Talk:Clásico Regiomontano/Archive 1

Resolved NPOV Discussion regarding Tigres favoritism in "Notable Clásicos" Section

This article is a shame; totally biased in favor of Tigres

I feel some pity towards whoever wrote this article biased in favor of Tigres. He does not have anything to do in his life that has to spend his time writing these fairy tale stories. Not even close to reality. I am a native of Monterrey, huge football fan, and I can really tell you this article made me laugh. It is full of and biased language and some things are just made up, didn't happen as stated.

Interesting that others in this discussion have argued that the article is biased in favor of Rayados. It is clear that a topic that drives an enormous amount of passion from supporters of both teams would naturally feel that their team is being treated unfairly when an unbiased position is taken. The wikipedia guidelines have a solution: present both point of views with adequate sources. You are more than welcome to bring sources to the article that replace the so-called "made up" things you claim this article has. Hari Seldon 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hari Seldon, You are a very big Hypocrite. Research on wikipedia before you post anything on articles. NPOV research that. Suspecious referee's ?? offside?? Opposite team wins with other teams Defensive mistakes??? You are just upset that your rival has very much dominated your team. This is funny, To the boots of gaitan?? Magical??

Sign your comments. Suspicious referee, phrase by news media. Offside, as seen in replays and as sourced in news media. Opposite team wins with other teams mistakes, as always... Is this not always the case? Rival dominating my team, last I heard, they are evenly matched in results... Source and add context, and sign your comments. Hari Seldon 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no controversy in this game only made up by you, Not the media. Franco is in correct position, Cite a source where it indicates Franco is offside with Picture and Video. Bottom line is that your wrong untill you are able to prove yourself right. Goal Valid, Mty Advances

A source with picture and video is, of course, Roberto Hernandez Jr. and his show, and the replay of the game. Hari Seldon 19:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

o but of course Roberto Hernandez Jr is a UANL fan still not a source. It's like putting Mario Castillejos and Antonio Nelli (Pasion Futbolera). One Uanl fan and One Mty fan. Yet both indicate there is no offside. try again

It is very easy to discredit a source saying "oh, he is a fan of Tigres"... The fact is that this man has the most viewed sports show, and the most ample coverage and qualifies as a reliable source. Added to that, other sources also indicate that Franco might have been offside, including the Televisa narrators in the game, and other newspapers (such as Milenio and El Norte). Hari Seldon 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

and still till today no sources here on wikipedia

None that you have contributed... by the way, sign your comments. Hari Seldon 11:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay lets talk About televisa okay, On December 11, 2006 tell me where in any show covered by televisa narrators stated Franco is offside, La Jugada or Accion. During the game Televisa narrators did not say he was offsides, Main narration in that game was Antonio nelli by televisa, so no offside was ever mentioned

I don't have access to Televisa's video libraries. However, other cited sources have been provided. Hari Seldon 18:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

okay so none that i have contributed, but yet you are unable to contribute either. yet no cited sources or newspaper articles or video libraries from televisa. And i haven't contributed, huh. ever think about that it doesn't exist.

Incorrect use of several words and many typos

This article is full of words that should not be used for the case being, such as "hero" and "magical". I know you guys love your teams, but c'mon, they are strikers, not heros. It made me remember Captain Tsubasa (Los SuperCampeones) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RUL3R (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 May 2006

NPOV - Biased towards Tigres

This Article is false It has to be changed because CFM did not protest this issue, "Rayados immediately protested a technicality[6] (the registry of one Tigres player was missing a paper), and the game, and two others, had to be re-matched on the league (the other Clásico, #62, ended 0-0)." Another team in a league cannot have any kind of proper access to another club's information. This technicality was revised by FMF and not by Club Futbol Monterrey and there was not a missing paper. The president of Tigres Had Forged a fake signiture. The prior team that player "Osmar Donizete" played for contacted President of FMF "Alberto De La Torre" and confirmed that "Donizete" had never signed and was not suppose to play with Tigres. I do Have Prove of this Subject recorded on video and is documented by Televisa. I also have a Newspaper Source but I will not use This Source, because Newspaper companies are a unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.128.65 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 April 2006

RE: The source I cited said what was originally shown on wikipedia... If you have a better source that you can cite, then please edit the page with them. Otherwise, please do not destroy citations, as they have been very hard to find.

If you feel the article is NPOVed towards any team, please do not edit the article to make it NPOVed towards another team. You will help more if you provide sources and citations to make this article better. That is why the NPOV tag is still in the main page. If you have the source, then cite them! By the way, since when is a newspaper source "unreliable"? Is there anything more reliable? Is TV more reliable? (please consider that Televisa owns three teams in Mexican soccer: San Luis, Necaxa, and América, and may also have NPOV issues on its content). In any case, it serves more if you cite and write with an NPOV than if you don't cite and write with pro-Rayados (or pro-Tigres) language.

Also, it would greatly help if you get a username and password. I only know you as 68.89.128.65 and that doesn't help much. - Hari Seldon 11:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC -6)

NPOV - Biased towards Tigres

This Article is completely one-sided and filled with false information on how to favor UANL. Could somebody who actually lives the passion from these games and lives in Monterrey, Mx reword this and be fair.. I believe the editor is a UANL fan and does not mean to make these mistakes but at least get two editors for each side to come to a conclusion that would make this article correct. "Tigres plays better soccer if they win" But rayados " win due to Defensive Tigres Mistakes" so in other words Rayados never wins because they play better only because of Tigres mistakes???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.179.184 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 April 2006

Re: Actually, you are right. I am working on getting some sources to cite everything that talks about any of the teams. This is a very delicate subject, because the passion for one team or the other is intense and may lead to NPOV issues. I must confess I cheer for Tigres and wrote those words. However, there are incidents in which the article is reworded to say the exact same thing for Rayados ("Rayados played magically, and so on..."), the best thing that can be done is add cited sources. However, this has been difficult to get. If you can help getting some, you'll be more than welcome! - Hari Seldon 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC -6)

(Update): I have modified the page again and reworded with a little bit more objective language. Obviously sometimes Rayados plays better than Tigres, but the opposite is also true (Tigres sometimes plays better than Rayados). This is why citations and sources are needed. "Klebergüenza" was started by the media, not by the fans (this change has been corrected). Rayados did played better to win the 4-1 semi-final (this change has been added), but Tigres also played better and and showed a more attacking football after the Rayados goal in the Clásico 80 (this has been corrected). If you are really worried for objectivity, then lets grant each its own triumphs and defeats. If you can contribute with sources, you will be doubly thanked. I am looking for some to maintain an even more neutral point of view, but as I said, these are hard to find. Hari Seldon 11:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC -6)

NPOV - Biased towards Tigres

This article seems to me to be very much biased towards one team or the other rather than taking a NPOV, particularly in the Noted Clásicos section. Phrases such as "This time, Rayados barely made it through the final with help from the referee", "but Mexican rules and a poor refereeing favored Rayados this time", "The last game in which Tigres saw that remote possibility", etc. Any thoughts? Starfighter Pilot 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously something like this was bound to happen. The truth is that the Rayados making it through with help from the referee can be valid because that game HAD a controversial refereeing. I suggest rewording. This is an issue of wording and not of inaccurate information. Hari Seldon 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Starfighter Pilot is correct, this is an NPOV issue (not just a re-wording one). The author(s) of the Notable Clásicos section is clearly biased towards the Tigres - in the description of Clásico 61, the Rayados were referred to as "crybabies." I've removed some of the more inflammatory language from this section, but because the author's POV is suspect, I have flagged the article as NPOV, and suggest we need someone knowledgable about the history of the Clásico Regiomontano to make sure that the information in the section isn't presented in a one-sided way. Kevyn 18:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have re-added the NPOV tag to the beginning of this article, because the partisans are back at it. 207.248.42.45, who is a frequent contributor to this article and undoubtedly a Tigres fan, has re-added language such as "Crybabies Reyados" and "Tigres played magically" (Which I have removed). Kevyn 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: I apologize for calling Rayados crybabies. In any case, many in the media called them just that after what they did (they forced Tigres to replay the Clásico, and two othe games, the other two teams said they did not want to replay the games, and one actually did not and lost by default). However, I promise to stop using anti-Rayados language, but sometimes the article is edited with anti-Tigres language and that has to be prevented too, if there is going to be an objective point of view. Perhaps there might be nothing to do against us the partisans, but there is still room to improve the article and make it more objective. -207.248.42.45

Thank you. If you want to include the media's description of the Reyado's as "crybabies," you must cite the source. (See Citing_sources). Just saying it appeared in such-and-such newspaper is not enough - you must include the name of the article and the date it appeared, and put it in the footnotes. And even then, you must say something neutral like "...leading the media to call the Reyados 'crybabies.' " In other words, you can get away with partisan language if you cite a source - but in fairness you should show both sides of any controversy.

I agree that there has been some anti-Tigres edits here (also from an anonymous source - I've been watching to see if there is any one partcular IP that is doing a lot of edits). You are allowed to correct these anti-Tigres edits, to make them non-partisan. Instead of increasing the non-NPOV of this article by retaliating with anti-Reyados edits, decrease the non-NPOV by fixing partisan language from the other side. You have contributed much to this article, and obviously know much about the Clásico. We need neutral editors like you to "take ownership" of articles to make sure they are the best - and most neutral - articles they can be.

Also, I'd like to ask again that you create an account on Wikipedia, and use that account to edit. Many Wikipedia editors are suspicious of edits that come from users without accounts (like you), but a registered account appears more legitimate. Also, as a registered Wikipedia user, you can "watch" this article, to see when changes are being made. With Clásico Regiomontano on your watchlist, you can be the policeman to watch and see what is being edited on this article, and fix the partisan edits.

Thanks! Kevyn 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am 207.248.42.45. I have recovered my account and added some citations to this article, as it was much needed. However, I couldn't find much, and I will promise to look for more. The main "crybaby" issue has been resolved (for me). Unfortunately, I couldn't find a printed statement of this (but I know that radio commentators did use the word). So, I added another, related, citation.

The same happened with "Klebergüenza". I have been looking for a citation but have not been able to find it. The nickname, though offensive, is true (so true that it is used even today by the fans of Kleber's current team whenever he misses). I know that the nickname originated from that game, and I know that it was the radio who started it, but I can't find anything printed. Any suggestions?

hseldon10

Is TV a More reliable Source?

Absolutely TV is more reliable. In Television Including Documentaries they get the hard facts with all the evidence. I don't believe that my comment is Pro for MTY just putting the facts into this article for you to take consideration. I have been watching this games for more then 15 years, and know every glorious moment of both these teams and their tragedies. From the first years Of CFM foundation in the 40's and UANL old Jabato's name and being owned by government. Also From the old days when Both teams use to play in the same stadium and held a much larger capacity of 70,000. Everything from the 78' 82 Championships of UANL and CFM 86' 03' Championships to defeats in the final. I don't think there is one moment that i don't know from both these teams. From reading all three articles Tigres, MTY, and Clasico Regiomontano I don't believe that i have heard anything Pro for MTY. Now we know that if things are written in favor for both teams MTY will have the better of it. I'm a supporter for both teams and i have found some innacurate information regarding UANL and MTY that is why i ask that we have one person from each team. but i just find it hard to believe that anybody here can have the same knowledge as i would. My friends and I, who some of them have about 35 to 50 years of expierence from these games have discussions about these two teams half and half supporting their team. and we always come down to a conclusion. If one of them disagree's with something I put on my video collection and evidence and finally convince each other how things are. My point is that it would be perfect if it could be done here but quite hard on the Internet. I also believe that all the people that have posted here lean toward the exact same thing. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.97.81 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2006

RE: Please sign your comments.

If you can find one serious academic, documentator, or enciclopedian that agrees that TV is more reliable than newspapers or books, I'll believe you. In my experience, TV cannot be considered a reliable source because of its bias.

Also, if you know about the "old" clásicos, you might want to expand the "notable clásicos" section, because it only features Clásicos from 1995 to date. Evidently, this page still needs a lot of work to be done, and most of it would be more productive than arguing who is better. Lets just leave the arguing to documented facts (documented in newspapers and books and other SERIOUS sources).

hseldon10

Reliable sources must be verifiable. Unless the TV footage is archived in a manner that anyone can access it, it is does not meet the Wikipedia verifiablestandard. DPeterson^talk 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple

1.

Clasico 80 on January 15, 2006 is important for being the first one played outside, the score is relevant, that was in extra time is relevant, Tigres being the first team to go to times to Copa Libertadores, relevant, even though it has nothing to do with the Clasicos.

This is completely out out of context:

"Tigres started the match on the attack and had 3 missed chances on the first 5 minutes. In the 5th minute, Rayados midfielder Ricardo "Pepito" Martinez scored a great goal from way outfield, and the team dedicated the rest of the game to defend. Tigres, then overcame the goal and showed more attacking power and better football, which helped them tie the game, send it to extra-time, and claim the championship and ticket to the Libertadores."

Calling this a Championship?

Did some editing,

2.

If Tigres Clasico 75 on August 21, 2004. is relevant because of the goal difference is good, but you have to include both Clasico 3, August 23, 1975 and Clasico 53, July 19, 1997. Both 4-0 in favor of Rayados. Same Goal Difference.

It is the FMF who call the Interliga a Championship... So, it is valid to call it that way in wikipedia too.

How is a European International league competition relevent to Rayados Vs Tigres Semifinal???

Again, sign your comments... It is relevant to compare and add context. European International competitions are the standard for soccer rules. It is to make certain that the reader understand why Rayados advanced, despite Tigres having the away-goal advantage. Hari Seldon 11:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hari seldon you are the most ignorant lying editor on this topic. Your stories are false and just full of ignorance, cite the source and then post, don't just talk from what you believe happened. Everybody here has told you the same exact thing as how some of your posting are unrelevant. You only post want you want to believe, not on the truth, In other words you talk out your ass, Not the Facts. European international soccer rules are standard? What is Standard? What does A International Soccer game have to do with your own National league? Do some research before you make yourself sound even more ignorant. You still have not been able to cite the So called Controversial Referreeing, Or The So Called Offside, Or the superiority of their rival?

Standard in the sense that Europe has the most followed leagues in th world and are a good frame of reference, particularly for the hundreds of thousands of wikipedia readers that have no idea how the Mexican system works. A lot might question, if Tigres had away-goal advantage, why did they not qualify? The answer: because Mexico does not follow European rules.

Do not make this personal by insulting. That is against guidelines. You can contribute too, by adding sources. Hari Seldon 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Added sources and even a picture. Is this better? Hari Seldon 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hari that photo has no proof of anything all it shows is two players and the assistant at the end. There is no assistant holding up his flag quit inventing stories. And that is not a source that is a thread. What does a International Competition have to do with a National League competition??? There is not a National competition with the same rules as a International Competition. Most of the league around the world are not obligated to those rules of away goal, In case you did not know the way for a team to become champion they have to obtain the most points by the end of the Tournament. Mexico is probaly the only country that has PLAYOFFS. Every time your comments become more and more irrational. Understand this away goal rules are only IN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS. Rayados vs Tigres is not International. Therefor there is nothing relevant to this game. Don't say we can also contribute because you erase everything that is true and post your made up comments. Quit lying to the people of wikipedia.

I am not lying, you cannot take sourced and pictured facts. As i said earlier and many times, away goal rules are a common frame of reference in the soccer world, and Mexico is a huge exception about it, and that is why it requires clarification. I will treat your deletes as vandalism, and if you want to invite someone to aid in this dispute, you are welcome to do so. Hari Seldon 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My Deletes are vandalism? HA I laugh at your lies. I don't need aids just normal people to dispute your ignorant, false comments. Vandalism, yes vandalism is the way you have repeatedly broken the rules of wikipedia of NPOV. You lie all the time, I don't even have to tell you that. I live in Monterrey, People know the truth, they disagree with your false comments as so does the city. So im comfortable in my position. Yet you go everyday with that big doubt in your mind. Your knowledge in Sports is minimal, favortism, and false. Yet you have not been able to provide one realiable fact that proves your comments are right, you have put sites that are threads, and photos with no visibility of what you try to proof. The only Vandalism here is your presence and this whole discussion from top to bottom proves me right. The people know, Oh yes i will finally put some real proof to you that is not offside i have a fully visable photo when the player bumps the ball with his head. Hopefully you will finally give it a rest, accept your wrong.

Please refer to wikipedia guidelines before you continue editing this article. NPOV is not the only rule in wikipedia. There is also guidelines for adding sources ("Wikipedia is not about the truth, its about what can be double-checked"). "People know the truth" is not a valid argument in wikipedia. The references, and the picture, is there. Please refrain from continuing your vandalistic deletes. Hari Seldon 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if "wikipedia is not about the truth, its what can be double checked". Then Prove that in this topic, prove something that is reasonable. Yes, NPOV is not the ONLY RULE, But the fact is that it is a RULE, Period. Read the guidelines please. you have provided a unvalid photo of players in inside the goal area, and false references that aren't realiable. Yet Again I repeat the only vandalism here are your false comments. You have yet to provide the facts stating that your argument is correct. Discontinue writing false comments and i will refrain from my deletions. Edit the article with a NPOV, not with your beliefs and opinions. And also if reading the guidelines we have the ability to delete or rewrite a article with sources to back it up. The only problem is that you have written the article without citing sources or proving your comments. So in that case there is no vandalism here in my part.

The paragraph you are vandalistically deleting has two references that can be easily retrieved. By deleting, you are adding nothing to wikipedia, you simply are censoring a piece of an article that doesn't go with your passion. This is against wikipedia policy. If you do not stop I will report you. Hari Seldon 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

okay i will edit it, and go ahead report me. Lets see for what? I will not stop, I have given you the opportunity to correct the article and you have failed to do so, due to the fact that you are a uanl fan and have a thorn inside of you due to your teams biggest lost in its history. Your threats are desperate. If you like we can talk in chat and discuss this to come to a reasonable conclusion and fair NPOV article.

You contribute nothing. You only come here and delete. You do not add content, you do not add sources, and you ceratinly do not adhere to wikipedia guidelines. You cannot even get an account, and cannot sign your comments. You want to impose your own point of view and call it "NPOV", but without providing source material, and calling it "the truth". You accuse me of taking a partisan side, when I am the first one to admit it, but you do not see your own attitude and you clothe it in "defense of wikipedia". Your hipocracy matches your vandalistic acts. If you continue disrupting this article, I will report you, and will continue to revert any deletes, defamation, and censorhip that you wish to impose without sourced material. Hari Seldon 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note, I have noticed that, while you usually log using IP 68.89.129.226, your last entry was done using IP 68.91.91.194... In other ocassions you have entered using other IP addresses. This has not gone unnoticed. It raises suspicion as to why wouldn't you take an account. Is it so you can continue vandalizing wikipedia with impunity? Hari Seldon 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay i have not imposed any kind of point of view NPOV is what i write. Report Me hari seldon you have threatened me for something that i have stated on how to improve the article. I am not required to have a account, My Time is limited. Yet your ignorance is much more of a vandalism to my hipocracy. If it even so does exist. I know the wikipedia rules, Before i am Blocked a Moderator will speak with me. If your able to read the guidelines you will see you have violated rules. You have consistenly tried dictating a topic that is not yours to dictate.

Article protected

Hola. I've protected the article until the dispute is sorted out here. One important note to the IP editor; please get an account in order to avoid gaming the system by reverting using different IP. If this attitude persists, i'd be obliged to range block them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fayassal, We have a issue here I and several other wikipedians have protested the unfair P.O.V of this article, Upon discovery this article was baised on personal opinions, No citations and bad mouthing of the rival team. Wikipedians and myself have attempted to better this article by what wikipedia stands for NPOV. In mostly every topic the rival team was criticized and the editors team has heavily favored. Many edits have been made. I have allowed the editor to change or resolve this issue and continually has denied so. Our major concern here is a dispute in a game, I have asked politely the editor to prove the facts that state his comments. I believe that if you are writing something in a article that is debatable, the person imposing that edit should provide proof on that topic. For Example this "Rayados forward "Guille" Franco scored in the last minutes of Clásico 79. The assistant referee has its flag up, signaling an offside that the main referee ignored". Yet Prove has not been presented, never in a citated article put in by the editor, does it say that. And has only posed a picture of a offensive player inside the goal area. The only thing i have not protested is a Foul by defender Baloy on Ofensive player Gaitan. And he does present proof of that which i don't dispute, but yet when i tried to detail the game by saying "Walter Erviti was unfairly sent off in a poor decision by the referree, the editor completly disgards it without debating the issue. I have repeatedly debating and erased comments that aren't proved, but yet Seldon will not debate, just delete. yet when i tried to delete i was threatened by seldon, repeatingly telling me he will report me, saying i have vandalized a article in which most people say this article is a joke, and completely favored by a uanl fan.

-- the above unsigned comment was left by Neryaiden on February 28 at 03:17

The article has been expanded with several citations. The so-called "attempts to improve the article" are nothing but deletes that do not add, but subtract from the article. A subtraction is never an improvement.

This editor does not assume ownership of the article. But I do assume a responsibility to wikipedia, to keep articles in the best position possible. Please note that I am also an editor in Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Felipe Calderón and I don't let my personal opinions rule over my contributions in those articles. I delete vandalism in those articles, and try to maintain a NPOV there. It is no secret that I favor Tigres, but that is not a reason behind my edits in this article. Deleting sourced material is vandalism, and I am reverting it.

I am not against a more NPOV approach to the content of this article, but deletions are not NPOV. We can discuss and reach consensus, if you wish.

Articles do not require proof. They require cited sources. Why? Because NPOV is not a policy that pursues the truth; it is a policy that pursues all available knowledge and points of view. Though controversial, Franco's possible offisde is a point-of-view that, all thing being equal, is as valid as the possibility that he was not offside. However, things are not equal: there are sources in favor of one point-of-view, and no sources available for the other point of view. What prevails in wikipeida? Not the truth, but the material that is sourced. This argument is not partisan, it is guideline-based.

I would even be willing to accept consensus on a wording that shows both points of view, even if one wasn't sourced, if the content was indeed an addition and improved the quality of the article. However, recent edits have been deletions, which hardly improve quality.

Agreed, the article is stronly POVed. However, adding more POV will not improve the article. Over the months that I've been here I've tried to add information to this article, and reduce as much POV as possible. However, I have not had the time to do as much as I would wish. Besides editing in other articles, I have responsibilities in school, and at work. I do, however, keep an eye open to revert any edit that subtracts quality. Deletion of sourced material subtracts quality.

As you can see by my ample response, I have the will and openess to debate. My record precedes me, and can be easily checked and measured because, above all, I am a wikipedian with the courage to take responsibility for its edits. That is why I am here, and that is why I list my bias in my talk page, and that is why I sign all my edits. I want to be verifiable, because I want my own edit capacity to improve, just as I want to improve articles.

I offer goodwill, arguments, and sources. What do you offer?

Hari Seldon 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

okay i have offered you the opportunity to improve the article, yet you haven't if you want to debate the issue then lets do so. Yet i contribute nothing you say, but yet when i do, you only overwrite it with your same article, So you haven't contributed anything much, What is done is pretty much the same Delete mine and rewrite with your same copy and paste article. You source material, Yet in your own source material it does not back up the pov brought into topic. Don't you agree that you should remove the Offside? Since you have not provided any source material on that subject. And also the picture that supposely describes the assistant putting up his flag. which is never visable in video nor image. I agree with your first pov of a foul inside the area because your own cited source says it. Yet in your own article you havent listed Erviti's unfair expulsion.

Accusations are not contributions. The source referenced explicitly says that Franco was offside (it is a quotation). The picture is added not as a reference, but as an illustration. The reference is listed, and has been there for months. But if you are having trouble reading the footnotes, here it is: Cae Tigres ante Monterrey y Arbitro Paragrapgh three says: "Pero nuevamente apareció Arredondo, o mejor dicho, no apareció para marcar un fuera de lugar de Franco, quien clavó el 2-1 a cinco minutos del final, en jugada donde el juez de línea número dos, Santiago Rojas, levanta su bandera al detectar la mala posición del atacante rayado, pero se arrepiente y la baja, para luego correr al centro del campo y dar por buena la anotación." The reporter is documenting that the assistant referee had his flag up when Franco scored. There is enough evidence to back the claim that Franco being offisde is a valid point of view.

No, I don't agree that a valid point of view should be removed. I would support a different point of view to be added. That is what NPOV is for. It is not to have a personal truth prevail: it is for every point of view that can be referenced be shown. One point of view is that Franco was offside, another one is that he was not.

About Erviti's unfair red card, I did not add it because I was unaware of it.

So, the next step right now is to come up with a proposal for the article. If we can agree on the proposal, then we can go ask an administrator to unprotect the article, and then we can change it. The compromise will be that once we reach consensus and add the mutual version to the article, that we will abide by the consensus and that wikipedia guidelines will be upheld no matter what our personal point of view is. I would suggest you find sources for the additions you want to make to the article, as they will make the discussion less controversial.

Hari Seldon 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are not contributions, yeah how conveniant, huh. ?? http://www.doctoramor.com/foro/showthread.php?p=3225756#post3225756 ??? are you kidding me? hari come on, that is not a source doctor amor is a thread for people's ppov. 13th is not a reliable citation. Incredible, Just Unbelievable to use doctor amor as a citation. Still not a valid point of view. Unlock the article so i can provide you with a no excuse, undeniable image proof of the second play. -- the above unsigned comment was left by Neryaiden

Well, thats more than you have provided so far. Agreed, blogs are frowned upon, but they are better than nothing.

If you haven't noticed, I did not unlock the article. It was done by an administrator to protect it from reckless editing and edit-warring. His conditions were for us to resolve our differences before unlocking the article. Lets resolve our differences.

Valid point of view, by the way, has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. It has to do with how widespread the view is held. Sources are need not to validate the point of view, but to document that the point of view exists. In this case, a blog easily documents that the point of view exists. After all, this is a subjective topic on a relatively minor issue (a soccer game).

"No excuse, undeniable proof"... Again, we are not looking for proof because we are not looking for the truth. We are looking for documentation of all possible perspectives on the issue. That is what NPOV means.

Hari Seldon 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

okay and yet not documentation of what you state is even there? i say just re edit by saying it was a controversial game with calls effecting both sides in what the article that you provided states, only what the article states. And remove the offside due to no documentation. Excuse me for taking soo long I have a life to attend to also. - The above unsigned comment was left by Neryaiden at 09:21, March 10, 2007

Ok, looks like we are getting nowhere. First of all, there is documentation. Granted, it is not the best form, but it does corroborate the claim that there is a valid point of view. So, your excuse for deleting a valid POV is that "there is no documentation" when in fact there is. On the other hand, I do agree that serious changes are needed. I'll post my proposals here in the afternoon. Finally, I also have a life, but I also take responsibility for those things that I started. It is unfair that your stubborness and your POV edits ruined the wikipedia experience for other editors of the article who want to contribute. Lets finish what was started, and get it over with... Hari Seldon 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between my posts is that yours are completely ignorant, and mine are fact. You say there "is" documentation but yet where is it? I say no and its deja vu all again, . Regardless of it being a npov or pov, It is what it is. I have proved you wrong on every single topic and never even needed to cite a source to back up something that i post because you know it's true. and yet I am the hypocrite? and filled with stubborness?. And do you speak for the rest of wikipedia, Also on every single topic i have ever posted anything I have never ever had anybody object to me, yet in your own postings you have numerous of people objecting to your pov's. And you have even said it you let your passion take over. So lets unlock this article and come down to a reasonable article. Now I'm going to ask you Do you want to use your Citation article and claim that article to stay. Simple, yes or no question.

You don't even have the decency to sign your comments. Ignoring what I say does not "prove me wrong". I have given you documentation. "Never needed to cite because it is true" is against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is about what we can cite, not about what it is true. What I want is an article of the highest quality possible under wikipedia guidelines. I said I would give you a proposal, but I am a little busy this week. Proposal is coming. And of course, I want all available sources to stay. Hari Seldon 07:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have given documentation, I'm not against that hari, Document it, I have not objected to your source. Yet you have not cited what i asked. yes, let the adequate proposals stay. Yet again your ignorance remains. you have not sourced a cite about the offside, And source 13 is not a "HIGH QUALITY" SOURCE. I believing that your comments are a joke, I sincerely doubt you are in any school, due to your lack of knowledge. Yet again you are unable to prove me wrong or even defend your case. If we were in court or any kind of live debate, you would have been long gone. oh by the way Is It Necessary to cite a source when its true and EVERYBODY agrees? Like i said YES OR NO? -- the above unsigned comment was left by 69.150.49.54 on 04:34, March 17, 2007

We've been through all this, and you will just not listen. A source is better than no source. If you can find a "High quality" source documenting that no one in Monterrey saw an offside, then that should stay, but because of NPOV, all points of view must be equally portrayed, and sources help, and, though high quality sources help more, it doesn't mean that blogs are invalid, and particularly in a matter as popular and as subjective as this one.

By the way, personal attacks ARE against wikipedia policy, please refrain from them.

I defended my case. Now, I am only repeating the arguments you refused to read.

Wikipedia policy: Necessary to cite a source? no, but sourced claims ALWAYS override unsourced claims. Necessary for that source to be "high quality"? No, but extremely preferred. Necessary that everybody agrees? No, simply that the source can back the claims and all valid points of view are represented. As you can see, my position is neither invalid nor against wikipedia policy. However, yours is.

Hari Seldon 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Ok, I think we've had enough debate. You, Neraiden, have engaged in personal attacks against me, and in an apparent sockpuppetry. Your lack of knowledge of wikipedia policy, and your claims that you "have a life" lead me to assume that the use of different IPs is simply a misunderstanding and due to unintentional actions on your part. Therefore, I will not call an administrator. However, I do kindly ask you that you listen to reason. As a first step, I present to you a proposal for re-wording. As you notice it is not what you wanted (complete delete of the paragrapgh), but it does makes it clearer that Franco's goal is offside only in point of view. The proposal also takes away many adjectives, because it is believed that this increases objectivity and NPOV. So, without further a do, here is my re-wording proposal:

Clasico 78 and 79 on December 7, and December 10, 2005. Rayados, again, made it to the final, but without such a clear-cut victory as in the last Clásico Semi-Final. Tigres qualified to the semifinals just barely after an unexpected, but quite explosive, quarter-final beating of America. The surprise continued, and Tigres was victorious in the first game (Clásico 78) 1-0 in the Estadio Universitario. For the second game, Rayados won 2-1, and tied the aggregate score. In Mexican traditional rules, the deciding factor in an aggregate tie is not away goals but league position. This explains why Tigres did not qualify despite the away goal; Rayados had a better league position. It is to be noted that the game's refereeing was extremely controversial. Some of the most notable instances are as follows. Rayados defender Felipe Baloy aggressively tackled Tigres player Walter Gaitán inside the box and in front of the referee, but the referee failed to call a penalty[12]. On the second half, two red cards appeared and both where controversial. Tigres defender Claudio Suarez saw the red card in a play that gave Rayados a penalty and the goal lead. Walter Erviti, of Rayados, also saw a red card later in the game. The most controversial decision was near the end of the game, when, at the 82nd minute, Rayados forward Guillermo Franco scored the winning goal in what, some have argued, was an offside position. The referee awarded the goal, but the cumulative controversies of the refereeing were felt by Tigres midfielder Walter Gaitán, who hit him and was sent off. In the end, aggregate score was 2-2, but Rayados qualified to the Final as per Mexican traditional rules.

This proposal takes into consideration the removal of the contested picture. It also removes biased adjectives (such as "heroic", "hero", and "biased decision"). It includes Erviti's red card and labels it as controversial, and it clearly states that the apparent offside is argued only "by some", and is included as an explanation of Gaitán's hitting of the ref near the end.

I believe that this proposal is a great improvement from what the article currently says. What do you think? Hari Seldon 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just fine, AGREE. ps i have different ip's because i have 1 laptop 1 desktop and 1 business comp

I imagined so. This is why it is useful to have a username. Using different IPs make it look like there are different users advocating for the same thing. Since you did not explicitly used this tactic of deceit, I assumed good faith. However, please get a username, it helps other wikipedians identify the origin of arguments and edits. Since we are in agreement, I will signal an admin tonight so that the article can be updated immediately. I ask you to abide by this agreement we make here today. Finally, the article still needs a lot of work, particularly in the graphical area, but also documenting important players in the Clásicos (for instance, there are very few "notable players" from Rayados history). Perhaps you can help? Hari Seldon 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article unprotected

Hello guys. I've just unprotected the article. I hope consensus would be reached very soon. Please let me know if you need any help. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've updated the aritcle with the new consensus paragraph. I hope this puts an end to the edit war. =) Hari Seldon 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)