Talk:European Union/Sports section

message: This does not belong on a trading blocks talk page. NOT one of us asked for a political union.
Sports belong to nations.
They want the end of nations and the Federal States of Europe...for the fifth time (wont happen by the way).
They tried lauding up all of "The EU Golds" in The last olympics. Nope.
86 percent of those entire medals were British. EU tried putting that flag up. LOL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDecker (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

message: Whilst we're on the subject of keeping the content of the section relevant, you might want to cite this/mention this alongside what you're saying. http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=2048/newsid=628119.html This sort of thing is what the article should be on about, not how often sports are played in EU countries etc, I dunno, everybody else think its worth mentioning here? Seems like a pretty major development. --Simonski (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is more something we should mention. And I agree on the above common sense point, lets just take a risk please and try it. Lear and SE, stop reverting and see if we can agree on this. From the point I post this message, I'll revert whoever makes the next revert on the sports section, whichever version it is. I hope some other users might help out on this regardless of the position on what the content should be. Simonski, based on the link you have given, how do you see the section as the best compromise? - J Logan t: 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm quite willing to have Lear's section in the form he's proposed it if he'll agree to the Competition, Single Market, Single Currency sections being put in. Otherwise I'm going to have to withdraw my willingness to compromise with the keeping of the sports section and agree with SE's tags. As for how we'd mention the thing above, I'm actually not sure. Given that I have no interest in the sports section its difficult to try drafting something. I'm surprised Lear's not added it to the sentence he's battling with SE over. I still think the fact is that Lear's most recent draft has been far differently worded from the mess he was originally trying to put in, and the fact that the bodies quoted were linked to a discussion with the EU through that white paper discussion, make it easier to accept now. If SE really wants the FIA mentioned, then he can easily find a similar document to do with their discussions with the EU over the tobacco advertising directive, and cite it after the white paper document reference. The way its written now, I mean the way its worded, surely there aren't serious grounds for claiming that somebody would read it and think that the ones listed were the most popular sports played within the EU. Hopefully that makes sense. --Simonski (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another side note, Lear this might be an opportunity for you to - politely - try and convince SE that you've made the article more sport neutral, rather than simply aggrevate the situation with some sort of rude response. --Simonski (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version as it was a day or so ago is all that is needed, the additional content that people are now suggesting belongs in  the dedicated article that I (and the "Further information"  section header) keep pointing to, FFS we keep trying to limit the size of sections that have far more relevance to the EU and how it runs and affects other countries (not just other member states) but here we have the same people suggesting we add even more to an irrelevance! Sorry but if Lear can play the rules by being belligerent so can I. As far as I'm concerned we had the consensus the other day when Lear's content was copy edited by at least three other people besides myself and not one reverted previously removed content - that is, until Lear returned and reverted the whole paragraph regardless of the discussion that has taken place... SouthernElectric (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, again you are twisting things again - there were prior to the archiving, 3 editors (I'm not counting the unknown editor who just suddenly magically seemed to show up when you needed a bit of support) were in favour of the sports section being kept. Since then, the ones who have been saying right fine, keep the section but do this, have been simply fishing for a consensus. You know for a fact that Logan would remove the section if it was up to him and him alone (as would Arnoutf and Sandpiper) but instead we are now trying to reach a compromise that satisfies all editors. For as long as there are 2 editors who don't like what you're proposing, then there is no consensus and this page will just keep going in circles (that is assuming the lock at the moment isn't indefinite). You need to realise that and be a bit more helpful. And I think you'll find it was the "Lear21" draft, neither Logan nor SSJ came here and proposed your draft. I prefer personally the SE draft (blank). And I disagree with you, I think it reads more professionally with the naming of the sport associations and allows for individuals to go and investigate further for themselves the link between the association in question and the EU. --Simonski (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Here-here. Lear you should be careful to interpret people's positions more accurately. The position we are seeking is a compromise, it is not whole-hearted support for the sports section or your view on it. It would also be prudent not to trigger another escalation by moving too rapidly before there is sufficient consultation of an idea among the editors. However SE, if such an situation comes along please do not escalate, the world will not end if Lear has his sentence for a few days while we discuss it. All we have gained now is an article tagged and locked. I think we have something reasonable and if this is accepted in return for Lear backing the entire new economy section, I believe the article should be weighted enough in favour of important areas to make the sports section tolerable. - J Logan t: 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stated my position (above), it's not helped by Lear trying to use socks to bolster his position, trouble is, he is so inept that he changed his mind but forgot to change the tense of his message from third person to first - check the edit history of this talk page for the last 24hrs (or here) if you don't believe me! SouthernElectric (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add as well that my position above is not set in stone, I'm willing to be convinced either way. But certainly as far as I'm concerned I could accept the most recent proposal of Lear's if he'd not oppose the economy section changes Logan suggested below. As I said, would you really say SE that Lear's recent sports sentence gives the impression that it is only the listed sports that are played within the EU? Surely instead common sense and the word "including" make it clear to the reader that it isn't the case. Of course the sentence afterwards that the national associations are taking part in UEFA etc is stating the obvious, but at the same time I don't think it reads in the same way as a sentence like "Spectator sports are popular in the EU". --Simonski (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to any lists, the current list is no better than the original list of named sports, all that will change is that people will start adding sport governing bodies rather than the name of the sport, sorry but I'm not going to move from this, we had a sports section version that I was and still am prepared to accept (this version) even with the two governing bodies mentioned, the extra content that some are now wanting to add is better placed in the dedicated article and not here. SouthernElectric 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've told you which version I can live with and unless that version is accepted by you Lear nothing will change, the tags will stay and the lock will most likely stay too. I will not be moved on  this as we have all, except Lear, move many Km since Lear's first attempt at placing this content - I don't really want the sports section at all, I don't really want any lists of sports or governing bodies but I am prepared to accept this version, as previously mentioned. Your move Lear, or should I say, it's time for you to move a cm Lear and accept what everyone else is happy with or at least found acceptable (in so much as they either left it alone or copy edit rather than finding the need to revert). SouthernElectric 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmmm. The way I see it here its now just a case of SE and Lear having to come to some sort of agreement. Like I said, I'd be happy with it removed, but I'd also be just as happy with the sentence as it was last put in (even if was the list of sports rather than association names). As I keep pointing out, theres a big difference between saying that certain sports associations are consulted in how the EU forms its policy, and saying which sports are the most popular in the EU. At the same time, as I've already said, I think I'd be looking for a compromise elsewhere on the economy section (see below) if there was to be this final sentence, purely because a number of us have gone from wanting the section gone completely to being quite reasonable in negotiating a consensus. Ahh, sports. --Simonski 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SE, if your really going to escalate this, I hope your prepared to follow though on what would need to be done. If you are, please get on and do it.  We're not going to get anywhere if this persists. And I agree with Simonski on the list, better without a sports section but I can live with it if we get the deserved areas on economy more space. - J Logan t: 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, how about this. The sports section with the list stays for now, BUT: when we go for FA, if the reviews object to it and think it should do, Lear has to agree not to reinstate it after it is removed. That way it is a clear third party opinion from several editors not involved in this disagreement and is an opinion on the quality of the article which could block our FA. - J Logan t: 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J Logan, I think you have stated your true priorities, thanks for your honesty... As it is, I've stated my position so we need to see what Lear thinks first.SouthernElectric 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I was going to agree to J Logan's suggestion but as Lear will not undertake (promise) to accept the judgement of others (independent reviewers) there is little point now, this article is moribund, thanks Lear!... SouthernElectric 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that an opinion or a wish? SouthernElectric 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Injury Time

message: OK, I'm prepared to go with Logan's suggestion of an independent review regarding the merits of a sports section - if this can be done before going to FA, as this might still be a while away yet, so much the better but if it has to wait until the FA so be it - so what I suggest is a straw poll; SouthernElectric 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course only one persons vote really matters here...- J Logan t: 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really as he is still editing other pages, see here, if he decides not to vote then that is his problem... Just so he can't complain should we put a note on his talk page? SouthernElectric 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice to check this page put on his talk page at 17:33hrs UTC. SouthernElectric 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look like someone is trying to implement WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than accepting Wikipedia:Consensus. SouthernElectric 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, consensus can, and does, change you know... SouthernElectric 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, read WP:OWN, this is NOT your article. SouthernElectric 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sod Lear's vote then. Everyone else supports following an external opinion, lets put it forward for that and just follow that? Then we have a good consensus then with just one dissenting voice. If Lear goes against it then he is alone this time and we can take action.- J Logan t: 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering we had some muppet peer review the page a while back asking where the tourism section was, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath. Certainly the Consensus-1 thing might help below with the new Economy debate. Anybody got the energy for it? --Simonski 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it's not as though he is unaware of the current vote taking place, will this mean that admin/arbcom will take the same view on this as the consensus or will he still have half a leg to try and hop around with? SouthernElectric 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully rather he'll just read the sports section, laugh heartedly, and ask us why this amateurish paragraph has been tacked onto the rest of the article so haphazardly. We'll see anyway. Still laughable that its included (I mean come to think of it, just as relevant as a tourism section after all) but there you go, thats wikipedia. Maybe I'll go edit the Wikipedia "Scots" version [] of this page instead and actually make some progress! No doubt though I'd bump into a "McLear" arguing for a "Fishing" section or something. --Simonski 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He gets around more than you might think. Anyhoo, as soon as I realised how hard it was here I've been concentrating on other articles. Right now the law and economic ones need the most attention. How come you two haven't joined WP:EU yet anyway? @ Simonski, yes that can be a problem, which is why I was after the FA as you have several people report back on that, we need numerous people who experience in reviewing a lot of FA articles.- J Logan t: 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the later (as it says), an independent review (such as a FA assessment) will decide on the merit of the sports sections inclusion. As for comments, FFS we have been arguing/discussing this issue for the last 6 week or so, how long does one need... SouthernElectric 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pehaps we can ask the specific "sports" question somewhere; and accept its outcome. There seems to be clear consensus in favour of such an approach, even if Lear votes against, we are still at a sold U-1.  Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two people who have expressed an opinion who have yet to cast a vote (expressing an opinion is not voting BTW...), what's the position if they both vote against - meaning a U-2 situation? SouthernElectric (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this is the best position for this. I'm replying to SouthernElectric's reply "It's the later (as it says) . . .". I was attempting to apply the EU principle of "harmonious interpretation". If that is how it is being understood, I'll have to vote "No". I don't think we should try to vote here to treat a future FA assessment or similar review as some kind of binding arbitration on content. As regards review, I would suggest that we attempt to agree here on a shortish description of the issues involved and then add an RFCHist template to put it on the Community Portal main page. This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. As regards the question to be asked, I would restrict it to something like "Should there be a sport section, and if so should it include only those matters discussed by EU institutions or should it also have a brief description of sports in EU members states and/or deal with those issues regulated by other (non-EU) European organizations?". The short description of the issues should include our rationale regarding possible implications for the question of whether the EU is state-like or not. Nobody should object to good faith copy-editing once the article is unlocked. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so we should ask what people want to read rather than what they should be reading, well yes that might work if you want an article about straight bananas and every other miss informed article the media has written about the EEC/EC/EU since 1957! Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to inform people who don't know?... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are trying to inject some humour into the discussion, but I will nevertheless explain what I meant. What I wrote was This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. We tell them the truth (to the best of our ability), but only the reader knows where he or she will look for the truth on which topic. So if an average American, say, who is informed about the inner workings of the EU about as well as most Europeans are informed about the division of competences between the US federal government and the individual states, is likely to look for information about sport in the EU in this article, this may be a good place to put some of that information. If he or she is likely to be misinformed about the extent to which EU institutions are involved in sport, this may be a good place to explain the truth. If the reader is likely to expect the same sort of information here as in the article on the United States, we should take that into account. At the opposite end of the scale, if we write only for the experts who know it all already, we could leave the article blank. As regards the straight bananas, regulations related to penis size etc., it might indeed be a good idea to have a link to an article on "European Union myths", since people are not likely to look there first if they don't already know which imagined facts are myths.--Boson (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually trying to be deadly serious, if I want to find out what sport is played on the Mars and I look at a concise article but find sport not even mentioned I would be safe in assuming that there is no sport what so ever played on the Mars, but if I was to read a section entitled "Sport" and then a diatribe of badly written text of what sport could or might one day be played on Mars I could actually find myself thinking that sport is already played on the planet and thus by extrapolation (someone or something must live on Mars) that Martians are a fact! OK, a far fetched example but miss information can very easily lead people to the wrong assumptions. What we need to do, seeing that we (as editors) can't or won't come to a mutual agreement is to ask others who know or at least understand the subject to review it and give their opinion as to what is relevant and what isn't, it's pointless asking people who do not know or understand the subject to do so as they don't know what is relevant and what isn't - we want/need a review of the content and not readability. Anyway as things stand this is all pointless as there will be no consensus and thus no way forward, except into another edit lock or worse. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do want  a review of the content and not readability, but, as you point out, the dispute is about the relevance; not the factual accuracy, of the material; so we do (also) need to think about what readers will look here for. Even if you or I prefer to look at the EU primarily as the sum of its institutions and their activities (or even just their competences), others might look at it primarily as a political, geographical and social entity, perhaps in the same way as they look at the United States. Actually, until this poll started, I was beginning to think that a consensus had almost been reached to include sport in the article, but only to the extent that there was some involvement of EU institutions, and to refer readers to other articles about sport in Europe. --Boson (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the content is irrelevant then it is factually incorrect for the article as it could miss lead. A good encyclopedic article (like good factual newspaper articles or TV programmes) contains what people need to know and not what they want to know, even highly relevant content often needs to be constrained - I'm sure someone could match the word count of this whole EU article whilst writing about the EU wine lake or butter mountain but to leave such content un-a-bridged would give far to much weight to such matter in this article. No one has said that there is a relationship between sport and the EU, just that more than a passing mention (which is what the position was before the current extra content was added) together with a wiki link to the Sport policies of the European Union article. This dispute is more about copy editing that what subjects should be included, given the realistic space available before someone slaps an article length tag on it, even Lear accepts this is an issue but like all 'junior hacks' doesn't like the copy editor taking the blue pencil to his own work... The point I'm trying to make is, it needs an someone with the knowledge to know what others need to know, hence why this article needs something like a FA review to do the final copy editing rather than just a review of what those without knowledge think they should read. SouthernElectric (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on review

message: The sports section has been repeatedly deleted by user SouthernElectric. After a recent discussion about its relevance and existence the actions of the user have to be considered as vandalism. 
I ask the established users to reintroduce the content on a frequent basis. The user SE has to be informed that his actions have violated a number of Wiki policies.Lear 21 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, he isn't technically violating the rules as we failed to reach a consensus in the end. I don't think you helped Lear by putting your final sentence in without coming to a complete agreement, which we were so close to. If you check the Wikipedia rules on vandalism, I don't think there's anything you could pin on SE here. Instead what we have to do is finish the discussion above, which was based on keeping the sports section but not yet decided on how the final sentence should be worded/presented. Lets get a consensus and move on! --Simonski (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please lets finish the discussion above, I have noted on this there and responded to your request also. I agree there is little you can pin on SE right now and I think jumping ahead of the discussion has caused this problem. So please, let us return to the discussion. - J Logan t: 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say as well that I'd agree that SE is entitled to put those tags up that he has but hopefully we'll get a discussion on the go here that can see them unnecessary soon enough. --Simonski (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would just point out that this article is about the European Union (the "EU") and not Europe (the landmass). As for the sections merits or otherwise, that is being discussed / voted on in another section SouthernElectric 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Electrobe, if you want to know why there shouldn't be a sports section (mainly for the 100% valid point that SE just made), go read the archived discussion on it which points out the holes in your point above. As it is though I guess we're keeping this section in order to maintain a consensus, see above. Thanks for the useful input. --Simonski 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We all agree the edit war has to stop; and the vast majority is either for complete deletion or a very much trimmed down version; however it is basically one very stubborn (a mule is easily persuaded in comparison) who is keeping the debate alive. You could as easily say to him: "I think that you should just delete the sports section.", for much the same reason. Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in fact the rational that Electrobe used could almost be used to have a 'sports' section in the Earth article - at the end of the day it comes down to common sense, sorry Lear and Electrobe... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The point electrolube, is that the EU as an organisation has virtually nothing to do with sport. Better to discuss the mining industry, the car industry, favourite television series. None are really worth going into much detail about here. There are a lot ofthings which happen in Europe which the EU affects more than it does sport. Sandpiper (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Electrobe observed that the current sports sections seems to be relatively harmless, and wanted to say so; without wanting to engage in this troubles debate. So I think the overly wordy reponses (including Sandpipers last one) may have been a misinterpretation of the original meaning Arnoutf (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: The warning tag stating: "This article's coverage of a controversial issue may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.
Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." was recently placed. However I think it is out of place because:
* coverage of a controversial issue: What is the controversial issue? I think there IS a controversy, but not in the content, but about whether the content (sports) should be added. This is in my opinion completely different from what is meant here as the phrase inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints does not seem to be suitable (ie nobody argues about the facts (albeit about lack of references) in the sports sections, there is not even much disagreement about the fact that football is most popular in the EU (ie no unbalance). So the controversy is not IN THE ACTUAL VIEWPOINTS; but rather in the RELEVANCE OF THE INFORMATION FOR THE ARTICLE. Therefore this is not a controversial issue as meant in the template. 
* Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, There seems to be agreements that no viewpoints are neglected. The problem is that some editors consider the given viewpoints IRRELEVANT. Hence this line again does not apply to the article.
* The controversial issue here is: "Should sports be seen as part of EU (union) or as part of Europe (geographic region)". However THAT SPECIFIC issue is not in the article itself, hence can never be "the controversial issue" in the warning template.
Hence I think this template completely misses the point and should be removed. (btw I agree with the (what I call here) meta-controversy about whether this should be in or out, but that is talk page controversy, not article controversy. Arnoutf (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear, you understand wrong, what a surprise. As it is, when protection comes off the top tag could well be removed BUT the two tags within the sports section will remain until we go to the FA (or another) review process and this  tag will be placed on this talk page within a section pointing to all the recent sports section discussion. In short, whilst the top tag might now be invalid (having reached agreement) the lower two tags are even more valid now than when first placed. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was indeed only talking about the top tag; both local sports section tags do adress the actual ongoing debate. There is no agreement whatsoever about the sports section, the only agreement seems to be that we leave it as is now until a review is performed, after which we all accept the outcome of that review. Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither tag adds anything to the content of the article. Please accept that this article has achieved GA status because of a reason. The quality of this article has been acknowledged already. The editor who has put this article in constant crisis and instability has no edit history in any EU European related articles. Instead this editor has repeatedly tried to delete content and images in several sections. I ask the established editors to take a clear stance on that behaviour. The article must regain stable access and must become untagged completely. Lear 21 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those tags stay until FA review or the irrelevant content is removed. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, read Wikipedia's editing policy, someone could use a dynamic IP address and still have every right to remove irrelevant or add relevant content, as long as they can rationalise their edits. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given your remark on the role of Competition in the EU somewhere else on this page Lear I'd be wary of making comments about anybodys expertise on the issue of the EU. What if Jose Barroso himself was to sign up to wikipedia tomorrow and start helping to fix up the page, would that make his contributions less worthy of consideration? I think not. --Simonski (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, writing EU articles on wikipedia does is not a qualification in European studies. And tags can add a lot to an article if the issue of their inclusion is dealt with, they are placed because of a fault. I seem to remember when I first came here and an editor put citation tags up. Rather than adding citations to an article with next to no references you (Lear) just removed the tags. Had I and others not pressed on with referencing this article regardless this would not be anywhere near GA status with no chance of FA. - J Logan t: 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Lear for once again providing the arguments for removal of the sports section (i.e. majority wants to get rid of it; as discussed here in exhausting detail). Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Barroso point above. If somebody comes along tomorrow and is able to point out that a major part of the article is flawed, then it doesn't matter whether they've been involved in the editing of the page for 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. --Simonski (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What people have been saying Lear is, whilst some accept that a rational of sorts can be put forward for a 'Sports' section what they actually want is nothing more than an acknowledgement than; "Yes sport is played in EU member states but it has sod all to do with the "EU" and if you want to read more then the reader needs different article - such as the one pointed to at the top of the section". As such, the warning tags are relevant, well placed and will stay all the time there is anything more than a single paragraph on sports and certainly whilst the content is nothing more than a badly written diatribe... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, while I sympathise with your argument, I will NOT tolerate you insulting a fellow editor in that manner! ("your capacity of understanding is limited") I demand you apologise before we go any further.- J Logan t: 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear, thanks for proving just how weak your rational/argument really is and how worried you are than the sports section will be deleted... SouthernElectric (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki is all about opinions of editors; there are no guardians or owners of the project even administrators are only primi inter pares. This means that no editor should take the attitude (for whatever reason) that he/she has zero tolerance for any kind of editor, except of course for clear vandals. Personally I have very serious problems with editors who show (or voice) zero tolerance towards others. If you stick with above statement Lear, you seriously disqualify yourself as a discussion partner in the future, and probably even as a reasonable person in general. Arnoutf (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear's response above actually shows up two problems, the first is one of not understanding the WP:OWN policy and the second is being able to follow a written debate, I was never suggesting that I wanted Formula One (or what ever) included just that Lear's rational for including football (and his other named sports) would later give reason (that could not be rationally refused having accepted Lear's content) for others to add even more sports to the list of named sports - it seems to me that, whilst others might not have agreed with my opinions they at least understood the argument I was making, that is except Lear who is now trying to claim that I was suggesting the complete opposite to the above! I have no doubt that Lear can (as per is claim on his user page) hold a face to face English language conversation at a near native level but I am starting to doubt his ability to grasp written punctuations and phrasing etc. SouthernElectric (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Lear21 even ever clicked on the WP:OWN wikilink, let alone read that article, as it (IMHO) very closely describes his behaviour. Also SouternElectic, I thought your response were misinterpreted but did not want to speak for you. Anyway, this section was about the topmost Unbalanced template and we are back to sports again..... Arnoutf (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, you'll need to use the  template to request such a change. Secondly unless the U-2 decision (in the recent straw poll) is accepted as 'section policy' and consensus there is a danger than the weight of the sports section could increase should more content be unilaterally added and reverted back after deletion, this being so the unbalanced tag should stay as the article is unbalanced. Thirdly, if the vote is accepted as the consensus there is no reason why we should not ask for the protection to be lifted - meaning we can remove the said tag ourselves. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not accepted as a consensus, perhaps we could at least try to agree on a voluntary ceasefire? Unless there is full agreement, no changes to the sports section. Ditto for other contentious areas if unresolved, e.g. law. - J Logan t: 11:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning tag

message: Hi all, there seems some agreement that the sports section should be reviewed; and untill then not changed. While I agree in principal it is essential that the review is conducted very soon; it cannot be that a decision/sentiment for review results in the complete locking of a section. So either we start the review or we decide it is practically impossible to do so, and accept new editing in the section. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the  template that gets attached to the talk page requesting article review (or a section there of) by interested parties - bar the FA review perhaps that is the way forward? I agree that something needs to be done but would far prefer the section to remain dormant and bad than to reignite the issues and end up with the article locked again... SouthernElectric (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make of it what you will, policy states that a page may not be repeatedly locked for the same content dispute. I presume that means we move on to banning repeat offenders. For my part, I would say this has been a very genteel dispute so far. Sandpiper (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports review