Talk:Clásico Regiomontano/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV - Biased towards Tigres 

message: 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.  DPetersontalk 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is TV a More reliable Source? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Proposals

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article unprotected