Talk:Thierry Henry/Archive 3

Posts relating to improving the article welcome
If anyone has any suggestions,or a typed up section regarding the handball contravercy,please submit it here.Just a section regarding the handball incident and all the coverage and outrage it brought. I feel this would best balance out the page for everyone.--Kevinharte (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It also belongs in the intro, the way the intro stands now. ie, quite long.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maradona's lead mentions the Hand of God so it's only fair that Henry's one mentions the handball Spiderone  22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deliberate goal with the hand in a World Cup quarter final that has been famous for over 20 years != Handling the ball in the the other teams penalty area in a qualifying match that has been famous for 4 days. Seriously, this is NOT on the same level as the hand of god... And take a example which is much more closer. Lionel Messi who actually scored a goal with his hand a goal that almost won Barcelona the title. Is it in his lead? No. chandler 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the Prime Ministers of the respective countries talking about the Messi goal. As I stated, with the current length of the intro, it certainly belongs.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that there are over 15,000 newspaper reports on it,it doesn't matter if it was only 4 days ago.It was front page on google news for a couple of days.I'm not requesting a long winded section that is attacking the player.A section though is justified as every team's nation that will play them now in the World Cup will most likely bring it up.--Kevinharte (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A section regarding the controversy is certainly appropriate, as it will go down as one of the defining moments of his career. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Speculating on whether it will go down as that is WP:CRYSTAL. If it does, we can add it. At the moment, we simply do not know and we are far too close to the event to comment. The number of newspaper reports doesn't tell us much, every major game is reported in at least 10.000 newspaper reports, often much more. I'm not saying we should never ever add it, and it's already mentioned, but putting it in the intro and having a whole section about it because of how defining it might become is premature.Jeppiz (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd actually suggest that it already is one of the defining moments of his career, and as such deserves a mention at some point in the article, detailing not only the incident, but also of the global reaction and criticism he received for it. Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone would have said the same thing following the much stronger reactions against David Beckham in 1998 or Cristiano Ronaldo in 2006, but with hindsight it blew over. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a news agency and we should not give undue weight to very recent events just because they happen to be in the news right now.Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To suggest that it will 'blow over' is just as WP:CRYSTAL as things you've cited as being WP:CRYSTAL, people in crysal houses shouldn't throw stones... Besides, both Beckham and (more so) Ronaldo's articles have far lengthier mentions of their controversial acts in them. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I did not say it will blow over. Please don't put words in my mouth just to then attack them, it's not an honest way to debate. I said that it blew over in those cases and that is not speculation, it's a fact. What is more, I'm not suggesting we could not add more about it but we are in no hurry to do so. Once again, Wikipedia is not a news agency and should not be at the forefront of reporting.Jeppiz (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, no need to be so defensive, you said that reactions to those incidents 'blew over' and you compared the reaction to Henry's handball now to those incidents then... Seems silly to be saying you didn't say it, but that's by the by... There is no objective way of determining whether something has 'blown over' so it is not 'fact' that Ronaldo and Beckham's incidents even did. Wikipedia is not a news agency, but details such as his thoughts of retirement and the international furore it caused are more significant a feature of the life and times of Thierry Henry than this article currently suggests. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm not suggesting we should never include anything more about it, but now may not be the best time to do it as it's all too WP:RECENT for us to even be able to evaluate it. The incident is already mentioned, as it should be, and only time will tell what impact it will have. When we know that, we should of course treat it accordingly.Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost winning the title is very different from winning it.If Ireland had of scored a goal after the handball and won FAIRLY the whole incident wouldn't have got 10 % of the media coverage. --Kevinharte (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad edit
Someone is in love with the word "cunt". Page needs fixing. Cheers. dreamwalker (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Dreamwalker
 * Page is fine; you're probably looking at a cached version. Rodhull  andemu  23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Handball contravercy section welcome
Please type up the section here for review.--Kevinharte (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a fair, balanced and reasonable atricle discussing the controversial handball incident?

In November 2009, Henry was involved in a scandal relating to France's playoff against the Republic of Ireland for a spot at the FIFA 2010 World Cup Finals. With the score over two legs tied at 1-1, the game went to extra time. A France Free Kick was kicked over the Irish defence and Henry, standing on the goal-line, controlled the ball with his hand twice, once to stop it going wide, and again to push the ball to his feet. He then crossed it with his foot for William Gallas to score. The Referee, Referees assistants and fourth official all missed the double handball, though the Irish players, most notably goalkeeper Shay Given, protested vehemently. The goal was allowed to stand, and France won the match and qualified for the 2010 world cup. After the Game, Henry sat with Ireland defender Richard Dunne in what many believe was a gesture of sympathy for the Irish. The incident has been dubbed 'le hand of God' in the media, a reference to Diego Maradona's famous Hand of God goal against England in the 1986 World Cup quarter Final. Unlike Maradona, however, Henry admitted his handball to the press immediately after the game, and claimed to have told the Referee about it. Two days later, with International Media attention focused on the incident, Henry joined with the Football Association of Ireland, Ireland Captain Robbie Keane and many in the world of sport in calling for the game to be replayed. FIFA publicly stated that the game could not be replayed due to the rules of the game dictating that the referees decisions are final. Meanwhile, FIFA is understood to have given private assurance to the FAI that if the French Football Federation agreed to a replay, FIFA would not object. Despite the overwhemling support of the French team, the French media and the French Public, the French Football Federation left the decision in the hands of Coach Raymond Domenech, who declined to allow the game to be replayed. While Henry has been vilified in many quarters, many people, including Irish footballer Damien Duff, have quietly stated that singling him out for criticism is unfair as other players, including Ireland players, in the same position would have done the same thing, and many (like Maradona) would have denied it afterwards. The incident has re-ignited debate within FIFA over the use of Video-Replay technology in Football, and is believed to be the main reason why FIFA has announced an Extraordinary General meeting to take place in South Africa in December 2009.
 * No official action was ever taken against Henry by FIFA or the FFF. Henry considered quitting International Football after the incident.

(talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencedunne (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is interesting, but I have some comments. First, it's much too long (and I mean MUCH too long) and would give WP:UNDUE weight to the incident. I don't think we need to know the detailed background, that an own goal was scored in the previous game, that it was a freekick, that Shay Given in particular protested etc. All of these comments are correct and perfectly WP:NPOV, but I don't see how they are relevant to an article on Thiery Henry. Cutting out such information would be a start. Then, there are far too many POV words in the text. Talking about a "scandal" or the "cheated team" is not encyclopedic. I'm not saying it's not true, but that's another matter. We should stick to using a neutral and encyclopedic language.Jeppiz (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I shortened it. See above. Laurencedunne (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Way too long and loaded. Can't imagine it being more than 3-4 lines; that's why you have wiki links. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,4-5 lines max would be more than adequate.Just how he handled the ball,they scored,Ireland lost and a media backlash happened.Also that the incident made Henry consider quitting international football.Maybe?--Kevinharte (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Considered international retirement - edit request
editprotected

Please add the following line to the end of the last paragraph in the current international career section:

Henry considered retiring from international football after the reactions to the incident.

It's pretty significant imo. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please,no more of the whitewashing of the whole incident.the whole argument here has basically stated that time will tell the signifigance of this event.The fact that Thierry henry has stated that he is considering retiring from international football is surely worthy of mention.Jeppiz clearly has an agenda favouring Henry.--Kevinharte (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Kevin, I know you're new here but your habit of attacking everyone who disagrees with you on any subject is not suitable. I recommend you to read WP:NPA. Yesterday I stood up for you of WP:ANI when your behaviour was discussed, but recommended you to read up on Wikipedia's policies, I now urge you to do so once again. In the future, comment on content and instead of trying to guess what motives other users have. FYI, I have no strong feelings for or against Henry but I'm not too keen on making Wikipedia into a copy of The Sun either. We should not add everything that is in the news immediately, that's not the aim of Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * everyone? That's not true.I'm not getting into a silly argument with you or anyone else on this,I've better things to do with my time.I'm mearly stating fact.I don't see how adding the handball contravercy here is going to turn this website into a copy of the Sun,you clearly don't want anything negative said about Henry at all.I think the Ireland vs France article is acting like a news article though,that might be what your talking about.But this article isn't giving the whole picture of Henry.Whether you like it or not,the contravercy will most likely eventually get added.--Kevinharte (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The word is 'controversy'. Kevin, if you are going to be a wikipedia editor, you must make your writing credible. Also, this is a forum for intellectual debate and concensus about topics resulting in valid and authentic encyclopedic entries, not a blog for addressing personal opinions or grievances. I am Irish and just as aggrieved as any other over the incident, but the entry on Wikipedia must reflect concensus and fact only, not hypothesis, opinion, and certainly not bad writing. Thanks. .--Laurencedunne (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be "consensus". Just sayin' :-) -- Neil N   talk to me  00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that MickMackNee's edit should probably be added. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  13:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Really,I don't know what your talking about.This is a discussion page,not an editing page.I'm not looking for a debate but a discussion of topics regarding the issue at hand.I'm not going to get into an intellectual argument with anyone,like i said before.I just want to bring different topics to the table.--Kevinharte (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite the other way around, this is not a discussion page, only a page for discussions about how to edit the article. Read WP:NOTAFORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The word is "consensus" Laurence.Jeppiz,I'm not going to get drawn into a trolling incident with you,so you would be better spending your time elsewhere.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like to discuss, you're welcome to leave any time but suggesting that those who disagree with you should leave is a bit thick. The aim of this page is to discuss how to improve the article and you're as welcome as anyone else to do so.Jeppiz (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you have a long history of starting fights with people.You've completely mis-interpreted what I said and then accused me of being thick-to start a row.Get a life.--Kevinharte (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ @Kevinharte don't make conspiracy accusations right of the bat, @Jeppiz don't take the bait. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't take the bait? I wasn't the one name calling.Conspiracy accusations? All you have to do is look through his contributions.Anyway,doesn't matter--Kevinharte (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As Kevin continues to accuse me, I point out that I have not once been blocked while Kevin has been blocked indefinitely but let back. Like many others, I have been in arguments with a few people but that is a rare exception, the overwhelming majority of topics I've edited have either been completely uncontroversial or resolved in perfect harmony.Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Blahblah--Kevinharte (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

International section
The end is not actually true.Henry only asked for a replay after FIFA said it would not happen.This caused more crticism on him as a person.--Kevinharte (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true. Colin Murray on this week's fighting talk said it disgusted him more than the incident itself.  Not that that means anything, but it should certainly be noted that he called for the replay shortly after FIFA completely ruled out a replay. Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Kevin, the sentence beginning with "The problem though was that..." implies Wikipedia thinks there's a problem. We don't make judgements like that. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ok.--Kevinharte (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter comment on Henry cheating
The comment by the head of FIFA on the incident surely merits inclusion in the article.

"How can it happen that all over the world, through tv cameras, we have seen through a cheating handball that a pass was given for a goal?'' said Blatter.

"Everyone is asking what is and what isn't fair play. The highest crime in football is touching the ball with the hands." http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/706016/ce/uk/?cc=3436&ver=global Utopial (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Better to place it in the piped link to the game, where a whole array of views are being canvassed. Please also format your references accordingly. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith vs Rules lawyers
Three weeks ago I made some points about the failings in this article and they were reverted off the talk page by a editor called Jeppiz who cited WP:FORUM. I put them back tonight and they were deleted again by the same user.

I can only conclude my my points are too close to the bone regarding this article so they have been reverted by Jeppiz (ironically they don't realise their actions is a point I am making).

As I can't reinstate my full text, I will just make my points again in simple direct point:

The problems with this article are as follows:

1) It is plainly obvious, there are too many editors with their own agendas reverting edits because they are claiming they are adhering to WP policies = neutrality/uncited etc, but their real motives are to remove anything they do not agree with. Is that good for the article? No, it just promoting another version of the truth.

2) Balance. The huge number of positive claims in this article. I can't be the only one who think it reads like a resume or fan site. If this article is to believed, the only thing Henry has not done is walk on water, turn water into wine or heal a leper! The article has been created from cherry-picked sources from the sporting press. Is that neutral?

3) Hand ball. The events in Paris have not been addressed at all. There isn't even a section on it!!! Doesn't anyone else think the article should reflect such a fall from grace? This is an incredible change in the subject's image. However, as I perceptively noted, (until my comments were deleted by the Jeppiz) there will be a huge battle as those with vested interest will make it nigh impossible to get change (as made in point 1). Good faith, be damned!!

Overall, the article is almost untouched since last month. Does WP not operate like the real world? Henry has destroyed his reputation. Or are the global press reports and the ire of an entire country just an aside?

4) Image. Henry has made a vast amount of money being football's "Mr Nice Guy" - vroom vroom. But at the Stade de France he handled the ball, not once, but twice. Once could be argued long into the night as a heat of the moment mistake, doing it again was premeditated and cynical.

I can't find in this article anywhere where the enormity of this transgression gets a full and serious examination. (He messed up in sporting terms on a par with the Pope be-getting a child!)

5) Parity. I previously mentioned that comparisons should be taken from the Maradona article which mentions the Argentinian's own controversial World Cup handball (his cheating is up there in the article's second paragraph - but it did happen well before the age of the Internet and WP - or due to time that makes it beyond a doubt?).

6) World-wide view. This article does not reflect the huge amount of media coverage concerning Henry. I said that editors should be aware and be prepared to accept the changes. Does it reflect that in the article? Of course not. This article is trapped in the designs and motivations of a small number of WP editors.

If these criticisms are not addressed with this article, then balance that with the amount of articles on the discussion page....editors like Jeppiz don't seem to grasp that if an article is honest, balanced and accurate. Just look at the discussion page → about half a dozen minor queries about page layout or image, and minor content queries. Try and suppress the truth and you create resistance.

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.113.97 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We are only concerned with the facts. If you find anything in the article that is untrue, feel free to flag them. As for the handball controversy, it has been mentioned sufficiently. People who are interested in reading the wider controversy and the implications of the incident can click on the wikilink provided. Your rhetoric of fall from grace is irrelevant in this discussion because that is not an established fact. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was I who reversed you last time as well? I don't remember it, but I take your word for it. It would be easier if you would create account but you're of course welcome to contribute anonymously as well. The reason I reverted you is not because of any views you hold, you're free to hold and express any views you want. What you need to keep in mind, though, is that this page is not here for anyone to express their views on Henry. The sole purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to talk about how to improve the article. To give you the benefit of doubt, I'll read through what you wrote once more and reinsert it in case it is about how to improve the article about Thierry Henry.Jeppiz (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've read it again and invite anyone else to read it . Once again, I don't object to your views but, to be quite honest, your rhetoric is perhaps not as good as you may think. Well, it's not at all bad as such, but misplaced at Wikipedia. For a political speech, it has certain qualities, I'll gladly admit that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, though, and we much more prefer dry, boring, factual comments here. You go off in long irrelevant rants ("However, as the famous adage always notes: Pride comes before the fall.", "It's like finding out the Pope, who spent his life promoting pious chastity, has a child!" ) personal opinions ("one of the most flagrant acts of poor sportsmanship ever", "As he did not he shown himself a small-time cheat.") and personal attacks on other editors ("the usual cabal of WP editors who cry foul at any criticism of their vested interest" it more than legal issues that certain editors are concerned about"''). I would advice you to remember three simple things. 1. Comment on content, not on other editors. 2. Keep your personal opinions and your rhetorics to a mininum and focus on facts. 3. Remember that the purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve the article.Jeppiz (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

First I'll just make two points: 1) Account. I have never created an account since first editing  WP around 2004. Why? I believe in good faith. Once you create an account, you create an image. When you create an image with all your little medals and awards, you create bias, supposition, and authority. This is an inherent flaw in WP. Like George Orwell noted, "all pigs are equal, it's just that some pigs are more equal than others". An admin, who is human after all, will always have more kudos, seniority, power than an unregistered IP like me. WP has become a kind of online totalitarian state, espousing liberal virtues but actually it's run by tight inner party who set the tone, values and content. I can see this, that's why I won't join. 2) Rhetoric. Oh please! Again are my points too close to the nerve with you? Does it force the door of rational thinking open letting a cold wind blow into your warm comfort zone? The way things are written are how we view the world.

"It is like a pair of glasses on our nose through which we see whatever we look at. It never occurs to us to take them off" Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The article: 1) it should be rewritten as it does not accurately reflect the world view of Thierry Henry. 2) articles should be in continual flux not static. (can you predict what is going to happen in the next 5 minutes?no) There is a revisionist battle going on to stop history being recorded contemporaneously.

Using the illogic of WP, other articles' tones therefore could be severely changed if they used this page's content layout as a model: Lee Harvey Oswald - confused US marine moved to USSR, didn't like it, moved back to US. One day assassinated the US president. OJ Simpson - football star, actor, successful businessman, doting family man. He was acquitted of murdering his wife, and now is in jail for robbery Adolf Hitler - Austrian painter, war veteran, industrious German politician. Responsible for the deaths of +6m jews 1939-45.

OK these are extreme examples (top of my head ones), but the point I am making is the undue weighting given to the person's preceding life up to the point, where incidences occur, that makes them the person they are now commonly remembered for.

Thierry Henry has been recognised for being one of soccer's most famous faces due to his integrity on and off the ball (working for UNICEF). However in one instance he has destroyed that image by cheating in a very, very important match. Isn't that a notable schism, a sizeable detour away from the image this player has tried to cultivate??? Should it not be given proper and due examination and consideration? I think so, and so do many others considering the amount of discussion on the subject. But has anything really been done in the article, er no!

My evidence, for repeating again and again this point. Well look at the amount of news article on the web that discuss the incident and Henry, it is pretty clear how the image of the man is now considered. He has even claimed he thought about quitting the sport. An indication of what he felt about the handballs.

Yet this article's antecedence buries all of this in the bottom of the page. But do you think the article the way is written, reflects the country of Ireland's view of the man, the French public's view of the man (and some of that criticism has been stinging), the international view of the man? No. It reflects your view of the man. And there is the rub of it. If you are still have trouble grasping what I mean then please read the The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Besides do I really care, not really, the thing that I have learned on WP is that when you don't agree with something you make your case and walk away. If editors like yourself don't want to accept this, then fine. But don't be surprised if the discussion pages just keeps on growing and growing, as more and more people become frustrated with the tone and style of this article.

So are we all now clear now on what needs to be done to IMPROVE this article on Henry?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.154.133 (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll only be surprised if no sockpuppets come about. Anyway, the quality of this discussion is regressing. Maybe you want to draft and post here what you think is an appropriate encapsulation of the incident. Speaking in the abstract is difficult to address. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To briefly address your two points. 1. You're absolutely right, I already said that you're very welcome to contribute anonymously. 2. No, your opinions are not the problem, I even agree with them. I merely pointed out that while you seem to think that you're a great orator, I'm afraid few would agree. If you continue to make your points in such an abstract, illogic and badly argumented way, I'm afraid you'll find it hard to convince others. Once again, that has nothing to do with your views, just with the way you try to present them. The point I think you're trying to make is "Henry used to be seen as a role model but that is no longer the case". I fully agree with that, no problem there. However, Wikipedia should be behind the news, not ahead or even on par with them. We have already included the incident and it is very likely we'll include more when we know the long-term effects. Two weeks afterwards, that call is too early to make now but that doesn't mean it should never be made.Jeppiz (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is like a fan page and is pretty biased.--Kevinharte (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're aboslutely right about that. Even if we forget the handball for a second and look at the rest of the article, it is written more like an essay than in an encyclopedic way and far too often turns into a fan page. That is true of many articles on people in sports, but that is no excuse. A major revision of the article would be a good thing.Jeppiz (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, no wonder it is a featured article, miraculously passing consensus. When comments lack specificity and bear no relation to the FA criteria, they get us nowhere. Chensiyuan (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page does not reflect even-handedly on Henry, most notable in the lack of mention of the handball controversy in (a very lengthy) lead and also small details such as mentioning the fact that he called for a replay, but not mentioning the fact that this was less than 24 hours after FIFA had ruled out any possibility of a replay, a move which was called cynical by a number of commmentators. Agree that this is indeed a common of sports (particularly football) pages, where editors are great at getting pages set up and go to great lengths to update statistics etc, but at the same time can be overly defensive of players from their favoured clubs etc. Petepetepetepete (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is well within the guidelines of WP:LEAD, so alluding to its supposed length is a red herring. The lead is concerned with a macro perspective of the footballer's biography; right now, calls for the inclusion of the handball incident are situated behind lens that magnify the gravity of a situation hitherto indeterminate. In other words, the decision to include it in the lead should be left to a later date. Yes it is a fact some commentators viewed Henry's call cynically, yet there are also others who did not and actually defended Henry (which is not mentioned in the article). Insofar as both a literal and purposeful reading of WP:BLP demands conservatism with regard to a person's "character", the less said the better. The pedigree of the arbiter, in the context of impugning a person's character, is important but left undemonstrated here. It seems too that a number of fairly inexperienced users in these parts have conflated inclusion of criticisms and controversies with a balanced and informative article. I will recommend reading the talk page of Barack Obama to get a better sense of what constitutes the required standard. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the lead is overlong per se, just that since it's long enough to mention: "Henry is an active spokesperson against racism in football." and "he has been featured in advertisements for Nike, Reebok, Renault, Pepsi and Gillette." it should also include the fact that he once set up a goal which meant France qualified for the World Cup by deliberately handballing to keep the ball in play... With regard to the the calls for a replay coming after FIFA ruled one out, at the moment its position next to him saying he was not a cheat almost puts it in a context of being a comprehensive apology, which few saw it to be.  The need for conservatism for BLPs has been, in this case, an excuse for editors to keep Henry's page as a glowing fan page.  Even the mention as it stands was fought against a huge amount of protest and deliberation.  I will recommend reading the lead of Diego Maradona as an example of how a famous handball should be included in the lead of a footballer. Petepetepetepete (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I referred you to an FA, and you refer me to a failed GA? Chensiyuan (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The definitions for each seem fairly arbitrary to me to be honest, especially inlight of tonight's edits. Petepetepetepete (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry FAR
As per the above discussion, i've nominated this for a Featured Article Review...

nominated Thierry Henry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
 * The review seems to have been foreclosed for now. Might be more viable to commence a dialectic here. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous that it's not up for review... we can have it anywhere, but I think even you as the principal editor are aware that all four of those claims are true to some extent. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find it ridiculous actually. And I disagree with the claims you make. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * good for you Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole article should be re-written as an encyclopedic entry and not a fan page essay type one. I believe the handball incident should be mentioned in the lead,as people not even into football at all now know who he is.I'm not asking for a negative campaign against him,but I'm irritated that there has been such a resistance to balancing out the article.--Kevinharte (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Constant edit warring
There seems to be an agenda from some editors to minimise the handball incident altogether.Why can't it be mentioned in the lead? Nothing but positive information is mentioned in the lead,is wikipedia a propaganda engine or what?--Kevinharte (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no agenda in this article; the only thing possessing an agenda is yourself. There are only rules and guidelines on this encyclopedia that guide the content, but you've demonstrated a recurring refusal to read them, let alone adhere to them. Here's a suggestion: prepare your drafts here so that we know how to avert the whole multiplicity of issues and problems that they produce and have produced. Chensiyuan (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea...how about you do the same?Insted of acting like your senior editor,how about you discuss the issues as well?From what i can gather,the majority of editors here agree with me,but people like yourself keep on re-editing the article if it is anywhere balanced.If you continue to re-edit the article to the original,I'll report you and see what the administrators.--Kevinharte (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the only one who's not discussing and editing disruptively. Note that only YOUR edits have been reverted, because they make NO sense. Manderiko (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How do they make no sense? They state fact.They were originally in the international section and insted I moved them to the lead.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no reason to entertain you further because you're being belligerent and refusing to read the supplied rules. The lead is supposed to contain a summary of the article. Apply some rudimentary syllogism. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"rudimentary syllogism"?Ok-the whole article should be re-written as it is like a fan page. Who is this guy?The next Mother Teresa? --Kevinharte (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article reads like a fan page, because the hand ball incident isn't completely blown out of proportion like you would want? Per WP:LEAD, your edits are unacceptable. I don't see how simply and lazily copying a section from one place to another changes this article from a fan page to a neutral article anyway. Making pointless remarks about Mother Theresa won't get anyone more inclined to agree with you.--Atlan (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blown out of proportion? There were over 15,000 news articles mentioning the incident.It's predicted that over 30 million euros will be lost in Ireland because of that handball.I copied and pasted the text as it was buried in the article.Fair enough,the article would have to be restructured to work around the new lead.--Kevinharte (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly,I've had it with this page.If people want to read about Thierry Henry,all they have to do is type his name into a search engine and have over 15,000 articles to read from.It's no surprise that all colleges say that wikipedia should be avoided for any type of research. --Kevinharte (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well boohoo, cry me a river. If you want to leave because your not getting your way, be my guest. Anyway, what part of WP:LEAD don't you understand? It has to introduce the subject to the reader and summarize important points. The hand ball is summarized in the lead just fine, any more on it would be too much. The hand ball may be big in current events, but this is not a news article. We do not give undue weight to a single incident simply because it's big news now.--Atlan (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a little unnecessary, but sadly, User:Kevinharte, if you still can't understand the concepts of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE then we can't help. Read Maradona's article - one sentence about the Hand of God. Or Eric Cantona's - no mention in the lead about his famous assault on a fan. I'm sure that far more newspaper column inches have been expended since 1986 and 1995 about those two incidents than have been so far about the Henry incident. We simply don't concentrate on one aspect of a notable living person's life just because it happened last month, unless it's one of very few things that makes them notable at all (and even then it should have a separate section). The information is still there - it's just not concentrated in the lead, so how that makes any difference to using the article "for research" I don't know. Black Kite 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok.This is a featured article following the strict rules and guidelines of wikipedia.Contact a college/university and ask them if they would recommend using wikipedia as a form of research.I guarantee they'll say no.Why's that?--Kevinharte (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we are not a primary source, since we forbid original research and synthesis of existing sources. We are, at best, a tertiary source, collating those secondary sources who have done the work that makes this whole project possible; however, we *should* refer to our sources, primary (in rare cases) and secondary reliable sources whom we trust. That's why no college should allow citation of Wikipedia; not because our rules forbid it, but because theirs do, because academics are allowed to refer to primary sources and draw their own conclusions- without that, about two-thirds of Wikipedia would not exist. Sorted. Rodhull  andemu  00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because editors such as yourself constantly seek to degrade the quality of articles; such is the price Wikipedia has paid, where everybody, including uninformed, agenda-wielding people like yourself, can edit. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So Kevin, you're saying colleges and universities don't recommend Wikipedia as a source for research, because we don't spend enough article space on a hand ball incident in football? What a joke.--Atlan (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I say that?I was just stating a general fact.Handball incident aside,this article is very biased.--Kevinharte (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have to remember Bill Shankly's statement that "Some say football is a matter of life and death - I'd say it's much more important than that." Here we have editors who believe that football, and its surrounding culture, should somehow fall outside the usual rules here. Respectfully, of course, I disagree. Rodhull  andemu  00:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the neutral observation.--Kevinharte (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give an example in this article.Under the outside football section,a "Time" source was allowed to be used.[]Time magazine also had an article about the biggest cheaters in sport,and Henry was no.1.The article sources are very subjective,but how come they are allowed to be used as a source for something positive,but not a negative one?--Kevinharte (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an article before and it got deleted because it was promotional in nature.In hindsight I agree.From social causes downward,I don't see how these deserve mention as they seem promotional.Why can't these get mentioned in a few sentences?--Kevinharte (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another example."His footballing style and personality have ensured that he is one of the most commercially marketable footballers in the world; he has been featured in advertisements for Nike, Reebok, Renault, Pepsi and Gillette." Where's the sources for that statement? Sounds more like opinion to me.--Kevinharte (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another refusal to read the guidelines on lead. If the lead is a summary of the body, why should the lead contain the sources when the sources are in the body? The only exception to this, inapplicable here, is if the lead contains highly contestable claims. Done dealing with trolling. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is highly contestable.He most likely got the advertising contracts because of his position on the France team and his scoring record.What about the other points I've made? They are valid.--Kevinharte (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to balance out article.
To balance out the article I suggest that the sentence in the lead "His footballing style and personality have ensured that he is one of the most commercially marketable footballers in the world; he has been featured in advertisements for Nike, Reebok, Renault, Pepsi and Gillette."

should be deleted,as should the endorsement articles.They are too promotional and are obviously promoting Thierry Henry as a business brand.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I very often disagree with Kevin, but in this case I must agree. That particular sentence comes very close to WP:WEASEL and to say that his personality has "ensured" this or that is pure speculation. The article would be better without that sentence.Jeppiz (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I made changes to the article.To me it now seems neutral and balanced.What does everyone else think?--Kevinharte (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary removal of referenced statements is YET another echo of your "I just don't like it" behaviour. If this is not disruptive editing, I don't know what is. Chensiyuan (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As above. Editor needs to get a proper handle of what is really neutral and balanced. Editor has been given many chances to stop his nonsense. Manderiko (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.You 2 editors are acting like you own this page and aren't abiding by the rules you keep on reminding me of.@Chensiyuan,you have made 19 edits in the past 2 days.How is getting rid of weasel words and not promoting the player as a business brand not going to make it more encylopedic?--Kevinharte (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of referenced statements that say Thierry Henry is a so and so.Will they have to be added? No,because they're biased. The changes I've made have made this less of a fan page.--Kevinharte (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Under Thierry Henry's profile photo,do we have to add the logos of his sponsors? Of course not,because it's not wikipedia's job to advertise products.--Kevinharte (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been undone by no less than 6 editors for your sweeping and senseless edits. What a coincidence. If you start making some sense, then I'll reply. I've entertained you for far too long. How is that other editors manage to get their edits in and not yours? Because yours don't make any sense, that's why. It's plain belligerence. Chensiyuan (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Time magazine mention should be kept and the Endorsements section trimmed to one paragraph (but not removed altogether). -- Neil N   talk to me  20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with that, but please leave that job to someone who actually knows how to edit this encyclopedia and won't leave a trail of wreckage like broken refs, broken structure, broken sentences etc. Chensiyuan (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I consider the replacing of archived Press Association/Associated Press type reference quality, with unarchived local sources like the Yorkshire Post, as not doing particularly good work. I can just about live with downgrading the what is by now the defacto standard {cite} template down to a worse one, if nobody is going to bother bringing the article into the 20th century, but losing an already filed archive link, and downgrading the quality and reliability of the sourcing, just leaves me bemused. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the rather harsh feelings here, it feels strange to say that I agree with everyone. I agree with Chensiyuan about the way forwards, so Kevin, please use this talk page to gain a consensus for changes. I don't see any reason to remove the sections about products with which Henry has been involved, but I agree with Neil that it could be trimmed down. Regarding the lead, I tend to agree with Kevin about the sentence "His success in football has made him one of the most commercially marketable footballers in the world; he has been featured in advertisements for Nike, Reebok, Renault, Pepsi and Gillette." I would suggesting removing it alltogether. Lacking a scientific study about the brand value of all famous footballers, it's speculative to say that Henry is one of the most marketable. It might be true, but it's not verifiable. Neither is it verifiable that it is his success that has made him that. Beckham was not a bad footballer, but it was his looks and his marriage that explained much of his brand value. I cannot see how the article would be any worse by removing that particular sentence.Jeppiz (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The body contains a sourced statement describing how he is the 9th most commercially marketable. This is not even a normative claim. Chensiyuan (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from being more than three years old, in a context where brand value changes quickly (Ronaldinho is hardly the most marketable now as he was then), the sentence still gives a bad impression, and nowhere is it claimed that it is his success in football alone that accounts for it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the lead is slightly better now, as it finally includes the handball incident.

"During a 2010 World Cup qualifier against Ireland, he used his hand to control the ball before setting up the winning goal. This controversy led to FIFA revisiting the option of introducing technology into the game to aid officials." Does ready a little clumsily though, wouldn't

"During a 2010 World Cup qualifier against Ireland, he was at the centre of a controversy when he used his hand to control the ball before setting up the winning goal. This led to FIFA revisiting the option of introducing technology into the game to aid officials."

...read a little better?

Is still a bit of a fan page, but not neccessarily any more so than other sportsmen's bios. Chensiyuan is very critical of Kevinharte, but the following four edits ::::[], [], [], [] are examples of Chensiyuan obfuscating the pages of Arsenal players to render them in a more positive light than their wiki pages ought to. On the whole a good editor, but I think such edits need to be highlighted in assessing his ability to argue the best future for this bio. Petepetepetepete (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * that wasn't even a good attempt at red herring, only another display of your lack of understanding of this project works or how i work. i don't care the least about putting people in a positive light and twisting my edit history is a poor shot. Chensiyuan (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One glaring lack of balance that does still remain, however, is in the sentence summarising the reaction to the handball controversy: "This sparked a barrage of criticism against the Frenchman, while there were others who defended him." This is a shining example of WP:UNDUE where equal weighting is given to the critism he received and defence. Petepetepetepete (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * not worth replying... there were several significant people who defended him, his coach, his former manager, Duff... Chensiyuan (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

so,is there consensus for the changes?--Kevinharte (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * no, because how does that conform with wp:lead? if one wants to dispute the degree of marketability, that's all right. to omit reference to the endorsement is ignoring the content of the body. Chensiyuan (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok,fair enough. But we all agreed that the endorsement section needs to be trimmed down.I thought the sentence in the lead was weasel words?--Kevinharte (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Petepetepetepete made a valid point about WP:UNDUE. Here's a quote regarding it. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."How come Chensiyuan is allowed to undo edits that adhere to the rules,why others aren't?--Kevinharte (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes made are more balanced.Should the endorsement section be trimmed?--Kevinharte (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of wiknews link
is edit warring to remove this link to a wikinews article from this article. His first removal gave no reason, his second edit summary merely says "news". I've got no idea what he thinks he is doing, but in my experience it is well established that relevant wikinews articles can be linked from biographies using the wikinews template. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no longer news. Otherwise, why not just have links to all the wikinews on Henry? Btw, no one's warring with you, so stoke your flames elsewhere. Chensiyuan (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that these links are supposed to be temporary? This is not how they are used elsewhere, you will find hundreds of 'old' news links which still exist in other articles, this article is no different. Infact, if it was any good as a supposed FA it would have a link in the EL section to all Henry wikinews stories, in the same way as Commons and Wikiquote, as well as being placed in the relevant parts of the article where appropriate, as this one was. And you are warring Chensiyuan, please refresh yourself of the relevant policies if you have forgotten what edit warring actually is. If you want your second revert to stand, please find someone else who shares your rather odd idea of how the template is supposed to be used. Otherwise, I'll be re-adding it as perfectly valid. MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So just have the external link to the wikinews, then. Agree that this is old news; issue resolved by FIFA and of no contemporary relevance. Manderiko (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only resolved as far as disciplining Henry is concerned, and only then through a technicality. The new FIFA committee to which the link actually refers will still be conducting its review, and whatever it decides will be down to Henry. The link should be inserted in the relevant place the international section where the incident is described, as well as being present in the EL section - if anybody gets around to writing any more stories about him other than match reports and then gathers them in a wikinews category that can be linked to. It would make no sense at all to only link to this single story from the EL section. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Recentism may be relevant here. We should not write the article from a "current" point of view, but rather a historical point of view. With that in mind I don't think the age of a story should preclude its presence any more than the newness of a story should qualify it for a place. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Including it in the text is part and parcel of providing the historical record. MickMacNee (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that these links are supposed to be temporary? --> As Manderiko said, an external link to Wikinews suffices. There people can read all the Henry news they want. Your "argument" that it should be stuffed in the international career section is self-defeating as it appeals to the same objection you raise: temporal characteristic.
 * This is not how they are used elsewhere, you will find hundreds of 'old' news links which still exist in other articles, this article is no different. --> If you can point me to an FA that does this, okay. Otherwise, I don't see the relevance or precedential value of such examples (in which you assert in the abstract without specifying).
 * Infact, if it was any good as a supposed FA it would have a link in the EL section to all Henry wikinews stories, in the same way as Commons and Wikiquote, as well as being placed in the relevant parts of the article where appropriate, as this one was. --> Re ibid. Which FA does this?
 * And you are warring Chensiyuan, please refresh yourself of the relevant policies if you have forgotten what edit warring actually is. If you want your second revert to stand, please find someone else who shares your rather odd idea of how the template is supposed to be used. Otherwise, I'll be re-adding it as perfectly valid. --> Speaks for itself. Only noobs bite the bait to such empty threats. Chensiyuan (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those articles aren't FAs. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, which is why I removed the post. However - if you look through this list you will see in-article linking to old news articles all over the place in all kinds of articles, good and bad. I have no clue how to limit that list to just FAs, and I am not going to click through each one until I've checked a large enough sample of FAs to prove your 'abstract' assertion that FAs don't do this, so I think if you want to assert that in-article usage is barred from FAs, it is down to you to show that by pointing to the large amount of documentation that FAR runs from, or get someone else with experience of FAR to come here and say it. I have no idea how my argument is apparently self-defeating, I never asserted that it belongs there because it was timely news in the first place. My understanding of that templates usage has no time aspect, the link belongs where it is most relevant to the article, and the templates documentation says that also, which is why it is normal across the pedia. 'people can just go look in EL' is not a weighty argument in my eyes at all, especially when in this case, that would only be a link to this one news article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reversal of the burden of proof is rejected. You have said nothing to advance your self-created practice. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, this reversal is disingenuous. Manderiko (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing disingenuous about it at all. If anything, it is him being disingenuous. If he wants to assert this practice is barred in FAs, it is down to him to show it the proper way, by referring to the documentation, or getting someone who knows, to back him up. It is frankly not going to fly as an argument that someone should go and check all FAs to defeat his argument, that is what is disingenuous. If he is going to act this way, it's going back in simply per BRD, unless or until he can do the 'D' part and properly establish a consensus without coming across as someone with a serious attitude problem who thinks he is above justifying his edit warring. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Straight up, Mick: are you saying the wikinews link should never be removed from the international section? Truth be told, no one's really hung up on this piece of news anymore, cept maybe the Irish..... the incident is over. Manderiko (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it should not be removed. You wouldn't do that for any other kind of content, so how are inter-wiki links any different? They aren't simply handy pointers for current events that have a shelf life, they are part of the article. Whether people are still 'hung up' on it still is besides the point, and as above, it isn't actually over yet either. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you are being unreasonable. As was pointed out, for you to be consistent, all the wikinews links related to Henry have to make their way into the inline text, and there are almost 20 such links. Manderiko (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excluding match reports, which I think everybody would agree it would be patently ludicrous to include, which other links have you got in mind? I have no problem adding all of them in the relevant places, because that is what they are for. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps creating a parent category for Henry in Wikinews and linking it here by using the "Wikinews template" would solve the issue. We would be linking not only this piece, but every other Henry-related article as well in a single template. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  19:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless or until that happens, and unless or until someone proves inline usage is barred on FAs (either through policy or authorised person, I don't mind), it should go back in as a perfectly normal and accepted usage. Arguing, let-alone edit warring, to do otherise, without these two things, is indefensible. Wikipedia is not a news service, arguments that it is somehow now not relevant but was before, are themselves, thanks to that core policy, irrelevant. The link was added for historical reference because Wikipedia is a work of historical reference, these links are not, or should not be, being added and removed from articles in a temporal manner, treating Wikipedia as some sort of current events service. It is a link to a sister project, nobody should be edit warring to break links between Wikimedia projects without good reason. If Chensiyuan wants to now claim inline usage is barred from FAs, why didn't he object when it was added, over two months ago? Is he, or is he not, just flip-flopping his case, because ultimately, he just doesn't like it being there, for whatever reason, and has no qualms about edit-warring, and see's use of edit summaries, wp:ew, and the talk page, as some sort of inconvenience to him. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That I didn't object is consistent with my position. It was a news item; an item that was alive then. Months later, it's no longer news, and it should be removed because you've shown no rational distinction between keeping this news item and discarding the other news items from the inline text. As for the FA argument, you can keep trying to reverse the burden but the simple point remains that no such FA has been shown to exist. And there's a reason for that: it's a stupid practice to keep external links in the body when those external links are of low quality. Finally, you can stop using the edit-warring rhetoric and padding your "arguments" with it; not only is it a poorly patented falsehood, it adds nothing to this discussion. As it were, everyone here is for putting the link in the EL, and nobody but you is shouting the same old merit-less tune -- who's the recalcitrant one? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:EL, since you were too lazy to read them to cure your paranoia, and also to put an end to your reversing-burden nonsense once and for all: In short, what does the news link add? Nothing. There are already two wiki links to the match in question which discuss the matter in much greater detail. Shoving in this link is just to promote your own hung-up-ness of the issue. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.
 * What should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
 * Links normally to be avoided: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
 * Links normally to be avoided: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * In biographies of living people: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles.


 * "Shoving in this link is just to promote your own hung-up-ness of the issue". Please, let's not start analysing who has what motives here. I'm not Irish in case you decide to repeat that mistake again. The possible POV source of your views takes a mere five seconds to divine, if we are to go down that route. I can assume good faith all day long for people who don't edit war, and defend their case correctly, and with respect for others.
 * "What does it add?" Assuming we are talking about benefit to readers, then that's blindingly obvious tbh unless you think Wikinews should just be shut down. Why even ask the question?
 * "It was a news item; an item that was alive then. Months later, it's no longer news" - see NOT#NEWS as above. That is not what Wikipedia does. Plain and simple.
 * "you've shown no rational distinction between keeping this news item and discarding the other news items from the inline text". Nobody has bothered to name any of these supposed other wikinews stories that exist that would presumably now flood the article. Had you even bothered to even attempt to either create a category to place in EL when you removed, without explanation, the link, I might look at this differently, but as it is, this is a manufactured 'what if' post-justification, compounding a wrong interpretation of what these links are for in the first place. If anybody has bothered to write Wikinews reports of events of similar impact in his career, I have zero objection giving them the same treatment, excluding run-of the mill match reports.
 * "no such FA has been shown to exist". I can't prove a negative, and I'm certainly not going to check every single FA out there. You however, can easily either show me an FA policy or guideline, or get someone in the FA heirarchy to back up this claim. Your failure at the third time of asking suggests you simply can't.
 * "you can stop using the edit-warring rhetoric" I'll stop it when, or rather if, you ever demonstrate you are not an edit warrior, and for example as many others often do, self-revert to show good faith. But, if the cap fits, wear it. The only reason I did not add it back after you went silent having made no real policy points or bothered to refute any of mine, is because I know full well you would instantly revert it, in the same manner you did originally, as if you had never even heard of BRD. Were you not simply an edit warrior, this discussion would have begun with you attempting to show support for your undocumented suggestion that removing 'stale' interwiki links is part of FA standards. I can understand how shining a light on your methods might be uncomfortable, but you did what you did and we are where we are. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EL - it is funny you assume I am lazy and have never read EL, but as ever, wrong. I was already fully aware that EL does not even mention inter-wiki links, and that they are not considered just ordinary links for the purposes of EL in the slightest. But as ever, if you find me a policy or FA person that disagrees, I'll accept it no question, bung the link in the EL section and move on. I find it quite pointless and borderline irrelevant that you are now trying to compare a relevant and informative link to a sister project with any old link as if it were spam or a fansite. As for location, per WP:SISTER: "if there is no directly relevant section in the page, then the links are usually placed in the external links section". I'd be really interested in how you intend to argue there is no directly relevant section in the article for this inter-wikilink. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is farcical when its supposed to be factual. Nowhere is the word cheat used. Complete toss the way editors are dumbing it down Pal X  21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)