Talk:Nigel de Jong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

He's actually on the standby list for the World Cup due to the injuries the Dutch team sustained recently. He may actually be on the roster, so I don't know why it says that he missed the 2006 World Cup before its actually even started.

Nigel de Jong is a disgrace and should have been awarded a red card for the world cup final along with a life time ban. His showed this true colours in the final and the national team must distance itself from him or take accept responsibility as the disgraceful drity team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.135 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese roots ? ? ?[edit]

Everythime when I see him with his new look it makes me think that he is partially of surinamese-chinese descent,just like Calvin Jong-a-Pin and Cerezo Fung a Wing. Karim Abdul Rashid (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Karim Abdul RashidKarim Abdul Rashid (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. He could have some Indonesian blood in him though. You can't be sure of this until there is a source. Spiderone (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Berg1115, 12 July 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the 2010 FIFA World Cup Final de Jong was issued a yellow card for a challenge on Xabi Alonso for what ESPN commentator Efan Okoku called a "kung-fu style kick." De Jong himself stated that he was surprised to not have received a direct red for the challenge. Berg1115 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivated. Article is not currently protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the bench at Ajax?[edit]

The article makes the claim that he was brought into the Ajax first team as a regular, then later on found himself relegated to the bench. But the statistics don't bear that out. His first two seasons in the first team, he made 32 and 31 appearances respectively. His final half-season, he made sixteen appearances. Until I just edited it to tone down its florid language, the Manchester City section of the bio was at pains to point out that sixteen is a really impressive number of league appearances for half a season. Binabik80 (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal life[edit]

Wikipedia is a source for relevant information on footballers. Part of that includes their background, ie if they grew up in wealth, poverty, hardship etc and other aspects of their life which may reflect their footballing character. People have been removing this information from de jong's profile without justification. This includes the cited information of how he was abandoned by his footballing father and grew up in council housing on government benefits, and how he now owns a global car dealership. This is directly relevant to a wiki bio. Deleting this info without justification is vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.240.229 (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Accusing other editors of vandalism for an edit you didn't like will not advance your case. On the other hand, correct referencing would be helpful. --Jaellee (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ben Arfa controversy[edit]

There is disagreement as to how the Ben Arfa controversy should be coveraged, in particular as to the appropriate balance to be struck between positive and negative reactions.Craddocktm (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you (Craddocktm) are the person pushing a POV here, throwing around adjectives such as "reckless" without any justification and addressing this latest controversy from a completely superficial, half-assed standpoint so that it reflects much worse on de Jong than it should do. Whether that was intentionally done or not does not really matter. I agree that the article should be about Nigel de Jong not Van Marwijk, however this whole brouhaha was created by the latter's words and actions and he is very much responsible for the current effects on de Jong's reputation (which is the topic that is being addressed here). Therefore those words and actions have to be placed in their proper context. If you are unable to present all the relevant facts and present them in their proper context so that the neutral reader gets a fair impression of what actually occurred then you should refrain from addressing this issue at all.

The facts of the matter are that this tackle was deemed a fair challenge by one of the PL's top referees at the time it occurred and it was not particularly upsetting to either the Newcastle bench or the Newcastle fans either - after the game the Toon fans were much more upset about Newcastle not being awarded a penalty for Lescott's mistimed tackle later in the game, and possibly even the penalty award for the foul on Tevez, than they were about the outcome of de Jong's challenge (which was put down to one of those unfortunate things that sometimes happen in a game). No particularly adverse comments were made about the tackle in the live TV match commentary and post-match analysis either - other than, of course, the obligatory mention that it is sad to see a player be carried off the pitch in that fashion - and in the match highlights that were later broadcast the incident was not even deemed worthy of being included. IOW, there was no controversial incident in that match until Van Marwijk started his attack on de Jong in the media ... after which, everyone with an agenda against either de Jong or Manchester City or both has since jumped on the bandwagon and it has now become open season on de Jong. To completely remove Van Marwijk and his motivations from the equation is to make nonsense of this whole incident.

My edit attempted to inject some of the above cold facts into the article in order to provide the neutral reader with a more balanced overall viewpoint in this controversy. I'm not claiming that my version is perfect and that I have successfully achieved the ideal balance nor that what I added cannot be further improved upon by others, but what I wrote was most certainly an order of magnitude better than the previous coverage of this incident (to which you have now reverted) which, because of its lack of thoroughness, comes across as being quite biased. Just because Van Marwijk and Kevin Poll claim it was a bad tackle does not make it so ... Martin Atkinson, his linesman, the fourth official and the F.A. all say it wasn't and none of those officials have a political agenda to push like Van Marwijk does, nor are they a national embarrassment and tabloid hack like Poll whose standard highly opinionated output borders on being "yellow journalism". To cite articles that present Poll's and Van Marwijk's POV without presenting the true context behind what they are saying is very much a case of presenting an overall distorted POV, as is failing to provide any reference to the more considered and better informed contrary opinions that support de Jong in this highly hyperbolic controversy. I also don't believe you should be citing media pages written by tabloid rag hacks such as Kevin Poll in a Wikipedia article ... they clearly fall into the category of "editorial opinion" and thus lack the objectivity necessary to meet the criterion of being a "reliable source" (RS).

My motivation for editing this area of the article was to add material that counterbalanced the overall biased POV that was presented to the reader by what you (Craddocktm) had written. It certainly wasn't intended to be a case of "unsourced POV pushing". Maybe this is a case of "two wrongs don't make a right". Perhaps what I should have done is simply remove your own incorrect "POV pushing" (backed with selectively chosen non-RS citations) rather than counter it with more of the same. Which is what I am now going to do. If this topic cannot be addressed objectively and fairly (WRT to Nigel de Jong's reputation) then it is much better that it not be addressed at all. Please DO NOT revert my changes a second time back to what you had previously written ... because that would be a case of your pushing your own POV yet a third time.

BTW, I don't necessarily condone de Jong's past tackles against Stuart Holden and Xabi Alonso (even de Jong admits that he should probably have been red carded for that one), but those tackles are not the issue here, although de Jong's reputation as a result of those previous poor tackles is very much the issue in this controversy. Any discussion of de Jong's tackle on Ben Arfa that automatically assumes it was a bad tackle based solely on his prior reputation, rather than on what he actually did, is by its very nature a biased perspective and I will revert it. Similarly, I will also remove any discussion of Van Marwijk's action in dropping de Jong from the Dutch squad that does not also address his true motivations for taking that action because that also presents a distorted POV. If Van Marwijk was at all serious about clamping down on reckless or dirty play then the first person that he needs to drop from the national team is his own son-in-law Van Bommel ... who has received nearly two dozen yellow cards in the last couple of seasons alone.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 19:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your accusation, check the history and you'll find that the word reckless was not added by me. Had I spotted it, I would be happy to remove it from the article - issue 1 solved.
One has to be conscious that it makes no sense to put too much emphasis into this incident - the article itself is not very complete and to give undue coverage to this incident will only make it look worse. I disagree with the assessment the current coverage is artificial - it covers the main points of the sources and for the reasons given, it is unwise to elaborate too much on the sources. As to Van Marwijk, it suffices to say he is seen as the one behind the Netherlands' anti-football tactics at the WC final. Any further elaboration gives nothing extra to the de Jong article.
I have no issue with "presenting the proper context". However, your claims about the fairness of the tackle remains original research and no sources are given to back your claim that the referee deemed it a fair tackle. Remember WP:BLP says that the editor inserting the information bears the burden of referencing - and that unsourced edits should be deleted without discussion. Moreover, what I understand is that the referee never declared it a fair challenge - the fact that he did not stop play can be due to a whole range of factors, one of which may be that he did not spot the full extent of the challenge. If you wish to assert that the referee did not deem it a foul despite seeing the full extent of the challenge - prove it with a source! If you don't substantiate your edit Wikipedia policies allow me to revert it. Simple. It's the same for the reaction of Newcastle players. Find the appropriate source to support it or it will be removed.
By now you should see I am a strict enforcer of WP:BLP and WP:V. My stance is the same to all articles.
The speculation on Van Marwijk's motives is a serious matter - it is definitely not ok to provide your own speculation. Also WP:REDFLAG says exceptional claims require exceptional sources - so tabloid speculation is not ok for this matter. A higher standard is required. (I would imagine the BBC or the Times would be reliable enough for the present purpose)
Describing your edits as "cold facts" does not help either. First, you described Poll as "controversial", which is BLP violation in itself and POV pushing as well. To say Van Marwijk's act is "calculated" is to characterize his conduct - something not cold at all and deemed as inappropriate by WP:NPOV policy (c.f. "Characterizing opinions of people's work"). You also characterized the tackle as "fair", a label which again violate NPOV guidelines. If you have the sources, you can say the referee deemed it fair, but you can never say it IS fair. See?
The reference to "Many other observers" is also not okay according to NPOV guidelines - claims must be attributed to specific persons.
You find my edits as biased purely because of your personal preferences. It should be observed that under my edits about equal coverage is given to negative and positive reaction. NPOV guidelines require "Balance" - something which your edits simply do not have.Craddocktm (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To others: I propose reverting to this edit: [1], subject to deletion of the word "reckless" from the first line. Craddocktm (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My accusation WRT to your use of the word "reckless" is right on the money. It is completely irrelevant who originally added that word to the article. What is relevant is that I removed it with my edit and you specifically added it back in again. I'm sorry, but you have just been caught red-handed. Deny it as much as you want, you will just make yourself look even sillier. I'm just glad that you now realize the error of your ways. Also, stating that de Jong received a yellow card for his tackle on Stuart Holden is another false fact that I've removed that you have just stated (in the last line of your post) you fully intend to reinstate back into the article. Do you have no respect for the truth?
I completely agree with your point that giving undue coverage to this incident will only make it look worse, particularly given the skeletal nature of the article. Which is why I've reduced it to the bare facts. Ben Arfa's ankle was broken as a result of a challenge by de Jong that was not even deemed to be a foul by any of the match officials. To claim that it was anything other than an unfortunate accident is a to present a biased POV. That is just one possible opinion WRT that specific event. To cite a tabloid demagogue such a Kevin Poll as a RS to validate pushing your biased POV simply won't fly because his Daily Mail article is all unsubstantiated opinion and no fact ... thus it DOES NOT meet the criterion of a RS. No one cares what a failed referee turned tabloid hack, who doesn't know how many yellow cards make three, thinks about anything. So why even quote him and attract attention to his article? It does not objectively substatiate anything other than a POV which you wish to push.
Similarly, to mention Van Marwijk's subsequent dropping of de Jong from the Dutch squad without also mentioning the political context of that act is also a case of knowingly presenting an incomplete picture ... which is just another way that you found to push a biased POV. To state that de Jong was dropped from the Dutch squad because of Van Marwijk's honest desire to clean up the game is as much of an opinion (and quite a laughable one) as to state that he did it in order to make a scapegoat out of de Jong in order to rehabilitate his own public image. If you state one of those opinions you must state both of them for the sake of balance. I suggest you state neither. You can state that de Jong has since been dropped from the Dutch team but you must do it in a manner that does not make it sound as if it is a natural consequence of his tackle on Ben Arfa. Because it is not. What Van Marwijk did is unprecedented. But then again most other national teams don't have such a nepotistic setup as the Dutch national team. You cannot simply pretend there is no conflict of interest involved here.
As to your statement that "no sources are given to back your claim that the referee deemed it a fair tackle" I don't have to produce any sources. You cannot burden me with the task of having to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove a positive - viz. the burden is on you to prove that it was an unfair tackle given that the referee was standing within ten yards of the incident with a clear unhindered view of it but did not blow for a foul; nor did he even hesitate as if he was considering that possibility; nor did the linesman flag for a foul; nor did the fourth official intervene because he considered both of them wrong; nor did the players on both sides stop play as if they were expecting the incident to be called out in some way; nor did the Newcastle players appeal for a foul even after play continued; and neither the Newcastle bench nor the Newcastle fans were up in arms over the challenge regardless of what the players and officials were doing on the pitch. So for you to claim a week later that it was an unfair challenge is pure revisionism of what really transpired and it's pure POV on your part. I can add a link to a video source as an RS to back up what I just stated above ... and anybody who saw the game knows that it is true. Based on the questions you wrote above you clearly haven't seen this game, so why are you even editing this topic? What proof do you have that it was an unfair challenge other than your own personal bias plus a recourse to demagoguery from tabloid hacks like Kevin Poll to back up that biased POV?
As you yourself have written, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources - so tabloid speculation is not ok for this matter. A higher standard is required. (I would imagine the BBC or the Times would be reliable enough for the present purpose)" I quite agree. So why don't you practice what you preach? It was your heavy use of tabloid references that between them provided an overall distorted opinion of this incident that caused me to update your text in the first place. I now feel that adding alternative POVs to counter the POV that you were pushing was the wrong approach. I should initially have done what I did the second time around which was to remove anything you had written that I felt had a POV bias.
Just to summarize what we are agreed upon here:
(1) Only quality and reliable media sources such as the BBC Sport pages or articles in the Times, Guardian and Telegraph newspapers should be cited as RS support, NOT tabloid news sources such as the Sun, Star, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror or other dubious / marginal sources such as goal.com.
(2) Giving this incident undue coverage is not desirable so this section of the article should stick only to the facts so that this incident is not blown all out of proportion. Those facts are that there was a tackle that the match day officials deemed to be fair which led to an unfortunate broken leg, and the F.A. has subsequently gone on record that it endorses the decision of those officials. Nigel de Jong has subsequently been dropped from the Dutch squad. Adding anything beyond that simply adds a POV, and once you introduce one POV you have to add all the alternate POVs for the sake of balance, which will then violate our goal of not giving this incident undue coverage. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 03:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not even add it back - I merely reverted your edit. If the source doesn't say de Jong got a yellow card for the Holden challenge, remove it. I can't care less. You can attack me further if you want - but that would be a violation of civility requirement on Wikipedia. Always comment on the edits, and not on an editor's character. Any further attack on my good faith, I shall make sure I'll flag an administrator here for some comments.
READ WP:BLP - the onus is on you to prove. Don't twist the rules. WP:BURDEN says: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Straightforward application of the rule means that anyone who wishes to add the Newcastle reaction or the ref's decision bears the burden. It doesn't mention negative and positive or whatever said by you. READ before producing statements (OMG) like "I don't have to give sources" that clearly run contrary to WP policy. And I don't have to watch the game in order to "qualify" to edit on Wikipedia.
Your mere stance makes it clear you are POV pushing: you clearly feel that de Jong has not done anything wrong - that is a POV in itself. The exact problem is you trying to uphold your so-called "non-biased" POV, which is a bias in itself. You try to discredit Graham Poll, who is a former referee, while you try to rely on Andy Townsend and Van Bommel? Come on... Do you know what the word "balance" means? It means presenting conflicting view points. I don't see how you can ever justifying quoting so many non-RS sources (according to your standards) and simultaneously slate opposing POV and still declare yourself neutral. I suggest you read WP:NPOV before commenting any further coz I don't think you have the slightest idea what it is about.
Despite Poll appearing in Daily Mail, I consider him a reliable source because he is a qualified referee. You can claim you wish to "balance" my "biased" POV, but anyone will see that your edits present only one side of the story.
In my edit, there is actually mention of criticisms of van Marwijk - suggest you read carefully.
For your information, it is your fellow supporter Stevo1000 who added a host of sources and edits to support de Jong without adding opposing sources. What I did was to clear it up by presenting opposing views. Stop making false accusations that I am pushing a particular POV.I have never said the challenge on Ben Arfa was dangerous - it is you who keep claiming it is fair. In my edit, I did not place ANY label on the tackle, but mention both sides of the story - both support and criticisms for de Jong. It is you who are pushing the article towards the POV that de Jong has done nothing wrong - which violates NPOV. Get it? A well written WP article should mention notable opinions and let the readers decide for themselves. To suggest one view point is better than another (such as by discrediting Poll and conclusive labeling of the tackle) is already POV pushing.
I still suggest reverting to the aforementioned edit, subject to:
* removal of the mention of the yellow card for the tackle on Holden
* removal of the word recklessCraddocktm (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And despite your claims, de Jong was booked for the challenge on Holden: [2]. You certainly have a lot of "respect" for the truth.Craddocktm (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a response ONLY to your last comment; I don't have the time to address anything else right now. Did you even watch that particular game? Or is this another case of your editing the article despite not knowing what you are talking about? The big outcry over that tackle at the time it was made - at least over here in the USA - was because many people felt that de Jong should have received a straight red card for it yet he wasn't even booked. Many also felt that he should not have made such a 50/50 challenge in a match that was only a friendly (but that is beside the point here, other than that was also another significant factor in fueling much of the anger directed towards de Jong WRT that tackle, as was the fact that it looked like the leg fracture had lost Holden his opportunity of playing in South Africa).
I don't know how to square that situation with that BBC Sport article other than to suggest that the author of the article got it wrong in this particular instance. I personally favor the BBC Sport pages over most other web sources because they are usually the most objective and they have a higher level of accuracy and detail. But they are NOT infallible ... they are, after all, written by humans and humans do make errors. I offer you these three separate sources (which is all I have time to locate right now, but I know there were others at the time) that support my statement that de Jong was NOT yellow carded ...
(1) video of the incident. Listen to the commentary all the way through to the end of the clip; it is mentioned that de Jong got no caution for the tackle very near the end.
(2) "Turkish referee Cuneyt Cakir didn't even show de Jong a card and barely disciplined him."
(3) "One the U.S.’s top eight players nearly gets his leg snapped in half, the player responsible doesn’t even get a yellow card"
It is entirely possible that the cameras and commentators did not catch the referee showing de Jong a yellow card (and that would frame the vast majority of people's view and memory of the incident) while anyone that took the trouble to review the referee's report after the game would have discovered that he had indeed been cautioned. That said, I would still like to see other RS that support the booking before it goes into the article. I'm not trying to sanitize de Jong's reputation here, but just keep the reporting in the article objectively truthful and honest.
And on that note, I will make one final comment. You make WAY TOO MANY assumptions, particularly about what I believe and don't believe, and what my intentions are for the article. Please CEASE AND DESIST. Such assumptions include that I am claiming that the Ben Arfa tackle is fair. I have not made a decision one way or the other yet. I am only claiming that the match officials deemed it fair and the F.A. have not overturned their decisions. That is uncontestable fact. I believe the F.A.'s investigation into the incident is still ongoing. We have in the West the concept of the presumption of innocence, and until the F.A. says otherwise I must presume (whatever I actually believe personally) that the tackle was fair as deemed by the officials - as must you. If you can prove it wasn't a fair tackle you have the burden of supplying the proof of such - and hateful opinions and comments in blogs and articles do NOT constitute such proof. They are merely POV.
This tackle only became contentious as a result of Van Marwijk's actions and comments and that man's integrity WRT this situation is seriously in question. If it had been, say, Alf Ramsey or Sven-Göran Eriksson or even Fabio Capello that dropped de Jong I would put much greater credence in that action and would permit comments such as "de Jong's latest tackle has caused him to be deservedly dropped ..." etc. to be added to / remain in the article. But not so with Van Marwijk. He has his own agenda and this whole brouhaha is as much about him as it is about de Jong, if not more so. That means anything he says and does WRT de Jong is NOT objective and thus represents a POV - his POV. Based on his media record I have as much confidence that he dropped de Jong for the benefit of the game as I would have in an incurable alcoholic taking care of my drinks cabinet.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For christ's sake you are teaching me about presumption of innocence? I was trained in common law. I was not even trying to say it was an unfair challenge - I wish to leave it to the readers. It was you who wrote it was "fair" - the history of the page is evidence. And it was you who failed to give sources on the referee's decision. Craddocktm (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is irrelevant what you wish. You are currently in dispute with at least 2 editors here WRT to your biased POV pushing. Therefore you should NOT be adding ANYTHING to this article that has not first been submitted here in order to attain an agreed upon concensus amongst the three of us (or more if others join this discussion). To blatantly revert the article back to the version you wish to push, and which got us into this situation in the first place, and to put back in all of the stuff that has been removed by either Stevo1000 or myself as part of this dispute is in violation of so many Wikipedia guidelines that I can't even start to list them. Your stubborn refusal to accept guidance and input from others and work towards concensus with other editors, but instead to do solely as you please in pushing your own agenda, has now moved this dispute into an "Edit Wars" situation. This is your last warning. DO NOT REVERT the Reputation section from its current version in the article again otherwise I will contact the admins. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Report me and it will be you who will get into trouble. Wikipedia is not a democracy - having another biased editor on your side does not mean anything. The fact remains that you cannot point to any actual bias in my edit, save for the word reckless which I have said is an inadvertent mistake. I WILL continue to edit the article and in accordance with WP policy. This place is not owned by you. I DID NOT even revert to the version I wished to push. And IT WAS YOU who got us here. Don't forget your edit which stretched the section to 3 paragraphs long, all slanted to one side of the view. In fact, look at the bottom of the page and it was Stevo's suggestion to include the reactions of the Ref. City and Newcastle. IT IS A CONSENSUS. I am not edit warring in any way - I have thoroughly discussed it with Stevo at the bottom of the page. I DID NOT REVERT. DO NOT DEFAME ME. THIS IS A WARNING. Explain as to how my last edit push the POV or else I should revert back.Craddocktm (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For christ sake, look at what others write: [3]. Craddocktm (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, you need to step away from your PC and give it a rest for awhile. You have become obsessed with your POV pushing agenda here. This is NOT your own personal article. You do NOT have the right to dictate to others what it contains and does not contain. The fact that "City were bemused" after the Ben Arfa incident is NOT a piece of information that is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. You also backed that comment up with an RS citation to an article about de Jong renegotiating his contract with Manchester City which is NOT a valid citation for that piece of information. That is why that comment has been removed. The fact that City felt that it "was under siege" is also NOT worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It was also supported by a citation to a tabloid newspaper. Those are the two reasons why that comment was removed. To quote you from your own comments elsewhere in this discussion:
"Also WP:REDFLAG says exceptional claims require exceptional sources - so tabloid speculation is not ok for this matter. A higher standard is required. (I would imagine the BBC or the Times would be reliable enough for the present purpose)"
"Like I said, I am fine with disposing of media opinions."
Your continually saying one thing in this discussion but then going off and doing the complete opposite raises serious questions regarding your credibility as an editor with good and honorable intentions. Nobody appreciates being lied to ... I know I don't.
The fact that Newcastle wrote a letter to the F.A. after the game is also not a piece of information that is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Almost every weekend there are a number of clubs that write to the F.A. complaining about refereeing decisions. It is neither newsworthy nor pertinent material for an encyclopedia article. In the rare cases where the F.A. actually acts on one of those letters then that action might possibly deserve a mention, but even then it would depend entirely on how significant the issue was and what the F.A.'s corresponding action was. In most of those case it would still be irrelevant and frivolous information to put in a Wikipedia article. That is why that comment has been removed.
Update added 11 Oct 2010: Today the F.A. announced it is taking no further action re the Ben Arfa tackle in its response to Newcastle United's letter. This most certainly means that this letter should not be mentioned in the article - it's now a complete non-event. Someone writing a letter that got rebuffed is hardly encyclopedia material. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 20:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment that you added that "The referee saw the tackle but did not punish it" is also completely irrelevant. There were numerous other tackles in that game that the referee saw and similarly did not punish. That's because referees do not punish valid tackles. Discussion of individual tackles in a game of football is frivolous detail and does NOT belong in a Wikipedia bio article. Also, if you are so interested in establishing a balanced POV why do you not also mention that Williamson's tackle on Tevez should have been punished with a red card dismissal instead of just a yellow card. He was the last defender and cynically hacked down Tevez when he was through on goal with only the goalkeeper to beat. The rules of the game state categorically that that is a mandatory red card dismissal. Newcastle were extremely fortunate that he stayed on the pitch. Perhaps the reason you did not mention that incident is because it does not fit in well with the one-sided POV you are trying to push here? Blatant POV pushing and frivolous detail is why that comment was removed.
Finally, for the second time, PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST from attacking my character in both your comments here and in your edit summaries. Do you really think that no one else has noticed that you never add an edit summary to your edits EXCEPT when you want to make a negative comment about me? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who is attacking my character - in particular accusing me of lying. If you take time to read your own discussion, you may realize it is very offensive in the way you write. I am not even "dictating" things - it is the product of discussion below. I must point out that you removed materials WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSION even though it was the CONSENSUS of ME AND STEVO later in the discussion. Please explain how the sources are irrelevant - whether a source is irrelevant depends on what it says in the text, not in the title itself. The sources given support the edit completely.
I have said I am happy with changing the source on Newcastle's reaction to a more reliable one - it is reported in the BBC if my memory doesn't fail me. It isn't even an extraordinary claim in any sense - Newcastle's complaints are well documented. Opinions may be more extraordinary, but it is beyond reason to describe this piece of fact as extraordinary.
I also said I was happy with disposing of media opinions - which include opinions from Andy Townsend and Graham Poll - but not Newcastle or Man City's reaction. They are facts, not opinions. And they are football clubs, not part of the media. It's funny how your logic works. What you are doing here, is continuously twisting the meaning of what I wrote and then accuse me of lying. Given your native language, I think it is not a linguistic error but goes to your mindset. To me this is completely unacceptable. Please give proper interpretation for my writings.
I do not intend to attack your character - and I retract any inappropriate comments, if any, in the heat of discussion - but you must read your edit first. [4]. Do you seriously suggest this edit is neutral? It smacks of POV if you ask me. Please also tell me your opinion because if you still think it is neutral, I do not intend to waste time with you any more because I don't think there is any way to reason with you. Pro-de Jong POV occupied at least 3/4 of the section in your edit. You may feel de Jong's tackle was completely fair - but you can't write that into the article and for the sake of NPOV one must necessarily present both sides of the story. Present the views that it is regarded as fair by some and unfair by some. Let the readers decide. Okay may be I should not have said "POV pushing" coz you may not be intentional in doing it - but there is certainly "POV issue". If your edit indeed pushed the POV, I don't think that is attacking your character by pointing it out. It is ridiculous to suggest I write my edit summaries solely to attack you. If I am adding stuff to the article, it is unlikely to be contentious and hence there is no need for further explanation. However, I feel I need to explain more if I am changing substantially or reverting the edits of others. It is a practice of mine. If you check my contributions, I do the same for most articles.
Now I come to the issue of whether we SHOULD include the reactions of the ref, Newcastle and Man City.
As to the ref's decision, Stevo thought we should include it. You thought the same thing, but for whatever reason you seem to have changed your mind. The inclusion of the fact that the referee did not punished it was intended to favour de Jong and bring balance to the article. It hints the tackle might have been fair. However, as I have said, we DO NOT attach conclusive labels here so that readers can judge for themselves. If you want to remove it, fine with me. It was you guys who were pushing to include it, and I was doing you guys' a favour by including and sourcing it for you. Williamson's tackle on Tevez is in no way related to de Jong - so why include it? Does it actually affect de Jong's reputation or the fairness of his tackle on Ben Arfa? NO. It is completely unrelated to the POV of de Jong's tackle on Ben Arfa. Where is the logic? What you do very often, is the application of a label (like POV) without giving your reasoning process. Mind saying how the absence of Williamson's tackle on Tevez affect the POV of de Jong's tackle? You certainly run into difficulty there.
As to Newcastle's complaint, Stevo also thought we should include it. It certainly makes sense to include it because clubs, contrary to what you wrote, do not make formal complaints very often. It is also a hard fact.
As to City's reaction, it does not offer a very strong case for inclusion, but again, this is a POV in de Jong's favour - which makes me wonder why you are opposing it. It may or may not be included, and in that situation I think you ought to give effect to consensus here - which is inclusion.
Lastly, I make it clear that I have no intention to push strongly for the inclusion of the abovesaid materials. If you feel very strongly about their exclusion (for proper reasons), then exclude them. The problems I have with you is your attitude. If I have issues with the POV of anybody's edit, I will say in the edit summary that there is POV issue, and that should no way be taken as a personal attack. Craddocktm (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my observations, if anyone's pushing POV here, its Craddocktm. For you to come on here and and question neutrality, considering you've edited the page god knows how many times just because of de Jong's tackle is a bit naughty, to me it hints that you have a "point of view" opinion that you want on this page (I've already changed "Discipline" to "Reputation" and this opinion from you "moving leg breaking to new section: discipline. at least he didnt break alonso's leg." shows you want this page to be skewed in a certain way). The tackle is much ado about nothing if you ask me. The media have jumped on it, and being the media, they have made a story out of an unfortunate footballing injury, end of. To conclude, I'm not comfortable (nor happy) debating the neutrality of the page with a user who, from my observations, has a opinion skewed against de Jong. I look forward to hearing your explanation. Stevo1000 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations, Stevo, are just ridiculous. Why should I even explain anything when it is you who is trying to defend de Jong and push the POV. I have to edit the page, precisely because there are some here who are intent on legitimizing de Jong's challenge on Ben Arfa. I have to stress again I do not have a POV on this matter. I do not see why my moving of the incident to a new section implies I have a POV. When Alonso did not even get his leg broken, it makes no sense to mention him in the "leg-breaking" section. I am happy that you finally admit you have a POV to defend de Jong, since it is apparent from your edit: [5]. You added
  • the referee's decision
  • de Jong's studs not showing
  • that he won the ball clearly (a characterizing opinion contrary to WP:NPOV)
  • that van Marwijk was criticized as hypocritical.
  • that Newcastle requested punishment
  • that City were bemused
Out of the 6 points, only the Newcastle point can be said to be of an "anti-de Jong" POV. WP:NPOV highlighted the importance of balance, which is nowhere found in your edit. In fact, your edit made things seriously loop-sided. And you try to claim you have been neutral and not been POV pushing? Serious? You certainly have a lot of explaining to do if you insist you have been neutral. I suggest you stay out of this if you can't keep open minded about the incident.
As to "Mancini" (for convenience sake), don't mention de Jong got booked for his tackle on Holden then. As said above I can't care less. A yellow is nothing significant.
The issue I have with your edit, is that you said it was a "a strong but fair tackle". That is a characterizing opinion in itself. I am perfectly fine if you write "a tackled deemed as fair by the referee" AND subsequently back it up with a reliable source. Sadly, I see that nowhere.
As to the edit I wish to revert to ([6]), I think it is sufficiently neutral. A break down shows that:
  • Andy Townsend's criticism of van Marwijk
  • USA Today's criticism
  • Van Bommel's defending de Jong
  • Man City's bemusement
On the other hand:
  • Johan Cruyff's criticism of de Jong
  • Graham Poll's same criticism
  • Newcastle's request for punishment
I don't think any reasonable person can come to the conclusion that my edit has violated NPOV. There is balance, and also an impartial tone. I certainly can't see how you can say the edit is biased when it has sufficiently presented both sides of the story.
I don't think the current state of the article is satisfactory. By merely mentioning de Jong's omission from the national squad, readers will probably form an opinion already about him. That's why I remain convinced reverting to this edit([7]), subject to a number of small amendments as said above. I am also fine with adding the referee's reaction - my concern with regard to that is purely due to WP:V and not WP:NPOV.Craddocktm (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic you take an interest in regularly editing this page AFTER de Jong's tackle. I still stand by my statement that you are anti de Jong and I'm not on my own in that view. This is what I believe is fair:
Referee's opinion:
  • Referee saw the incident and took no action and stands by his decision, therefore the tackle was fair
And both club's opinions:
  • Manchester City feeling under "bemusement" and "under siege"
  • Newcastle's request for punishment
No past professional's or nutty, hyperbolic media opinions, just what the referee and the club's felt. End of, this is much ado about nothing, that is why my previous opinion on this page was straight to the point as this is a petty waste of time. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh lord. the worst aspects of wikipedia in a series of verbose, anal rants. the keyboard you used for this could have been put to some better use - shame. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you that this editor's contributions here have declined into nothing better than repeatedly posting anal rants and I'm not going to respond to any more of them. I think his argument that my pursuit of a "non-biased" POV was "a bias in itself" was the straw that finally broke the camel's back for me. That, and his continual insistence that he did not add the word "reckless" back into the article after I removed it - but that he merely reverted my edit, when anyone with half a brain can see he manually modified my edit (as opposed to reverting it entirely) - has made me lose all the prior good faith I was applying to this person. This editor would not know an objective truth or a neutral POV if it poked him in the eye. He is only editing this article with a view to finding as many different ways as he can to add negative information or malicious gossip about de Jong. Is there any way we can get this editor blocked from editing this page? I will most certainly get an admin. involved if he reneges on the above agreement we reached WRT valid RS and not to giving undue prominence to the Ben Arfa incident and, as he has been suggesting he will do, attempts to revert any of the updates I've subsequently made based on that agreement. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you blame me for inserting anti-de Jong material into the article? Because of your edits, the article was flooded with support for him and the only way to maintain neutrality is to insert contrary view points. There is nothing ironic. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone - it's a founding principle. I particularly find the need to edit it in order to restore neutrality rather than pursue my own agenda. It is precisely because of edits by users like you that I have to clean up the page.
You have continuously inferred (incorrectly) my intention/POV despite my protests to the contrary. Your accusation is completely groundless - nothing in my edits give you any reason to make such an inference. As said above, my edit was neutral. There was good balance in it. Or maybe you can read minds? It doesn't matter whether you are alone in your erroneous belief or not - only I know of my subjective intention and this page is flooded with City supporters any way. You may want to be more responsible with your accusations in the future.
No you can't say the tackle is fair even if the ref took no action. WP:NPOV says WP does not endorse particular view points. To say the tackle is fair is a characterizing opinion that runs contrary to WP:NPOV. I have said it like 10 times. You can include the referee's absence of action (but it must be sourced) - but you certainly cannot say it is fair merely because of that. I am fine with disposing of media opinions provided that you do not flood the section with opinions from Andy Townsend and USA Today. If you had respected NPOV guidelines none of the time of yours or mine would have been wasted.Craddocktm (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no agreement here. I said this edit of yours ([8]) was too long, but I consider my edit to be of appropriate length. Using degrading labels will not help you either. I am conscious you are trying to present only one side of the story and remove everything else. Shame on you. You think you are "unbiased" eh? Stop dreaming.Craddocktm (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a huge chunk of your edits and one of them was on van Bommel. I saw that was sourced, and so copy that, revert the edit, and add it in? Ok? You are driving me sick.Craddocktm (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. No one is calling you "degrading labels" at all. And how can you assume this page is full of Manchester City supporters, just because he plays for them does not mean so. Like I say: referee's view, being dropped by the Dutch team and Newcastle's and City's reactions are more than necessary for a almost "non-event" that has been given hyperbolic prominence in the media considering the referee didn't even stop the game. I believe those four reactions are fair considering their are two each side of the fence. Anything mor than that is giving a fair tackle (according to the laws of the game) completely undue prominence. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevo I am not talking about you whether I said degrading labels. Look at the guy above you (Mancini) when he said this is "anal rant". In this discussion, there's you, me and Mancini. At least 2 who had skewed the POV of the article in the past. And I actually agreed with you partly, if you read carefully.
What I am saying is, you have to be able to distinguish between a conclusively fair tackle on one hand, and a tackle deemed fair by the referee on the other hand. I am perfectly ok with the latter, because it is a fact. I am just not ok with the former coz that would become the view of Wikipedia - that the tackle is fair - when WP:YESPOV says "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides." Therefore, you have to describe the referee deemed it fair, rather than conclusively determine for the reader that the tackle is fair. Whether it is fair or not is a matter for the reader.
Like I said, I am fine with disposing of media opinions.
Note that WP:NPOV requires coverage to be balanced according to the weight / support for different views. Therefore, what you basically have to do is to regard the challenge as neither fair nor unfair and assess the reaction to the tackle and give due prominence to each reaction.Craddocktm (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of hyperbole in the above exchanges, which I guess gives it a similarity to the media circus over the tackle. I would exclude the final comment from Craddocktm from that, as it includes good advice. The article as a whole is very underdeveloped given that de Jong has played for prominent clubs in three countries, and has nearly 50 international caps, including a run to the World Cup final. I intend to address that in the near future, maybe then the Ben Arfa incident can be covered in a manner that suits all parties without any fear of it being undue weight. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel de Jong incidents[edit]

  • Sep 5 2009 Japan/Nakamura
  • Nov 14 2009 Italy/Palombo
  • Mar 3 2010 USA/Holden
  • June 14 2010 Denmark/Jorgensen
  • July 11 2010 Spain/Xabi Alonso
  • October 3 2010 Newcastle/Ben Arfa

I won't investigate further but I know this list is not complete. 82.126.240.103 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nigel de Jong. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nigel de Jong. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nigel_de_Jong&oldid=1207856802"