Talk:Benito Archundia

message: USA verses Brazil, September 9th, 2007 friendly: MORE CONTROVERSY by referee Benito Armando Archundia. 
It's annoying to talk about incompetent officiating since it takes away from the game, but questions arose when Archundia decided not to give the U.S. a penalty when Josh Wolff was hauled down with an open goal in sight. Some say Archundia gave a questionable free kick that led to Ronaldinho's goal and Brazil's third.
:Please provide a reliable source for this, and please sign your comments. Best regards. Jogurney 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jogurney is right, Anon. Also, what do you have to say about this obvious penalty against the USA? YouTube Link There's no bias as you try to infer, just plain and simple incompetence. --201.172.69.85 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: US v. Brazil

message: The reason I post this here is because i want to avoid POV and I'd appreciate your help to make this better in order to include it on the encyclopedia.
June 30th 2007, Benito Archundia made three questionable decisions:
He expulsed two players over reacting minor fouls.
"Peru began well but everything changed when Garcia was sent off for elbowing following a tussle with Maldonado, who collapsed theatrically clutching his face, even though replays showed the only contact was with his chin."
Notice: Maldonado was holding him from the back.
Later on he expulses a Venezuelan player, 
"Paez, son of Venezuela coach Richard Paez, picked up a second yellow card in the 78th minute for petulantly kicking the ball away after being flagged for offside."
He Ignored a penalty kick and direct expulsion for the player who commited the foul.
"In the 62nd minute, Venezuela's Hector Gonzalez appeared to trip Pizarro as he tried to tap the ball into an empty net but Mexican referee Benito Armando Archundia waved play on."
Here's the article where I found the information (it's  the same on the ESPN website)http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyID=2007-07-01T004744Z_01_B671095_RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-SOCCER-COPA-VENEZUELA-COL.XML
Here's Another article with more of the same (althought it seems to be unilateral about considering Archundia a bad referee) http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/01/sports/SOCCER.php?page=1
Cr4zyH0r5e 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Controversy 

message: I think the original issues with POV have been resolved, can we take down this tag? If there are other issues, please make them explicit so we can deal with them. --Antonio.sierra 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we remove the POV tag? 

message: I've editted the Peru Venezuela controversy for two reasons.  Provide context for the importance of the decision, rather than speculate about player's tempers, etc.  Anyone knowlegable of soccer will understand the implications.  Also, to make sure the description matchs the action seen on the replay.  Claims that Pizarro had beaten Gonzalez or was tackled from behind are best left to the opinions of the observers.
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peru x Venezuela write up 

message: The statement that he's considered one of the best referees in the world is unsourced, and cannot be sourced, except in the case of a handful of truly exceptional referees like Pierluigi Collina who truly ARE regarded as great referees.  Archundia is not in the same class as Collina, nor is he regarded as such.  It's a POV statement.
Also, your opinion of whether or not the Canadians were justified in their complaints has no place here.  It's not a forum.  The facts are reported in the article as it currently stands.
Forgive me for what might sound like a rude comment, but Jogurney, it seems like you've been closely 'guarding' this article for a number of years now and reverting edits. Can we agree to clean up the introduction to make it more neutral?
99.234.182.107 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a rude comment, but I don't mind. I believe my reversions were justified (I haven't reviewed the entire edit history, but I recall most of them being reversions of unexplained section blanking or introduction of unsourced POV), but I am completly comfortable with other editors cleaning up the introduction or any other part of the article. I claim no ownership of the article whatsoever, but get frustrated when people use this article to air their unsourced opinions of the man. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-subject POV 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Benito Archundia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702180357/http://www.univision.com:80/content/content.jhtml?cid=1208881 to http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1208881
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Feel free to transfer the contents about the referees' screw-ups to the articles about the competitions, since WP:BLP do not apply to those articles. 209.153.232.41 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  To everyone combatting the cult of Brian Barlow