Talk:Wayne Barnes

Updating article while protected

Fully understand the reasons for protecting the page, but there have been a couple of relevant developments in New Zealand: the Deputy Prime Minister has weighed in: http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/36457/Default.aspx And NZRU chair Jock Hobbs said in a Radio NZ interview this morning that Barnes' performance had an "enormous impact" on the result and that the NZRU would be discussing it with the IRB, which according to RNZ has acknowledged that mistakes were made: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200710090809/nzru_to_pursue_concerns_about_world_cup_refereeing

Should someone with the relevant privileges incorporate these stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russb10 (talk • contribs)

Now the prime minister Helen Clark, has come out and said don't blame the ref. We should include that as well? The article has a couple of opinions, there's no need for it to have every notable persons and their dogs opinion on the subject. Wikipedia isn't for trying to resolve who was correct, by finding who has more supporting/opposing statements. The article has a paragraph that his decisions have caused controversy, if and when he is sanctioned for this controversy, then that should be added but at the moment it reads quite unbiased and until then it shouldn't change. ^Khukri 07:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Although admins can edit the article, they probably won't. Under the protection policy:

"Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page."

I don't think this page can be unprotected for another week at least. The topic is far too emotional for many New Zealanders -- consider the almost 500 edits to the article in the 37 hours after the match. That was more than the edits to the All Blacks in the same period. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no content dispute; the page is protected due to vandalism. It is a pain that more can not be added on this because of vandalism and hopefully an admin will expand the page a little. - Shudde ^talk 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shudde, there is no content dispute and the policy quoted above for administrators not to edit during editorial disputes shouldn't apply. And I agree with User:Russb10 that NZRU chair Jock Hobbs' intervention should be inserted now, as it escalates the dispute into potentially a full-blown row between the NZRU and IRB. Furthermore, quite a lot of media attention is being paid to this Wikipedia article, with the Sydney Morning Herald and BBC news mentioning the vandalism here, and leaving the article frozen without updating it will make it look as if Wikipedia's only response to repeated vandalism attacks is paralysis. I suggest that proposed amendments be inserted here for an admin's attention. Rexparry sydney 07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with making edits to the article in it's current blocked state. Most of what you have written above is NPOV and could be almost added ad verbatim to the article, and all I want to see is that the article remains so and is equally balanced. Make a suggestion amendment here and I'll add it quite quickly. ^Khukri 08:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Once the protection has come off, we'll probably need to add sources over the death threats - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7034858.stm Duckorange 09:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Though not brilliantly written this article Urs Meier is another example of death threats to referees etc. Copy paste the last paragraph from the barnes article here and edit a new version now, and we'll take a look. As Rex said above this article should evolve as time goes on, but trying to avoid POV. ^Khukri 09:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Paddy O'Brien misinformation

Paddy told NZ to grow up, not that it wasn't the ref's fault. He's the head ref for the RWC, and he admitted that Wayne made some mistakes and didn't choose him for future games. Surely this is more relevant than what is currently on the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.40 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. It was merely the last, non-vandalized version of the page. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please watch the TV interview again and read the referenced article again, Paddy O'Brien said that the loss could not be blamed on refereeing. ^Khukri 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Barnes not selected for the World Cup

This is definately important. It shows that he is not as good as Paddy O'Brien thinks - if he did a good job and one of the best, he would have been selected. There are now 3 important news articles that have not been referenced as part of his Biography. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10468757

It doesn't say he was dropped, just that he wasn't selected. 12 referees, 4 matches so neither were 7 other referees selected. ^Khukri 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Better? And the number of referees was no longer 12, as they had already been reduced for the quarter finals.

Not so. There were 25 officials for the tournament, 12 referees and 13 touch judges. At the end of the pool stage, the 13 TJs went home; the 12 refs remained to fulfill the roles of referee and TJ throughout the eight matches of the knockout stage. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has been selected for the semi-finals. Except he'll only be the fifth official. That means that two of the other officials would have to get injured before he would get anywhere near the action. - PeeJay 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently none of the quarter-final refs were ever going to ref the semi-finals. And he can't ref the final or 3/4 playoff because England could be in either of those matches. So while he isn't going to referee any more games in the world cup, this can hardly be blamed on poor performance.

We don't know why he hasn't been selected. He is also not being used as a touch judge remember. - Shudde ^talk 09:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Until someone official, namely IRB and not a newspaper editorial, comes out and says he isn't refereeing because he had a clanger, then it's always going to be an a non verifiable assumption. And in my opinion with the history of forward passes against the all blacks or by them or anyone else for that matter says no-one will be censured for it, so it won't get included in the article. ^Khukri 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Paddy O'Brien link

The link to Paddy O'Brien on this page must I think refer to a different Paddy O'Brien as it doesn't sound like The NZ guy who is head of the IRB's ref panel at the moment. Is it possible to do a disambiguation page? EnnaVic 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited while fully protected -- I've changed this link to from Paddy O'Brien --> Paddy O'Brien (referee), as there does not appear to be an article on him yet. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Paddy O'Brian commented that the ref had made mistakes so perhjaps this section needs updating - see http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/referee_made_mistakes 202.49.136.42 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Mike

That even mentions this article, and the fact it's been vandalised. - Shudde ^talk 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I would recommend waiting a couple of days (or even better a week) before unprotecting this article. Emotions are too raw and the article will be a mecca for people wanting to vent frustrations. The loss is still very much in the forefront of news coverage in New Zealand. And definitely will be tomorrow when most of the team arrive back in New Zealand. And the article may start suffering from recentism -- giving undue weight to one event that has had a lot recent media coverage. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have this page in my watchlist it appeared on wikirage. When the block gets put down to semi there will be enough of us to hopefully keep it from getting too out of hand. ^Khukri 07:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semiprotected

For all those people wanting to make edits -- the article is currently semi-protected (and has been for several hours without a single edit). Evil Monkey - Hello 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial forward pass

There is such a thing as a non-controversial forward pass. They happen all the time without being pulled up, but they don't always have a large influence on the game. You won't see this sort of media attention for every single forward pass in an international. - Shudde ^talk 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This could turn into a lame edit war :-) To me the forward pass itself wasn't controversial per se, it was the actions of the referee. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that implied? - Shudde ^talk 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider the alternative scenario - if the pass had been flat, not forward, but the referee from a poor angle called it forward, his whistle is drowned in the crowd noise and the try is disallowed as he brings play back. Might that have been a tad controversial too?

I am a referee and I can assure you that you can only decide on what you see. You don't have time to debate it. You put yourself in the best position you can to make a judgment and you go with what you see. When there is a quick break, the angle you are looking from is bound to make judgment difficult of passes that are close to being forward. Clearly the speed of the break meant that Wayne Barnes and his two touch judges were not in line with the ball. The TJs in such a situation would always leave it to the referee to make the call. It could also be that the referee's line of sight was obscured or obstructed momentarily by another player. These things happen. It is part of the game.

Making a wrong call from am unhelpful angle in such circumstances is not classed as a mistake, it is simply inaccurate - there is a difference. In any given game, a referee might make a hand-full of inaccurate or incorrect decisions. Each of the thirty players on the field might also make a similar number of "mistakes". Whose influence is the greater on the game? Do the maths! I am sick to death of players and coaches of all levels blaming the honest endeavour of a referee for their own inadequacies and inability to win a game. The ill-informed (and often one-eyed) TV commentators who don't even know the laws and completely fail to appreciate the referee's position are the worst. They just encourage the complainers. The referee is part of the game - try having a game without one! Those blaming Wayne Barnes for a poor display by the All Blacks should get a life. Cheers! Brendan Fitzgerald 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually watch the game or are you using your referee intuition again? ~ Ropata 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, but alot of what you have written comes down to WP:OR and opinion which can't be included in the article. Also please remember this is a hotly disputed article at the moment, whether correct or not please don't inflame this talk page with comments like get a life. ^Khukri 09:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a forward pass, not because it didn't go forward, but because the ref and linesmen didn't see it. Players must play to the whistle and use that as the determinant of what has and hasn't happened. All three officials were behind the play and McCaw, McAlister and a French player were between Barnes and the pass, while Rokokoko and Michalak obscured the nearest TJ's view. You also have to remember that the officials are at ground level but TV viewers, like much of the crowd, have a slightly elevated viewpoint which reduces the chance of view being blocked. Even so, the main and reverse camera angles didn't show it clearly as a forward pass, it was only a third camera angle shown in replay which indicated conclusively that it was forward. This brings us to the real issue here: not the performance of the referee, but the fact that video technology gives TV viewers and commentators an advantage which the ref doesn't have. Controversies of the type affecting this article and causing the attendant vandalism will continue in rugby because this fundamental imbalance is unlikely to be resolved in the near future by increasing the power of video referees. None of the foregoing is appropriate for inclusion in this article, however. Rexparry sydney 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From memory most camera angles showed it was a forward pass. In any case, I think what a lot of people are missing is that few people are denying the All Blacks had a poor game. What they are saying is that the All Blacks still played better then the French and therefore the primary reason why the French won is because of shoddy refeering not because they played better. I.E. the fact that the All Blacks could have won if they had been on top form (as Helen Clark said) while true seems a bit irrelevant since it's a bit unresonable to expect a team to have to play exceptionally well so they can beat a team who play significantly worse them them simply because they will otherwise lose because of crucial refereeing errors. Also, remember that the All Blacks performance really began to suffer after these refereeing errors helped the French catch up and surpass. I.E. So while it's not the referees fault for this performance, it would not have occurred were it not for these errors giving the French points they should not have had. Remember that pressure cooker matches like this one often hang on a thread (as it did) and when there are refereeing errors which signicantly affect the outcome there is always going to be great controversy and a feeling of justice by many. Of course, the threats etc are ridiculous and few people are exucising them. If anything it's the IRB's fault. They were the one's who (apparently) discouraged touch judges from ruling on offsides and forward passes and they are also the ones who stupidly decided to give 8 referees (including one who had only been refereeing Tests for a year) the final games of the World Cup rather then use the best 4. Perhaps they expected the All Blacks to be on such good form that even if the Barnes screwed up (as he did) it wouldn't matter but as it turned out, they were deadly wrong. Nil Einne 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what shall I believe on the camera angles, Nil Einne, your memory, or the videotape which I recorded? And I think your analysis could only come from a very one-eyed and loyal NZ viewpoint: "few people are denying the All Blacks had a poor game . . . the All Blacks still played better then the French and therefore the primary reason why the French won is because of shoddy refeering not because they played better". Apart from being a marevellous non-sequitur, this is not what the rugby commentators and writers in Aus/RSA/NZ/UK/FR which I've read are saying. In rugby it is quite possible to play 60-70 minutes better than your opponents, and still lose: in fact, this is about the only way that the All-Blacks ever lose. But the fact is the French played better in the second half than the ABs. The ABs lost because McAlister missed a conversion he would normally make, and in the 11 minutes after the French took the 2-point lead, they turned the ball over in rucks/breakdowns three times, they made two handling errors when they had the opportunity to create an overlap, they failed to get clean fast ball from a couple of lineouts, but above all, when they had the field position, they failed to create a platform for a drop-goal. They did not lose becuase of Wayne Barnes and I think the NZRU's own investigation will eventually come to the same conclusion. To be balanced and to avoid "recentism", this article will eventually have to reduce the emphasis currently given to this present controversy. Rexparry sydney 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Like the template says at the top of this page: this is not a forum. If people want to discuss their opinion of the game then wikipedia is not the best place to do it; there are plenty of rugby websites out there with discussion forums. This page is for discussing the Wayne Barnes article and it's content, and it's best if we keep discussions here within that topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shudde (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hacking"

lol, editing wikipedia is now.... "HACKING"!! oh my! ref Mathmo ^Talk 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is referring to the article being locked and still edited123.255.55.27 09:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was unlocked shortly afterwards. ^Khukri 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Referees critique

RE:An interview with a 'top 10' New Zealand referee in the New Zealand Herald

Surely this in itself is a chronic example of the "recentism" that the editors are so concerned with in this article. While one could quote any number of non anonymous high quality sources with opinion on the performance of this referee only an anonymous unverifiable source defending the referee is being considered. I vote it be removed as un-encyclopedic. It doesn't improve the article.Stuzzo 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. All of the comments about his performance have been from people that are not referees. I think a professional referee's analysis of it is very useful, and adds significantly to the article. If the source of this information was not a well respected newspaper, then maybe your claim of unverifiability would be acceptable. However because referees are not allowed to publicly critique each others performance, the source needs to be anonymous to avoid losing their job (or being otherwise disciplined). It seems pretty clear that the New Zealand Rugby Union also consider the source genuine, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to find out who the referee was (see here). - Shudde ^talk 01:26, 15 October 2007

Excuse me. Paddy O'Brien is not a referee ??!!Stuzzo 01:42, 15 October 2007

Paddy O'Brien is his boss. Paddy O'Brien also would have been involved in picking him. One could easily argue that Wayne Barnes' performance reflects on those who chose him. Hardly an impartial source really? - Shudde ^talk 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with the retention of this section or that it is worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia content....any one else's opinion? I cannot overrule an administrator.Stuzzo 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have any extra editorial powers on articles, compared to normal users. But I agree with Shudde that even though anonymous, having what a referee says it much more important that the opinions of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. Of course we must be careful to make sure that this article doesn't become a WP:COATRACK -- ie should be a biography of Wayne Barnes but turns into an article about the All Blacks v. France game. As Shudde stated, the reference isn't unverifiable from a Wikipedia point of view -- it comes from a mainstream newspaper. If it turns out that the Herald made the whole article up, then we would of course have to remove it. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is likely that Wayne Barnes biography will be dominated by the All Blacks v. France game of 2007. That is just a fact of life. Many people gain infamy through a single event or action in their lives. Stuzzo 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely, it will calm down after a while and the recentism will subside. Look at Steve Walsh, two arguably bigger clangers involving bans and it's only a paragraph in his article. ^Khukri 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shudde, the article examines his performance from an expert and critical standpoint, something that has generally been lacking throughout this saga. Kiwi Ace 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree as well, editors seem content to include the opinions, and lets remember they are solely opinions from members of government, then it should have some educated opinions to put the issue into perspective. I however don't think it should be included, as it just fuels the points scoring of who can garner the most supporting opinions. In a month or so most if not all of these opinions will be deleted and will be replaced with a phrase along the lines of His career met with controversy during the France v New Zealand quarter final in the 2007 world cup, in which his refereeing was called into question for a missed forward pass, and was blamed in some quarters <ref> for New Zealand's loss and exit from the cup. This is only an example, and if you look through any number of officials in any walk of life, once the recentism dies down, it becomes no more than a paragraph. Again look to Steve Walsh, his screw ups were far bigger, and it's only a paragraph when brought into persepctive. ^Khukri 11:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The bizarre statistics are the obvious omission from the article. Never before has a team gone unpenalised for an entire 40 minutes of rugby in a RWC competition, let alone a team who were so completely dominated in possession and territory. The number of universally acknowledged result altereing mistakes made by the referee and the therefore unjustifiable staunch defence by his boss, largely over his controversial selection of such a junior referee for such a crucial match and the impact on the worlds number 1 ranked team is the information worthy of historical retention. We can bet we this event will have an wide reaching consequences on both rugby and rugby adjudication and this is the information this article should portray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.45.50 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this article should be a concise biography of its subject, Wayne Barnes. The wider effects of the mistakes he may or may not have made should be documented elsewhere. - PeeJay 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonense, that is like saying that entry on Nelson Mandella should not document the influence of his actions on African politics, apartheid or reconciliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.45.50 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Mandela actually had a world-changing impact in those fields, whereas Wayne Barnes missed a forward pass and sent a New Zealander to the sin bin. Not exactly world-changing stuff there, if I'm honest. - PeeJay 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If (or when) there are changes to rugby that are directly attributable to the actions of Wayne Barnes then they could be mentioned. Also as PeeJay said this article is about Wayne Barnes not the quarter-final match between the All Blacks and France. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But your argument is that the article "should be a concise biography...not the wider effects" which "should be documented elsewhere". You didn't argue that the effects were not worthy for inclusion because they were not far reaching enough. In terms of rugby it's hard to imagine a bigger impact than the most junior referee ever to oversee the finals of the tournament knocking out the favourites after a series of bad calls, then the man guilty of appointing him being hailed in the press as impartial in his defence! You don't need a crystal ball at all, the effect is already seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.60.174 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Such exaggerated remarks hardly help the discussion. Barnes didn't "oversee" the finals (he ref'd one quarter-final), nor did he "knock out" the favourites (that's just blatantly absurd fan talk). Barnes came into the tournament having refereed only seven test matches (but also quite a few international matches at junior grade and sevens levels); when Andre Watson refereed England v Italy in the pool stage of the 1999 RWC it was (from memory) only his eleventh test match -- and he went on to referee the final! And just to put matters in perspective, Watson himself came in for a fair amount of criticism when, refereeing his second consecutive final, in 2003, he awarded a penalty to Australia in the dying seconds of normal time in the 2003 final, thus enabling Australia to level the scores and force the game into extra time. Four years on, that's just a minor historical note and it's my guess that that's how Barnes's performance will be treated in another four years. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an exaggeration. He made a series of bad calls, reversing any of which would have changed the result. Your thinly veiled attack on Watson as some kind of tit-for-tat defence of Barnes is misplaced. Are we expected to believe that an English referee is entitle to be incompetent in "pay back" for a debatably bad call made against England in an earlier final? Clearly the "minor historical note" is still relevant enough for you to mention it here - not a distant memory then? For the record, Barnes' performance was far worse, and Watson clearly did not influence the result. He had refereed nearly double the number of internationals that Barnes had, and frankly "a number of junior matches and sevens" doesn't prepare a referee for a RWC quarter final any more than a number of junior matches and seven's would prepare an international player. You're talking from a greatful English perspective Jimmy. I invite you to join reality, and put aside your home land bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.177.96 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Neutrality"

I'm not exactly experienced in Wikipediarism, but this article is half made up of conjecture and reports of conjecture. For a start, the link for the France-WC is down (at this point in time) Perhaps another stats page can be used:

http://worldcup.planet-rugby.com/Opta_Stats/0,21241,2903024,00.html

Surely, it's worth pointing out that possession and territory doesn't entitle a side to penalties (or sourcing something to that effect. Surely it's also worth pointing out that being a young ref does not imply that mistakes had to have been made.

The last section seems to be a badly-written critique of a single game based entirely on one piece of shoddy journalism by some hack who clearly still 'has it in' for Barnes. -What the hell is a "flying crunch"? If it's against the rules, it should be defined. If not, then it's irrelevant. -Referring to the video ref for a DG is not unheard of (see Harlequins -v-Stade). Sounds like a sensible decision to ensure the right call. -Most refs miss far more than 2 forward passes a game.

If you want to look for ref mistakes in a game of rugby, you will always be able to find them. Given the fact that there is an ongoing with-hunt against Barnes it's surprising that nobody has really been able to pin any single incident on him (other than the yellow and forward-pass). Does Andre Watson have such an article after missing an equally blatant forward pass in favour of NZ in the previous WC? Or even his bizarre handling of the scrum in that final?

Surely there are better, more reasoned sources to use than the ones on here. I mean, nobody seriously references a Stephen Jones article to try to make unsubstantiated claims of All-Black poaching stick.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.118.73 (talk • contribs)

A joint report (by a lawyer and a government sports organisation) said that having the majority of possession and territory normally results in more penalties. The French did not have one penalty against them for the entire half.

Again, this seems to be some sort of 'guilt by association' argument. Direct evidence of missed penalties would be handy, and the lack of it is notable.

Williams said he thinks the French could have been penalised up to 17 times. That's quite a large number of apparently missed penalties, despite what you or I think.

Again, an unsubstantiated quote from someone with a vested interest. And, as any rugby fan knows, if you analyse a game to a sufficient depth, 17 is actually a rather small number,

Quoting from someone on this page "Never before has a team gone unpenalised for an entire 40 minutes of rugby in a RWC competition, let alone a team who were so completely dominated in possession and territory"

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting it as a source?

Perhaps you should write to the NZ Herald if you do not like the article that this guy referenced. He was published in a #1 Newspaper as a news item, so it must have some worth. The WP entry clearly states that Lewis, as a published rugby journalist, is presenting his summary of the game. Excuse him if you don't like him to say "flying crunch", maybe you just are not familiar with terms used in NZ? Should we supply a definition in the WP entry?

I've no intention of writing to that rag. I was pointing out that it's a poor source to use for a whole paragraph. The use of the phrase "flying crunch" is a deliberate effort to make what could be a perfectly valid tackle sound like an act of violence. It has no definition. I've never heard of it used elsewhere, and neither, it seems has google:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHMA_en-GBGB335GB335&q=flying+crunch+rugby&start=0&sa=N

So perhaps you could supply a definition? I await with interest.

Oh look, no reply. Clearly you were lying (or just hoping that what you were saying was true) when you stated that "flying crunch" was a term used in NZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.204.222 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is now a second reference with the Sth African coaches comments regarding Barnes' performance, so Lewis' item does not have to stand there on it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.160.225 (talk • contribs)

removal of controversy section

Directed here from BLP/N. In this edit here I have removed the entire criticism section, per the WP:BLP policy. I believe the weighting is quite wrong, his entire life is reduced in Wikipedia otherwise to some refereeing mistakes and a very nasty backlash from fans. I don't think this is appropriate for the encyclopaedia at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very brave, there'll be a few kiwi's coming after you for that. Though agree with removal of the controversy section, but think it should be included as a sentence, as he is well known in rugby circles for upsetting the AB's parade with a couple of errors. His decisions have become salient feature of his referee career, rightly or wrongly it's still notable.^Khukri 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not knowing correct formatting here. As I stated when I undid your deletion, Barnes would be an "unknown" without a Wiki page unless he was a referee. It stands to reason that his skill at this should be discussed. Perhaps change the name of the section to "Performance", rather than removing it altogether. Provide some discussion of people saying he is a good ref (eg Paddy O'Brien's positive comments are already included in this section). The South African's have also been annoyed by his "skills", not just the AB's.

If you would like to provide some more details about the rest of his life, then feel free to add them, rather than removing work by everybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.160.225 (talk • contribs)

Hi, That is your opinion, the controversy deserves a sentence at most. As stated above you don't see similar vitriol on Andre Watson's page, for gifting the All Blacks a forward pass, or Jonkers against the lions, or Allan Rolland every time he refs England. Can you imagine the criticisms section from everyone if Steve Walsh's errors were listed? It was removed because it didn't meet WP:BLP and was posted on the BLP noticeboard by someone else. I will re-revert the addition, discuss before re-adding it please, also please read WP:3rr. As I suggested above I would suggest one sentence, stating he garnered significant ire from New Zealanders, for a number of decisions in X world cup match. Anything above that is giving undue weight and comes back to the BLP issues. Also can you add ~~~~ at the end of your message on a talk page please, it gives an automatic signature so we know who's left the message. Cheers^Khukri 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that, despite being an admin, you like to often point out that Barnes has affected the NZ rugby team and forgetg that South Africa is also mentioned alot. 2 each of the 4 matches discussed involved NZ and SA. I changed it from a criticisms section into one about performance, and would work on adding praise about Barnes if I had any chance to override an admin. It had O'Brien saying that Barnes is a great referee and a great man, and Barnes' WP page has had a lot of other references to people complimenting him. You seem to be working against the principals of WP (or at least how I perceive them). Shouldn't we be presenting more information about a person (both praise and criticism) rather then deleteing everything? I don't believe it's 'just my opinion' that we should have discussion the thing that he is known for (referring), because not too many WP entries would include discussions about ... favourite salads to eat on a sunday afternoon, for example, unless the person was a food critic or chef. If Barnes emails me and tells me his favourite salad, then sure, I'll add it to the page if that's what you'd like to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.160.225 (talk • contribs)

My admin status is irrelevant, I haven't used any admin tools on this article. If you feel that I have please bring it up at WP:ANI where someone will investigate my actions. I would suggest however discussing it at WP:BLP/N all I have done is enforced that and I agree with the BLP part, though I have added a sentence to cover the issues. Wayne Barnes is no different to any other rugby referee, and I can find examples, of Jonkers, Kaplan, Walsh, Spreadbury, Rolland et al all make decisions that have purportedly influenced the result of a match. None of those have 2/3rds of the article devoted to a match or two. All referee's have controversial matches, and rarely do you see a report in a paper headline "MATCH CRAP, REF AMAZING", bad matches happen to all ref's just his happened to NZ in the RWC. oh and in response to your South African point it's an article that criticises him, one article, I found this and as I say it's easy after any rugby match to find a detractor of the referee.^Khukri 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a source - an itemised critique. If the criticism is to re-incarnate itself, it should be included as factual counter-evidence to the latter two matches. I accept the NZ-France is being relevant, as, regrettably it seems to be what Barnes is most notable for. Suffice it to say that had NZ won, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the latter articles wouldn't have been written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.118.73 (talk • contribs)

I never said you used any admin tools. While you raise some interesting talking points, I'm disappointed that instead of addressing my suggestions and comments, you instead talk about other refs. I'm not going to google "match crap, ref amazing"... but we already had positive comments about Barnes from previous versions without even trying to dig deeper. IMHO, you are preventing the growth of WP. You are shutting down an attempt at the creation of a record about how refs perform and the influence they have on the sport. If I tried to do the same thing on the page of Jonkers, Kaplan, Walsh, Spreadbury and Rolland, by all accounts you would say "But Barnes' WP entry doesn't have any information about his performances!". So the pages of these fine people will remain stagnant and until one of them dies or marries Britney Spears, we will not get any more interesting detailed information about these people. Backwards it seems you are to me. 174.1.160.225 (talk • contribs)

It does mention his performance in that match. I added a sentence with two links stating the death threats and NZers hatred of him, though you are right it could do with balance saying about the over reaction etc. But if you want to add any more interesting information to 'these fine people' that's never been an issue. But if you want to add in depth analysis of this match it falls foul of WP:UNDUE and scandal mongering, one match out of a large amount does not warrant anything more than a sentence. As I said refs have screwed up since arbitres were conceived, rarely will you find more than a sentence to a screw up, and never the majority of the article. Wikipedia does not grow by feeding furore, by adding every salacious criticism it can find to what is a hate shrine, it is demeaned. It should be noted with verifiable sources, and treated with the weight it deserves. It would gain more notability etc if he was sanctioned, or lost his job, etc. Even the NZherald article gave him a 7/10, and paddy supported him, but these don't need to be added. It's not a point scoring system, of I can add one negative to your positive or vice versa. It's about the amount of content that is required to discuss one match, I fully understand the hatred of the Kiwi's, that meets WP:NOTABLE does it require anything more than a sentence, not really, becuase he is not defined by Kiwi's hatred, yes it is mentioned sometimes when he ref's a southern hemisphere team, but with the exception of Villiers dummy spit (for which he doesn't have much neutral support) he hasn't been any better or any worse than any other ref. ^Khukri 21:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.160.225 (talk • contribs)

World Cup Sentence

Okay it probably deserves mentioning, but I have a few problems with how it is worded.

"Barnes received death threats and considerable hatred in the New Zealand press and on the internet for a number of refereeing decisions in the World Cup quarter final that were cited as a reason why New Zealand eventually lost."

I actually think that receiving death threats from anonymous internet users is not that notable. Basically we got a bunch of idiots starting up a bebo profile titled "Kill Wayne Barnes". There's a kill Obama facebook page [1], but we wouldn't mention it on his page. However, it has been mentioned by the IRB referees manager so there may be a case to include it in some form. If it is kept it needs to be clarified a lot better. I would add "personal abuse" and the fact that it was from the internet to match the source better. It should probably just say it is a Bebo profile. There is a big difference between someone walking up to him on the street and threatening to kill and a faceless angry person on the internet. Considerable hatred has to go though. The source cited even mentions that "the messages range from violent threats to the more light hearted". Violent threats don't get much bigger than death threats. Nowhere does the source say in the New Zealand press either. As it reads, it sounds like the New Zealand press is making the death threats, which needs a much-much better source (it does not even support considerable hatred from the New Zealand press). AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote to match sources better. AIRcorn (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is over simplifying it to lay it on just the bebo site and could be expanded a wee bit, as I remember his performance was even brought up at government level 1, 2, 3 to even still gaining press time 4 years later. Though I think we agree Wayne Barnes is not just the sum of a forward pass as some would like to make him. Cheers ^Khukri 14:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I used bebo as it was the one named in the source and the death threats are obvious[2][3]. I will add "other chatrooms and message boards" per one of your above sources. The Helen Clark bit is notable enough to mention IMO too. Not keen on adding the media angle however. Unfortunately reporters writing editorials criticising referees is part of the course in sports write ups. The IRBs response seem to be to the death threats, not the media criticisms. I would also be wary of making this section too long. It is one match (usually boiled down to a single decision) in a career that is likely to last a long time. AIRcorn (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. Now just keep it watch listed anytime WB refs a tri nations or international this article starts getting 'attention'. Cheers ^Khukri 08:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been cleaning up a few ref articles in preparation for the World Cup. Someone had gone to the effort of listing every mistake Kaplan had ever made, but otherwise they weren't too bad. AIRcorn (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Law Career

Wayne Barnes is certainly still practicing law.

http://fulcrumchambers.com/waynebarnes.html

The link that suggested he had given up his law degree is dead. I don't believe he ever did but I can't find a source either way. Sue De Nimes (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Loopygirl11, 11 September 2011

During the South Africa vs Wales game on the 11th of September, his controversial call about the Welsh Fullback James Hook's penalty (15 min), ultimately cost Wales 3 points in a game where they ended up losing by 1!

Loopygirl11 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 Denied no reliable source, anyway it's the touch judges who make the call, not the referee. Cheers ^Khukri 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Psykrow, 12 September 2011

Source: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/rugby-world-cup-2011/south-africa-defeat-wales-17-16-in-rugby-world-cup-2011-thriller-in-wellington/story-e6frf4zl-1226134273382

"But the fullback could feel hard done by after a first-half penalty was waved away by the touch judges after it appeared to sneak inside the posts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykrow (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 Denied The source does not even mention Barnes. Anyway for an incorrect (or perceived incorrect) decision to merit inclusion here it needs to have more of an effect than a brief sentence in a match report. AIRcorn (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But it was the Refs decision not to call in the help of the video referee, the touch judges only assist the Ref know what they saw, The ref has the final decision. It is wrong that this page which is suppose to be the free encyclopedia is censoring the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.80.126 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnes' biggest blunder in this is that the didn't go to the TMO for inspection of the kick as he is allowed to under the rules. In an age where referees don't hesitate to use "the man upstairs" for seemingly obvious ingoal decisions, this was too close a shave either way to ignore, particularly in a game at this leve http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/our-experts/5607806/Time-for-Wayne-Barnes-to-face-the-questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.80.126 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But he is miked up to two assistants (themselves international referees) who were in the best position to see if the kick went over. If they were confident that the ball didn't go over then there is no reason to go upstairs. Might pay to wait and see who else comments on this. Opinion pieces by New Zealand journos are not the best source of information for Barnes. If the IRB gets involved or the Wales team or management make an official complaint then there could be merit in including it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

More news articles about Barnes. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/dodgy-call-ends-in-wails-20110912-1k61q.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.209.31 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth isn't there mention of the controversy surrounding Barnes performance in the All Blacks/France and Wales/South African games? For example, there is nothing about "that" kick. Who is protecting this page from it? Wayne Barnes'family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.115.198 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:UNDUE. This is not a page for people to collect all Barnes's mistakes. And I'm saying that as an Ireland fan. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wayne Barnes. 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/20070513204115/http://www.irb.com/EN/News/070426+DR+WC7+Match+Officials.htm to http://www.irb.com/EN/News/070426+DR+WC7+Match+Officials.htm

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) 08:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

France vs Wales controversy

Can we discuss this here instead of edit warring please. It appears far too WP:undue to me. It definitely does not deserve its own header. If anything a short mention as a note at the relevant game in the 2017 Six Nations Championship article could be justified. The cited article contains no actual criticism of Barnes and is instead focused on the match itself. AIRcorn (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've fallen into the trap of not really reading the sources provided. I do think it warrants mentioning here, though, but like you say, perhaps not in its own section. – PeeJay 07:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of referees in not unusual, and is not in itself notable unless a citation can be found to demonstrate that a an error was actually made. If no citation exists then the criticism is unfounded and does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Obscurasky (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

I-will-correct-it (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove Protection

This page should not be protected, since information is not correct I-will-correct-it (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add his 101th Test match information I-will-correct-it (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Page protection requests can be made here WP:RFPP - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can provide the proposed change(s) and the reliable secondary sources that back them up. If they're policy compliant I (or another editor) can add them to the article for you - please make sure to use specific proposed text and where you'd like to add them. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)