Talk:Edgardo Codesal

Untitled
well, this hardly represents objective point of view...

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
I don't think this article conforms to the neutral point of view. This is favourable to the Argentine point of view, there would be many neutrals who would agree with the referee's decisions. I would suggest changing the wording of this article. I am placing this article as not conforming to NPOV policy.

smr 20:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Smrgeog


 * I'm not sure where is it that you see a biased statement. could you be more specific? Mariano (t/c) 05:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem statement I have is the wording when it comes to the penalties. Saying the penalties are controversial is neither here or there if it's talking about this referee. The whole article is dwelling on Argentine grievances about his refereeing. Codesal, most likely was awarded the Final for his handling of the Cameroon vs England match where he caught everything and awarded three penalties. Nothing is mentioned there of his handling of that match, mentioning his other World Cup Matches might balance out the tone of this article.

smr 08:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)smrgeog


 * The phrase "On that match, he infuriated Argentines by refusing to award Argentina an arguable penalty and, seconds later, giving Germany an equally controversial penalty, five minutes before the end of regulation time." contains just facts: the argentine players claimed a pentalty was to be granted to them, and short after, in the same play, he granted a controversial penalty to Germany. The penalty granted to Germany is controversial, because it was heavily questioned by the Argentine press (thus the controverse of whether it was or not a penalty). The penalty that would have favoured Argentina was at least arguable. I recomend you to see the match again.
 * I have no information on why he was selected for that match, if you do and have its references, please expand the article.
 * I accept that the article is focused on that match, but he's best known for that. It might be biased though, because it lacks of a lot of different information about him, but I don't believe the article to contain false statements or inherently biased phrases. Mariano (t/c) 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV and I made a couple of additions to the article. Hopefully, you approve of the small things I did to it. I made mention of England match with Cameroon and had a good performance there and had actually kept up with play if one had watched the match.

When it came to final; I fully agree: the penalty awarded to West Germany was dubious at best.

It would be unfair to write an article on a person/referee on the basis of a mediocre game, so I balanced out the article a bit. You are more than welcome to delete or add to my contribution.

smr 18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)smrgeog


 * I'm OK with the rephrase of the Arg-Ger penalties, but I'm not sure about the new paragraph on the Eng-Cam match: "During that match he had managed to keep up with play during the whole 120 minutes and was always in a good position to judge offences" seams to me biased and subjective. One thing is to say that he pulled together a difficult match, another is to say he 'was always in a good position', which is not even that relevant. Mariano (t/c) 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording "always in a good position", I replaced with "managed to keep control of a potentially difficult match", hopefully will satisfy POV and objectivity. Also toned down the use of the word "controversial" to "debatable".

smr 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)smrgeog


 * Yeap, better. I just added a small info on the result of the other match. Mariano (t/c) 06:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary requested
Giving the references i dont think controversial is accurate enough, is there any other word between that and infamous ? Jor70 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * well, you don't want to make a judgment on the call, so you can't say it was infamous, stupid or wrong, but since it was heavily critisized, you can say it was controversial, doubtful, or disputed. (or, on the other hand, you can say it was an afano) --Mariano (t/c) 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)