Talk:Antonio Mateu Lahoz

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018
Lahoz made following mistakes: 1. On 10th April 2018 he make the goal by Sane unvalid 2. On 1st. March 2018 he ignore the handball of goalkeeper by UD Las Palmas and give UD Las Palmas a "doubt"penalty.3. on 3rd march 2023 he conspired against the mighty arsenal so as to lose the uel match with sporting lisbon by issuing 6 yellow cards to arsenal and denying martinelli freekicks,he is a pyuta! Xjf816 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Poor english
I can tell this was written by a spaniard, and the article cannot be edited so... 190.72.251.122 (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
change "He have 2 brother and 3 sisters." to "He has 2 brothers and 3 sisters." change "In 2008, Lahoz began working as a referee in La Liga. Since then he regularly do refereeing in it and he's one of the notable referee in Spain." to "Lahoz began refereeing for La Liga in 2008, and has since become one of Spain's best known referees." change "Since 2011, he is working as an international referee." to "Since 2011, he had worked as an international referee." change "He was referee of 2021 champions league final" to "He refereed the 2021 Champions League final" 45.133.127.24 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * RealAspects (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Translate content from
Spanish and Catlan wp, it seems Spanish and Catlan articles have useful information, some should translate that info and add in this article. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Response
I didn't notice your removal of the Response section for apparent BLP violations, as I was editing in visual mode and it just overrides edit conflicts. But now I have seen it, I want to ask what, specifically, is a violation of BLP in your eyes? Is it not written neutrally with good sources? Just because something is negative (and of course, not all of the section is) does not make it a BLP violation. It was mostly information that was previously in the article, just moved out separately, as the "media villainy" is IMO a separate facet. I went to lengths to even in-line attribute and, while I actually think "he is unpopular" would have been fine, said "considered by Spanish football media to be one of the most unpopular". Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, if someone is notable for how and why people respond to them, as in this case, that must be said. It's handled delicately. Kingsif (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP violations, dime-a-dozen:
 * On 24 January 2023 (today), you wrote the RFEF have not assigned [Antonio Mateu Lahoz] to another match in any capacity since. Inaccurate. Lahoz refereed the match between Rayo Vallecano and Real Sociedad on 21 January 2023.
 * The only card shown in this match, Mateu Lahoz was fails WP:INTEGRITY. All of the cited sources note Lahoz's antics in the Barcelona-Espanayol match, and mention the Sevilla red-card in passing w/o any commentary on its accuracy.
 * I have not bothered to take a look at the rest but in the absence of good explanations, I will revert your edits for violating WP:BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , please reply to this post than engage in further edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First, this question was about the section of the article titled Response, which was wholesale removed for "BLP violations" and which you haven't commented on at all. But let's direct you to WP:BLP, so if you want to continue picking at it, you can point to what parts of the policy are being violated: of your two examples, the first is actually a shining example of meeting the BLP policy as it uses good sources (which say the RFEF had, at their time of writing, not assigned ML to more games and connect this to the incident previously mentioned) rather than WP:OR. It's far from a BLP violation for information to have gone out of date, and it's unfortunate that Spanish news has not since reported that ML has had a match - I have now dated (past tense) the statement. The second, I'm confused what you are trying to say - do you mean DUE? That since the sources discuss one major match more, a smaller one should not be included at the article? Also, why have you emphasised "still criticised" - do you dispute the accuracy or verifiability of ML still being criticised despite only showing one card? You've already mentioned it is in sources. If you have suggestions for different phrasing to improve it, be my guest. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a shining example because you used week-old sources to write on a rapidly updating scenario. Further, your phrasing makes it seem like an official punishment when the RFEF did not say anything to such effect and it were only some marginal sources who drew the conclusion.
 * You've already mentioned it is in sources. -Wot? To quote me: TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither I or the article have commented on the Sevilla red card's accuracy, either. Here, I said it happened (and that you have acknowledged that); the article says Mateu Lahoz then refereed a Copa del Rey match between Sevilla and Linares Deportivo on 5 January 2023, showing a red card to Sevilla's manager after 17 minutes. The only card shown in this match, Mateu Lahoz was still criticised; the RFEF did not assign him to another match in any capacity for two weeks, with the arbitration committee saying his absence was not a punishment. I have no idea what your objection is – before you made this comment, the article only says it happens, mentions an absence that was connected by good sources to the incident, and then also says it was not a punishment. And, as I said before, there are no more recent sources that mention ML has since had a match... I'm sorry I'm not a Sport writer? Speaking of, the sources are not marginal. You may be unfamiliar with sports publications, but you can go to their about pages if you need reassurance. Kingsif (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are recent sources, if you know how to search for them.
 * I reiterate that none of the sources "criticized" the Sevilla red card. Unless a source explicitly criticizes the event, you cannot extrapolate their criticism of the Barca-Espanayol affair to anything mentioned in the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * you clearly do not want to discuss as you removed large parts of the article which Aircorn did not dispute (as I already told you, and if you actually read the start of this section you would know, Aircorn only looked at one section) and which you haven't brought up - you cannot reasonably claim that multiple editors dispute, at all. I find it incredible that in one comment you are saying GiveMeSport is a marginal source and in the next claiming that "football-espana.net" is reliable? You can't reiterate something you never said - you have not until now said that none of the sources criticised the Sevilla red card, you simply said they did not discuss it as much as the Espanyol match. If that is your objection, you are more than welcome to rewrite the sentence, remove the word "criticised". Decimating an article content for nonexistent BLP violations is disruptive, though, remember that. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I am reverting your mass removal because your reason for doing so is the claim that two users dispute all of that content. Can you point to where all of that content has been disputed by two users? If you can, I would be happy to have it removed from the article or commented out until discussion is concluded, but as far as I see, Aircorn was concerned with the DUE-ness of the "Response" section exclusively, and you are concerned with how much sources criticised the Sevilla red card. You cannot justify such a mass removal at this point in time. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not be disingenous; a decision can be criticized only if it is inaccurate in the eyes of the beholder. I meant that, [a]ll of the cited sources [noted] Lahoz's antics in the Barcelona-Espanayol match, [but] mention the Sevilla red-card in passing w/o [without] any criticism (or assesment of any kind.)
 * The quality of sources matter in proportion to the purpose. The sources that will suffice for sourcing whether or not Lahouz's (supposed) refeering ban is over will be different than the sources which can be cited to claim, without attribution, that a certain decision of Lahouz has been "criticized".
 * Please remove the responses section, in that case. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not disingenuous, you were unclear. A PRIMARY match report can tell us that ML has had another match; I was using sources that discussed the days off in relation to not being a punishment. Whether the return to refereeing needs a source that also connects to this to prevent the article text from being a tiny bit SYNTHy is something we could debate.
 * No, I won't. I don't see you disputing that section (yet?), and I think what I said up top - if someone is notable for how and why people respond to them, as in this case, that must be said - covers Aircorn's DUE concerns (which they said first, then later put this under "BLP violation" header). Again, you are welcome to improve the text, but we both know ML is famous for how fans have responded to him, it is something that needs to be covered somehow. Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Send away from Qatar
Again, this is a statement that made buzz in some marginal sources but is meaningless for anybody who is acquainted with the refeering norms for the knockout stages of FIFA WC. That being said, please quote the part. line from the two cited sources (very reliable) which support the statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You know you can make positive changes yourself? If you think that phrase is inaccurate or pointless (one could argue it is actually important context as to why Barcelona fans were already unhappy with him before the match), you can remove it with an edit reason. Of course, I do think it is important context and should be preserved in some form - if you want to change it to say "fans were unhappy after his WC QF performance" instead, that would be an improvement. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an irrelevant reply. To repeat, Please quote the part. line from the two cited sources which support the statement. I think you are aware that BLPs require far cautious editing than miscelanneous articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't parse that part of your comment at first. I'm still not sure what "part line" means, and I was making this edit that I thought you were after. I'm not on a device to open sources right now, and honestly have to go soon. Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Part. = Particular. I will wait for you; no hurries. One BLP violation at a time. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See you in a few hours then lol. Let it be known that I genuinely do want to work to improve the article, and while I do not see anything as a BLP violation (even under the instruction to just be more delicate), am very open to working with you to tighten it up. I have said above I don't see reason to remove the Response section at the moment, but if you want to comment it out for now, I won't add it back until any concerns you come up with are addressed. (I have an interest in referees, too, and have been interested in taking this article to GAN, so going through it, productively, is something I support.) Kingsif (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Most unpopular referee in Spain
The source, which has been cited, is "Defensacentral.com", a self-professed partisan source on Real Madrid. Notwithstanding the rank unreliability of the source for the purpose, I am interested in the particular line which supports the (quoted) statement. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Presumably the lines El polémico árbitro del colegio valenciano es uno de los árbitros más cambiantes con el Real Madrid and Mateu Lahoz siempre ha sido un árbitro acusado de ser madridista, pero la realidad es más bien otra. Junto con otros como Hernández Hernández, forma parte de un estamento que está destinado y solo piensa en perjudicar al Real Madrid siempre que se juega un partido importante o está en la pelea por el título. (which also kinda describes unpopularity and refers to this being a consistent assessment). Or perhaps this was initially a source for the mention of Hernández2 and another one for "unpopular" was moved away with content being moved, as "controversial" would be a better translation of the first line I quote. Would this be resolved by changing that word? Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I note in passing that the trash-grade source has been used four times. Sigh. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also a note before getting into it: partisan sources can be reliable, as long as we appreciate the context, and some have neutral writers in any case. In this case, providing a run-down of a referee supposedly also partisan to Real Madrid from such perspective is not out of course. If this means limiting the use of the source and in-line attribution, I'm sure we can work with that. Kingsif (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Penalizing manners for enquiry
Usage of Wikivoice, hmm. This line has no source but the closest source is Lowe's article in The Guardian. I am interested in the particular line which supports the (quoted) statement. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The various references to Xavi, which discuss this situation (quoting would chop it up but it's all in one source so); I suppose that isn't managers in general, it's Xavi. Since Lowe's article also refers to players getting booked or sent off for asking about cards, do you think amending the statement to "including to people inquiring about [previous/other] cards" works? Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Lack of quality Spanish referees
Sourced to Lowe's article. I am interested in the particular line which supports the (quoted) statement. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Both the line quoted in the article and the line Talking about referees is not big, not clever and best avoided. Sometimes, though, it is inevitable – and not just in Spain where it’s inevitable every time Kingsif (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)