensus changes, so be it, (and you can be a part of that change!) but consensus must always take priority. We are not talking about my own personal opinion (I already stated that elsewhere). I wrote that "we already discussed this above, and it seemed that most people agreed with the idea that he is indeed best known for his performance, while a few postings suggested tweaking the wording away from the single call made during the America-Slovenia game, and a couple others disagreed with the whole sentence." I chose those words to best encompass the discussion so far, in an attempt to work towards consensus. Please note "performance" does not equal one controversial decision unless you choose to read into it that way.

My main point is that, rather than disruptively edit warring, the parties should come here to work out a consensus. Again, if consensus changes, so be it, but it must always take priority or else Wikipedia descends into chaotic edit warring. My message is: do not use the article history pages to make your point, come here instead. Whatever your opinions, we should at least be able to agree that discussion is better than edit warring, and I am glad you are participating in this process. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, the fact that Coublibaly's Wikipedia page was visited more after that match, and the fact that web references focus on that game, and the suggestion that "Everytime there is a controversial call in soccer in America, this play will be brought up" do not in themselves necessarily establish that this particular game gives him the most international notability. Which is why I asked: "Have those who claim he is "best known" for that call read the African press (including in its paper-only versions) over the course of Coulibaly's career, to get some idea of what he is known for? If not, you can only state what he is known for in the narrow context of US football fans, and not within the broader and more notable context within which he is better known." And which is why I said this may be a case of systemic bias. This may be what he's best known for in the US, but the US is just one country. There may be other aspects of his career that give him far greater notability among football fans throughout the whole of Africa. He officiated the final of the CAF Cup! To put it a different way, imagine Pierluigi Collina officiating a match between Mali and Chad, and declaring a controversial foul which deprives Mali of a crucial goal. In Mali, where people may not have heard of him before, Collina would thence be known above all for that one controversial decision. But in Europe, where he officiates most of his games, Collina is already well known for his distinguished career, and that one game would be incidental at best. Would we give prominence to the understandable annoyance of Malian fans? I think not. Coulibaly is considered one of the very best referees in Africa - good enough to be selected for the CAF final, the most important game in the confederation. To Africans, his one questionable call in the US v Slovenia match is likely to be incidental at best. That's unlikely to be what he's known for, in most of the countries in which he's known. Wikipedia page views or Google hits are of no use to us here in establishing his notability; all they give us is the perspective of Internet users, and primarily of Americans. To determine what Coulibaly is "best known" for, we would have to examine in particular the Africa media over the course of his career - including media which cannot be accessed via the Internet. That's what's meant by "systemic bias", and I would encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy page on the issue. Aridd (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And the refs that I pointed out above, Jim Joyce, are also considered among the best refs in ttheir respective industries. Jim Joyce was voted by the players as the best umpire in MLB just a few weeks after he blew a major call, but that one calle will become the one he is best known for. Similarly Don Denkinger was an outstanding ref, but he is best known for blowing a call. Your comparison to Mali is disingenous. If the same thing happened to Mali, lets face it, it would not have generated the international spectacle that it did. Is it systemic? Yes. But what international news organizations does Mali have? Do they have ESPN? CNN? USA Today? The Wall Street Journal? Those may be American outlets, but they have international readerships. Would the event be covered by other countries if this happened in Mali? What is the likelihood of other countries covering the outrage in Mali? Very slim. But other countries covered this event because we are talking about it in the US---there are several links at the top of this page covering how this very article was targetted by vandals because of the call. I have no doubt that Coulibaly is a great ref nor do I have any doubt that he is respected in Africa, but this call made him known internationally---and not just in US media. If we were to limit it to "just Africa" then we would be adhering to regionalism, this call caught the attention of the international world. It will be a call that will be talked about for years (just as there are previous bad calls in World Cup Soccer that get Italian and German fans in uproars.) Also, remember that most people do not know the names of refs/umpires, they generally fly under the radar until an alleged mistake is made. Most refs/umpires are best known for their controversial calls (just look around at the various refs/umpire articles on WP and you'll see that is true.) Coulibaly is known outside of Africa explicitly because of this call and how the American Media Giants and Bloggosphere came down on him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For something like this, if there's the least controversy about it (and I think the discussion above does demonstrate some disagreement) it should be omitted from the lede in the mean time. --John (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

John, I agree; the claim in the opening section does not seem entirely objective or unquestionable. Balloonman, it is likely that there are more people in the world who know Coulibaly because he officiates CAF matches at the highest level than there are people who dwell primarily on his questionable call in USA v SLO. The fact that most of those who know Coulibaly for his career in the CAF are Africans is immaterial. The point is, the statement in the opening section of the article is unverifiable (unless someone wants to somehow conduct a thorough examination of Coulibaly's notability in the CAF context), probably false, and at the very least questionable. Even if it is true, it can't be verified, so it can't be claimed as fact. Aridd (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(wc)Standing consensus is that he is best known for this incident. This is what has generated not just US based commentary, but international commentary. Aridd, can you show international coverage of him aside from "he was the ref" prior to this incident? We could add something to the effect of "outside of africa he is best known for"... but the reality is that this is what he is known for.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Standing consensus among Wikipedians doesn't mean that much in such cases, unless those Wikipedians do come from a fairly broad variety of countries. (Again, see the policy page on systemic bias.) And I'm not convinced that Coulibaly is actually known at all beyond Africa and the US. The sources used in the article for negative coverage of his decision in USA v SLO are all American media (with one exception), and a quick browse on the Internet doesn't bring up any significant international coverage of the incident. Certainly not to the extent of suggesting that more people know him for his bad call than there are CAF followers knowing him for his prior career. (Compare coverage of his call with coverage of the blatant errors of referees in ENG v GER and ARG v MEX, which sparked widespread debate on the idea of video assistance for referees, and thus had widespread relevence.) You could say "In the United States, he is best known for...", but then, such a sentence would have no place in the opening section of the article. Aridd (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't take me long at all to find ENGLISH sources on this from a number of countries:

The Shanghai Daily stated Worse still, Coulibaly never had to account for his terrible decision, or explain it to anyone. Referee decisions in football, no matter how egregiously...' but it's a pay site.

And then there are a number of articles that are talking about coverage of this in other countries.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you were to take people who have actually heard of Coulibaly, it's a fair bet that most of them would be African (or at least followers of CAF games). And if you asked all these people what they know about him, it's still likely that a majority would refer to his career in the CAF, and to top games he's officiated there (a CAF final, several semis...). That being the case, it is highly questionable to claim that he is "best known" for that one match. The fact that international media have reported on the match is not entirely irrelevent, but close; you would expect it for any World Cup game. Does that mean there are significant numbers of people in India or Korea or Germany or Ireland who know or care who Coulibaly is, and who would be able to tell you if you asked? I think not.

The sentence in the opening section of this article cannot be taken as a statement of fact. At the very least it's questionable. The article itself gives promince to the USA v SLO match, so it's not as if the sentence in the opening section is needed. Per WP:BLP, a negative statement which is an inference rather than a sourced fact, and which is essentially unverifiable, should probably be removed altogether. If there's no consensus for removing it, I would suggest a rephrasing: "Outside Africa, however, he is arguably best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia." Aridd (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I could go along with something along that wording. Think of it in these terms, if you were to talk to somebody about Coulibaly, what single event would most of the world use to identify him? They would not say, "He's a ref for the CAF" nor would they "Coulibaly officiated the final of the of 2010 African Cup of Nations between Ghana and Egypt." They would say, "Coulibaly was the ref that made that call against the US in the world cup." (They wouldn't even have to say what call they were referencing.)

You are right, most people probably couldn't tell you his name (similarly most people do not know Joyce's name---referees should fly under the radar---they generally are not known) but they know the event. As for sourcing it, facts that are commong knowledge or easily demonstratable generally do not require sources. If necessary, we could go out and find scores (of reliable sources that include CBS, San Francisco Chronicle, Columbia Tribune, US Today) that describe how he is the most hated ref at the World Cup and blogosphere. (If we include blogs and what I consider second tier sources, there is even more support for the inclusion of something.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment behind this edit, I have to say this makes the text read like a "compromise" was involved instead of a desire to write well. How about something like: "Coulibaly became broadly notable by controversially disallowing a goal. . . (etc)"? I think we can all agree that Coulibaly was not broadly notable - even in Africa - prior to the call. I'm open to other phrasing. However, I just don't buy the idea that he was all that notable, even in Africa, before USA-Slovenia. Ronnotel (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No. On this I think Arridd and I would agree, Coulibaly was notable BEFORE the match and deserving of an article before he gained infamy. A referee on an international level of any sport, but particularly something as prestigious the World Cup, is notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC) EDIT: I just read your last sentence, and don't know where you were going with the first ones and your proposed wording. The proposed wording is flat out wrong. The only difference between before and after the match is that before the match, he wasn't as widely known. After the match, his notoreity increased. He is no longer one of the X number of ambiguous referees, but he is now "the" referee who sparked off a flurry of media coverage due to a controversial call. That is why I think it is important to include this event in the lede... this call sparked more media coverage on him in the past month than he has probably received in the past 17 years! He has been under closer scrutiny (both in and out of Africa) than possibly any other time of his life; even sources that defend him are only doing so because this has become the defining moment of his career.[6][7]. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding the phrase "outside of Africa". Also, it occurs to me it is hard to prove what one is really best known for without resorting to original research. The best we could do would be to rely upon a source that says what one is "best known for". Normally I'd be happy to let such a claim stand alone (and still am, by the way, in a case where the majority press coverage worldwide seems to be related to this game, it does seem like a sky is blue situation), but perhaps in this case we could do with trying to source this claim, especially if there are significant regional variations (e.g. Africa).

-- Joren (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to find a reliable source for "most hated referee" than the specific term "best known for." There are a number of "blogs" that have best known for, but nothing specific. I also don't think it is necessary to have a specific source that says that, when somebody is known because of a specific event and that event is the central theme of just about everything written about him (even those items written in foreign country's.) It is not original research to conclude that it is what he is best known for--there are sources that talk about how prior to this event he wasn't known outside of Africa or how this event made him a "household name"[8][9][10][11]. I would argue that it is not OR to state that the event that made a person a "household name" would also be the event to which they are best known.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to use that specific phrase, it just has to mean the same thing. See Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling_facts_and_information, which while not a policy page, is still common sense when it comes to figuring out what OR isn't. Relevant phrase: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names." In other words, if you actually have sources that substantiate how this has made him a "household name", that's the same thing, and it would serve to reinforce the statement in the lede. Unfortunately, these four sources only refer to it in the context of his becoming an American household name, but I'm sure we can do a little more digging and find something that refers to his worldwide notability.

-- Joren (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The limitation here isn't the lack of sources, but rather the lack of the ability to read/research the foreign languages. Here is some anecdotal evidence from WP showing that this is true. First, if you look at the number of articles in foreign languages on Coulibaly today there are 18. On June 14th, there were 8. That means since the match, the number of articles on Coulibaly has more than doubled as a result of this event.

After the match, the Arabic article more than tripled in visits[12]

On the German version of wikipedia, the visits to his page jumped from around 30-40 to over 1600[13]

The French version jumped from from 10-15 to over 400.

Polish Wikipedia article jumped from around 10-15 to over 180.

The Italian version jumped from 10-20, to over 600.

The Dutch version had an infinite jump... from 0 to 1[14]

Portuguese jumped from less than 5 to 115[15]

Spain was weird, the article appears to have been created, but interest in the article really occured at the end of the month... perhaps they have a version of DYK where it made their main page?[16]

The Swedish version was created a few days before, but jumped to 61 and the declined[17]

The Chinese version was created a few days before, but jumped to 57 and then declined after the match[%E7%A7%91%E6%9B%BC%C2%B7%E5%BA%93%E5%88%A9%E5%B7%B4%E5%88%A9]

The Spanish WP mentions this play in it's 3/4 sentence blurb.

The German version dedicates 50% of the article to this event.

About 20-25% of the Italian version talks about this match.

The Chinese version, which I can't read, talks about something happening on 6/18/2010... which has to be the controversial goal. If that is the case, then about 1/3 of the article is on that play.

Whatever language this is is one of the more complete articles on Coulibaly. While it appears to mention the event, it does not appear to do so in an extraordinary measure.

Now not every page mentioned the play, but many of these pages are on WP's that are so small that the articles haven't been edited. With the exception of the last page I mentioned, the one's that do have it, it is a significant portion of the article and like I said most of the articles have been created after the event and ALL had significant jumps in viewship as a result of this game. Now I freely admit that this is OR, but it shows that the interst has increased in foreign countries. Again, the lack isn't due to the lack of resources, but rather the ability to read/research the languages.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a German article on the bad refereeing in the World cup that talks about Coulibaly[18]. And an article on the game itself[19].---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ack! Sorry to make you do all that digging. That was an interesting take on it, seeing all the wiki stats. Actually, I agree with you that he's best known for this. Again, it seems like a sky is blue thing to me. I think most of us agree, just... I thought it would be good if we had a source that explicitly stated that this made him famous, so we could avoid charges of OR. Especially since this is a BLP thing, if someone does a drive-by-tagging of that lede statement, I want to be able to have a source for it. That's all. I'll try and look for one myself when I get a moment alone with Google -- Joren (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is the point, when something is obvious or easily verifiable, then it is not OR to state. I think it is fairly obvious that this event is what he is known for... he may have been known in Africa, but even there, I suspect people knew him about as well as American's known the typical NFL Referee or MLB Umpire. They are there, they may be notable, but ask even fans to name them, and they won't be able to. I suspect that even in Africa his name was mentioned a lot more after this event than before it... even if by sources defending him and decrying racism/nationalism and criticizing the US overreaction.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In the news

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The contentious editing of this article has been covered in the mainstream press, including the story below. - Dravecky (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fisher, Max (June 18, 2010). "America vs. World Cup Ref's Wikipedia Page". The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Koman Coulibaly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koman Coulibaly. 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/20100621235250/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldcup/referees/referee=1611/ to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/referees/referee=1611/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koman Coulibaly. 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/20100529000139/http://news.abidjan.net/article/?n=355934 to http://news.abidjan.net/article/?n=355934

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] "Robbed at the World Cup! Late goal disallowed as U.S. forced to settle for 2-2 draw with Slovenia". New York Daily News. June 19, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.

[2] "Slovenia 2-2 United States". The Daily Mail. Retrieved June 20, 2010.

[3] "FIFA Studies Referee's Call in Slovenia-U.S. Match". The Wall Street Journal. June 19, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.

[4] "U.S soccer stars, Blogosphere slam world cup referee". NBC Chicago. June 18, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.

[5] "FIFA drops referee after dropped call". Yahoo Sports. Retrieved 21 June 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

Talk:Koman Coulibaly/Archive 1

Contents

Untitled

Malicious edits

See Also

FIFA 2010

Seriously... merge?

Coulibaly's Expedited Performance Review

Tagged POV

write

FIFA comments

finished and formated cites, if there are changes we can update.

removal of the match details

excluded

see also

Controversial/Incorrect

NPOV template again

Poorly cited POV content

Discussion

Flagged revisions

Update

Lede, again

Disallowed goal not decisive

Lede, again, again.

In the news

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified