![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Done
Admins, get this page under control. The entry's been maliciously edited and is now locked. It needs editing ASAP. These talk comments are also ridiculous.
> I agree. This page is maliciously edited perhaps by people who have no in-depth knowledge of the sport. Opinions from biased soccer analysts should have no place in an encyclopedia entry and should all be removed. We know enough about Coulibaly, his profession, and his statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperorubby ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding, and someone else keeps removing, a See Also link to the Jim Joyce page (the MLB ump who blew a call and robbed a pitcher of a perfect game.) Instead of just going back and forth, and we reach a consensus? I propose it be left out, as they're not that related. Yes, they're both bad calls made relatively close to each other, but one was over a personal statistic that wouldn't influence the outcome of a regular-season game. The other directly influenced the outcome and possible World Cup future of the USA team on the largest football stage. Dashren2001 ( talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the 2010 football box is worthy of inclusion, as it is a major game that he had officiated. Along with that, a separate and referenced controversy section is not out of bounds of inclusion on wikipedia. - Dscarth ( talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed "unbiased parties" to "International parties", as "unbiased" is a bit of a loaded word, and implies that all parties listed before it are expressly biased. Dashren2001 ( talk) 01:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's kind of ridiculous to say this is slander or that the information should be left out. We're not talking about one poor call here, we're talking about a good amount of outright terrible calls. Disallowing the goal was just the icing on the proverbial cake. Now I know this guy has a career of ten years and yadda yadda yadda, but this is a World Cup game. This is a major event for a referee, and even if nothing unusual had happened we'd have to include it because so far it's arguably the biggest game he's reffed (the ANC final I imagine is about as important on the world stage.) It would be like not including Andres Escobar's own goal in the 94 world cup because he had 10 years experience playing for his club and Colombia. Yes, we should try to include both things, but when the idea that we're gonna disallow one of if not the most notable aspect of his career thus is insanity. Similarly, the idea that the complaints are only by "emotional US fans" is crazy. Analysts of just about every nationality have stated that this wasn't even CLOSE to being a right call. I would add more countries if necessary, although including the French and the German seems like enough to me. It says the Slovenian media disagreed that it was a bad call, but as far as I could tell (and this is from a Google translation so correct me if I'm wrong) the first two links are game summaries: one doesn't mention the disallowed goal at all and the other merely says "the goal was disallowed" without saying whether it was a good or bad call. The final article is a link where the Slovenian manager states that he didn't think the ref influenced the game which is definitely not the Slovenian media. I would invite someone to double check these links and make sure my descriptions are accurate, because if they are they should be thrown out or at the very least re-worded. ElAnimalSalvaje ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This guy is in no way notable. One bad call (and yes, I'm American) does not make you notable. I suggest merging with 2010 FIFA World Cup Group C.
This referee's review was in no way concluded as "poor" as implied by the author of the referenced article. Geez American Wiki Editors, FIFA has not released a single report on his review AS YET! Even the quoted FIFA source from the referenced article 19 did not describe his performance as poor. Due to the pending statement from FIFA, I am asking that the last statement "which determined his performance was "poor."[19][20]" be removed from the article and perhaps be accurately replaced with "with results yet to be released by FIFA." I'm asking this now in the discussion and if not done, I will edit it myself and you would have to block me again... don't say I didn't warn you. Let me remind everybody that Wikipedia is read around the WORLD, not just in America! Thanks. Emperorubby ( talk) 6:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the conclusion of the FIFA World Cup 2010 Group C match between the USA and Slovenia, I have witnessed many unbalances and misrepresentation on this article about Mr. Coulibaly who served as the match official. Most of the editors of this article are notably Americans and appear to use opinionated and emotionally driven reporting from American sports analysts and pundits who disagreed on "one (1)" single decision that Mr. Coulibaly made against Team USA. It is well known that over the course of the tournament, there's been many other blunders by some of the other match officials in their respective assignments, none of whom's Wikipedia article have been altered any bit despite media outrage from the media in the other respective countries. In my observation, the outcry against Mr. Coulibaly's decision as a match official derived from only ONE country, the USA. The argument that the incident has gotten enough global media coverage is a mockery against the idea that articles on Wikipedia must be factually relevant, fair and balanced. I am flagging this article as BIASED because it does not share Mr. Coulibaly's 10+ years as a FIFA match official, and it does not exhibit the fair and balance idea of Wikipedia, in my opinion of course. If anybody is wondering, I am an American too and a passionate but a well educated soccer fan. Emperorubby ( talk) 6:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86 minute Coulaby called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2, this decision was criticized in the sports press.[1][2]. Coulibaly's performance was reported to have undergone a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.[4] The match ended in a 2-2 draw.[3]
Can someone please provide me a good citation to support this comment Off2riorob ( talk) 17:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Due to the influence of his decisions on the outcome of the match, FIFA scheduled Coulibaly for an expedited performance review citation needed
After the match Martin Roberts reported for Yahoo Sports that according to a FIFA source the referee committee had evaluated Coulibaly’s performance on a series of factors, including his condition, positioning and decision-making and given him a poor rating. http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/source-u-s-slovenia-ref-gets-poor-rating--fbintl_ro-referee061910.html
From this citation it claims the review has happened .. The referee who disallowed a potential game-winning goal for the U.S. against Slovenia was given a poor rating following an expedited review of his performance Saturday, according to a FIFA source.
This cite from Excirial does look like a quality report and should be included
Mr. Coulibaly's performance is undergoing a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.
On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86 minute Coulaby called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2, a decision which was criticized in the sports press. [1] [2] [3] The match ended in a 2-2 draw. [4]
So there are User:Excirial and User:Off2riorob and User :Enigmaman and User:John that support the trim, John has also opened a new thread on the BLPN, that is four experienced wikipedia editors and presently we have content in the article that is clearly disputable with differing reports in different citations, I am going to add this content Off2riorob ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You people have lost the plot. Reading this article, I get no idea that Coulibaly is a horrible referee who created a firestorm of controversy for his performance in the World Cup, the article is just "ho, hum, a typical day at the office for our man Koman, nothing to see here, just move along." That's total nonsense. These are the facts:
1. Coulibaly was an obscure government inspector until the World Cup came along. 2. He had his 15 minutes of fame in the US - Slovenia match. 3. He made a number of bad calls, against both sides, failed to control the match. 4. He became a lightning rod for criticism around the world. South African TV said he was a disgrace to Africa and showed the world that African football officiating is third rate. 5. No one, with the possible exception of some Wikipedians with strong anti-American sentiments, has come forward to defend Coulibably. His poor performance and the wall of mystery FIFA erected around it, is an indictment of FIFA. You can read sentiments to that effect in the sports press in virtually every country in the world. 6. It is not the case that the pro-Coulibably element here is better informed about football than the anti-Coulibaly and anti-FIFA element.
This article needs to be reflect the controversy about the system that selects incompetent officials for the World Cup. One billion people saw this man totally screw up the match because he was clearly over his head. You can't hide that fact from the world, you simply undermine WikiCredility by refusing to own up to it.
Coulibably's 15 minutes of fame came from screwing up USA-Slovenia. Deal with it. RichardBennett ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC).
In this edit [2] the details of the match has been removed with the edit summary of Should not be included; he was not the referee of that match; not even a linesman. imo this is clearly wrong and requires reverting, the subject was a fourth official in that game and the details should be included if he was officially involved. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
FIFA does consider fourth officials to be important and have authourity in the match and are also there to substitute any injury. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
He was not the referee. Show me one other article where the scores of a match are included in the page for a 4th official? That score could be included for the guatemalan ref for that match, but not Coulibaly. That fact that he held up a scoreboard to announce the Subs is not important or notable to his career. Should we include that Coulibaly went to the grocery story this morning? It would be only notable if the guatemalan ref had to be relieved by Coulibaly, which he was not. Dfourni ( talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So what if he wasn't the referee, he was a trusted official and the details of the match are totally fine to add. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the 2010 World Cup section. The article gives equal amount of attention to his blown call that is does to his ability to hold up a scoreboard. How is that at all indicative of Coulibaly? In 20 years, are people going to remember the blown call or his scoreboard holding abilities. If you want to keep that match in the article, then the controversy has to be greatly expanded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Good that article is better to add such content. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This content is being added with the edit summary of,,add more on the current exclusion. imo it is excessive and POV, he was involved yesterday and may not have even been scheduladed to be involved in the next daysd match, are all the refereess involved every day? No. Is there an official statement from FIFA that he has been excluded? Or are there other quality citations supporting this claim that he has been excluded officially or because of this one bad call? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | FIFA later excluded him from the next round, and reports indicated he would not work any more matches at the 2010 World Cup. [1] | ” |
Please present the additional reports that support your desired addition, thanks. It is total POV and should not be includsed without a stronger claim. We have no claim that he was to have been included, so it is incorrect to assert that he was excluded. 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob ( talk)
He is not involved in some matches, that is all, he was involved yesterday and he is not excluded at all , FIFA have not saisd that, if they have provide the citations here please. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The referees are not involved in all matches, it is totally possible that he was not scheduled to take any part in these upcoming matches, have you got a citation that supports that FIFA has excluded him from these matches or a comment from FIFA that they have or intend to punish him or exclude him in any way|? no FIFA have not said that. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
References
A User User Dfourni is warring this article into the see also section Don Denkinger with the claim that They both are best known for blowing a call in a sports game imo that is POV and the link should be removed. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the word controversial in the opening section. Can the word just be changed to incorrect? There is no real controversy about whether the call was correct. Almost everyone agrees that the call was wrong. Saying he made the wrong call is as controversial as saying the Earth is round. While there are people who believe the call was right...there are also people who believe the earth is flat. Dfourni ( talk) 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Don Denkinger's article starts off with incorrect. I'm just not sure if controversial does the decision justice. It would be one thing if there was a 50:50 split on whether the call was wrong, but it seems like an overwhelming majority agree the call was wrong. Dfourni ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged the article as NPOV , weak claims all about how he has been excluded by FIFA etc. fifa later confirmed to yahoo sports that they had excluded Coliby from the second round.. fifa did no such thing at all. What fifa did was choose from a pool of referees say 100 the 20 it needs and as the tournament goes on less and less referees are needed and they start sending some home, all fifa did was sent out a list of names that they have chosen to referee the next games, Coliby is simply one of the names not chosen, fifa will not comment about a specific referee, there is also no quote for the claim in the article from fifa that it is highly unlikely that Couliby was work anymore matches. Also POV is adding that so far Couliby has offered no explanation for the call,-why should he? Its like adding a double negative- so far jonny hasn't said anything about it. we don't add POV like that. We report what has happened not what has not. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
We have this Coulibaly was not chosen to officiate in the second round through June 23, 2010. beyond that we don't know and fifa have yet to say. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This content is just an attack, poorly cited and just an attack by American editors on a poor referee (living person) that it is normal to make the occasional misjudgment, and easy to claim this sort of rubbish, content results in an attack, with all of those valueless citations, awful. The content is clearly not neutral and opini0onated, as in imagine what the content would look like and cited to Slovenian reports, answer, a lot different. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You could add, the Slovakians thought he refereed the game very well but the American supporters thought he was wrong and as usual a lot of people blamed the referee. He made two mistakes and 5000 correct decisions. As you can see from the addition of todays match, that is more like it, neutral and not pointing the finger of blame, he also made some incorrect decisions today and some correct ones, the way it has been written it results in a tabloid match report style titillating attack. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It does need a write in a slightly more neutral way, less accusatory more balanced, choose the strongest of the citations especially for the claim the he is going to be under a official review and that he was given a low rating, where are the official FIFA comments regarding those claims? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this article has been placed in the Flagged revisions trial due to ongoing vandalism. Changes to this article by non-auto-confirmed users will not normally be visible unless "accepted" by a more experienced user. Please see this article for more information on flagged revisions. Ronnotel ( talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the next match the referee also disallowed a clear goal for offside, this was clearly visible in the videos., everyone shouted referee in the end USA football team went through top of their group to the next phase and they all lived happily ever after. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
tweak... In the next USA football team match the another referee Frank De Bleeckere also disallowed an American goal, this time for offside., everyone shouted referee in the end USA football team went through top of their group to the next phase and they all lived happily ever after. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with (or at least would not contest) some of Off2riorob's other changes, but I do not agree with the deletion from the lede of the following sentence: "He is best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia." This is true, and neutrally stated. No one outside Africa would know who he was otherwise. Opinions? -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Asserting that the most notable thing about him is one decision that is questioned is a bit much imo. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
And imo adding such a comment to the lead is nothing less that an attack. He is most notable for making a mistake in not allowing America a have a goal. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
He is a football referee they by there very nature make decisions supporters of teams don't like. Don denk is no president for this article, I fail to see what I am even talking to a person that makes edits to italian articles adding a famous for diving category. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Who says it is a mistake, its all POV keep it out of the lede, leave him alone move on the tomorrows match. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
All Referees make controversial decisions that is there job, one side doesn't like it (thats your side) and the other side does, please move along to tomorrows match, that should be your interest now. This person will not be remembered at all.
Off2riorob (
talk)
16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Off2riorob - you appear to be arguing against consensus here. If the edit in question was poorly sourced or unnecessarily negative then I would agree with you per WP:BLP. However, IMHO, neither applies and on balance it is a service to the reader to state up front why the subject is notable. I'd like to see some sort of statement included. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
One thing i would point out though - he didn't disallow the goal, he whistled before that goal ever happened (Actually, he whistled right before Maurice Edu actually hit the ball). In other words: He called a controversial foul which cost the US a goal. The Lede should probably be modified to reflect this, as it is currently not entirely accurate. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A note on the word choice: it's constantly referred to as a "disallowed goal," but for what it's worth, Coulibaly didn't actually "disallow" the goal because he didn't have to. He stopped play with his whistle before the ball was kicked by Maurice Edu. A player kicked the ball into the goal after the referee blew the whistle to stop play. This goal isn't disallowed. It was never valid to begin with because play was stopped immediately when the referee blew the whistle. That the player(s) continued is of no relevance. A "disallowed goal" is when an apparent goal is scored, then ruled out afterwards because of an infraction - that is, not whistled until after the apparent goal has seemingly been scored.
Wikipedia's articles on football referees should not become a compendium of transgressions against the United States. Jorge Larrionda is another example (and in desperate need of cleaning up). The articles should be careful not to give too much attention to the opinions of television commentators as if they are unbias or even qualified assessors. For example, John Harkes, who covered Slovenia vs. United States, has often demonstrated a lack of knowledge when it comes to the rules of football. Slow Graffiti ( talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning (briefly, of course) that the disallowed goal had no effect on USA's match since the ended up winning their group? How about something like: "USA went on to finish first in their group." Ronnotel ( talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like another couple edits attempting to remove this sentence from the lede: He is best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia.
We already discussed this above, and it seemed that most people agreed with the idea that he is indeed best known for his performance, while a few postings suggested tweaking the wording away from the single call made during the America-Slovenia game, and a couple others disagreed with the whole sentence. I have restored this sentence because it was the result of discussion here, however it certainly isn't written in stone by any means. I would encourage those editing to make their comments and suggestions for how it could be improved here, rather than slugging it out on the article's history page. It is best that everyone be fully represented here on the talk page, so that an honest consensus can be reached. Thanks :)
-- Joren ( talk) 16:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Balloonman, the fact that Coublibaly's Wikipedia page was visited more after that match, and the fact that web references focus on that game, and the suggestion that "Everytime there is a controversial call in soccer in America, this play will be brought up" do not in themselves necessarily establish that this particular game gives him the most international notability. Which is why I asked: "Have those who claim he is "best known" for that call read the African press (including in its paper-only versions) over the course of Coulibaly's career, to get some idea of what he is known for? If not, you can only state what he is known for in the narrow context of US football fans, and not within the broader and more notable context within which he is better known." And which is why I said this may be a case of systemic bias. This may be what he's best known for in the US, but the US is just one country. There may be other aspects of his career that give him far greater notability among football fans throughout the whole of Africa. He officiated the final of the CAF Cup! To put it a different way, imagine Pierluigi Collina officiating a match between Mali and Chad, and declaring a controversial foul which deprives Mali of a crucial goal. In Mali, where people may not have heard of him before, Collina would thence be known above all for that one controversial decision. But in Europe, where he officiates most of his games, Collina is already well known for his distinguished career, and that one game would be incidental at best. Would we give prominence to the understandable annoyance of Malian fans? I think not. Coulibaly is considered one of the very best referees in Africa - good enough to be selected for the CAF final, the most important game in the confederation. To Africans, his one questionable call in the US v Slovenia match is likely to be incidental at best. That's unlikely to be what he's known for, in most of the countries in which he's known. Wikipedia page views or Google hits are of no use to us here in establishing his notability; all they give us is the perspective of Internet users, and primarily of Americans. To determine what Coulibaly is "best known" for, we would have to examine in particular the Africa media over the course of his career - including media which cannot be accessed via the Internet. That's what's meant by "systemic bias", and I would encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy page on the issue. Aridd ( talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
John, I agree; the claim in the opening section does not seem entirely objective or unquestionable. Balloonman, it is likely that there are more people in the world who know Coulibaly because he officiates CAF matches at the highest level than there are people who dwell primarily on his questionable call in USA v SLO. The fact that most of those who know Coulibaly for his career in the CAF are Africans is immaterial. The point is, the statement in the opening section of the article is unverifiable (unless someone wants to somehow conduct a thorough examination of Coulibaly's notability in the CAF context), probably false, and at the very least questionable. Even if it is true, it can't be verified, so it can't be claimed as fact. Aridd ( talk) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't take me long at all to find ENGLISH sources on this from a number of countries:
The Shanghai Daily stated Worse still, Coulibaly never had to account for his terrible decision, or explain it to anyone. Referee decisions in football, no matter how egregiously...' but it's a pay site.
And then there are a number of articles that are talking about coverage of this in other countries.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The contentious editing of this article has been covered in the mainstream press, including the story below. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Koman Coulibaly. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Koman Coulibaly. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Koman Coulibaly. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Done
Admins, get this page under control. The entry's been maliciously edited and is now locked. It needs editing ASAP. These talk comments are also ridiculous.
> I agree. This page is maliciously edited perhaps by people who have no in-depth knowledge of the sport. Opinions from biased soccer analysts should have no place in an encyclopedia entry and should all be removed. We know enough about Coulibaly, his profession, and his statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperorubby ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding, and someone else keeps removing, a See Also link to the Jim Joyce page (the MLB ump who blew a call and robbed a pitcher of a perfect game.) Instead of just going back and forth, and we reach a consensus? I propose it be left out, as they're not that related. Yes, they're both bad calls made relatively close to each other, but one was over a personal statistic that wouldn't influence the outcome of a regular-season game. The other directly influenced the outcome and possible World Cup future of the USA team on the largest football stage. Dashren2001 ( talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the 2010 football box is worthy of inclusion, as it is a major game that he had officiated. Along with that, a separate and referenced controversy section is not out of bounds of inclusion on wikipedia. - Dscarth ( talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed "unbiased parties" to "International parties", as "unbiased" is a bit of a loaded word, and implies that all parties listed before it are expressly biased. Dashren2001 ( talk) 01:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's kind of ridiculous to say this is slander or that the information should be left out. We're not talking about one poor call here, we're talking about a good amount of outright terrible calls. Disallowing the goal was just the icing on the proverbial cake. Now I know this guy has a career of ten years and yadda yadda yadda, but this is a World Cup game. This is a major event for a referee, and even if nothing unusual had happened we'd have to include it because so far it's arguably the biggest game he's reffed (the ANC final I imagine is about as important on the world stage.) It would be like not including Andres Escobar's own goal in the 94 world cup because he had 10 years experience playing for his club and Colombia. Yes, we should try to include both things, but when the idea that we're gonna disallow one of if not the most notable aspect of his career thus is insanity. Similarly, the idea that the complaints are only by "emotional US fans" is crazy. Analysts of just about every nationality have stated that this wasn't even CLOSE to being a right call. I would add more countries if necessary, although including the French and the German seems like enough to me. It says the Slovenian media disagreed that it was a bad call, but as far as I could tell (and this is from a Google translation so correct me if I'm wrong) the first two links are game summaries: one doesn't mention the disallowed goal at all and the other merely says "the goal was disallowed" without saying whether it was a good or bad call. The final article is a link where the Slovenian manager states that he didn't think the ref influenced the game which is definitely not the Slovenian media. I would invite someone to double check these links and make sure my descriptions are accurate, because if they are they should be thrown out or at the very least re-worded. ElAnimalSalvaje ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This guy is in no way notable. One bad call (and yes, I'm American) does not make you notable. I suggest merging with 2010 FIFA World Cup Group C.
This referee's review was in no way concluded as "poor" as implied by the author of the referenced article. Geez American Wiki Editors, FIFA has not released a single report on his review AS YET! Even the quoted FIFA source from the referenced article 19 did not describe his performance as poor. Due to the pending statement from FIFA, I am asking that the last statement "which determined his performance was "poor."[19][20]" be removed from the article and perhaps be accurately replaced with "with results yet to be released by FIFA." I'm asking this now in the discussion and if not done, I will edit it myself and you would have to block me again... don't say I didn't warn you. Let me remind everybody that Wikipedia is read around the WORLD, not just in America! Thanks. Emperorubby ( talk) 6:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the conclusion of the FIFA World Cup 2010 Group C match between the USA and Slovenia, I have witnessed many unbalances and misrepresentation on this article about Mr. Coulibaly who served as the match official. Most of the editors of this article are notably Americans and appear to use opinionated and emotionally driven reporting from American sports analysts and pundits who disagreed on "one (1)" single decision that Mr. Coulibaly made against Team USA. It is well known that over the course of the tournament, there's been many other blunders by some of the other match officials in their respective assignments, none of whom's Wikipedia article have been altered any bit despite media outrage from the media in the other respective countries. In my observation, the outcry against Mr. Coulibaly's decision as a match official derived from only ONE country, the USA. The argument that the incident has gotten enough global media coverage is a mockery against the idea that articles on Wikipedia must be factually relevant, fair and balanced. I am flagging this article as BIASED because it does not share Mr. Coulibaly's 10+ years as a FIFA match official, and it does not exhibit the fair and balance idea of Wikipedia, in my opinion of course. If anybody is wondering, I am an American too and a passionate but a well educated soccer fan. Emperorubby ( talk) 6:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86 minute Coulaby called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2, this decision was criticized in the sports press.[1][2]. Coulibaly's performance was reported to have undergone a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.[4] The match ended in a 2-2 draw.[3]
Can someone please provide me a good citation to support this comment Off2riorob ( talk) 17:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Due to the influence of his decisions on the outcome of the match, FIFA scheduled Coulibaly for an expedited performance review citation needed
After the match Martin Roberts reported for Yahoo Sports that according to a FIFA source the referee committee had evaluated Coulibaly’s performance on a series of factors, including his condition, positioning and decision-making and given him a poor rating. http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/source-u-s-slovenia-ref-gets-poor-rating--fbintl_ro-referee061910.html
From this citation it claims the review has happened .. The referee who disallowed a potential game-winning goal for the U.S. against Slovenia was given a poor rating following an expedited review of his performance Saturday, according to a FIFA source.
This cite from Excirial does look like a quality report and should be included
Mr. Coulibaly's performance is undergoing a standard review that all referees are subject to immediately after each match.
On 18 June 2010, Coulibaly officiated the Group C match between the United States and Slovenia. In the 86 minute Coulaby called a foul against the U.S. moments before Maurice Edu would have put the Americans ahead 3-2, a decision which was criticized in the sports press. [1] [2] [3] The match ended in a 2-2 draw. [4]
So there are User:Excirial and User:Off2riorob and User :Enigmaman and User:John that support the trim, John has also opened a new thread on the BLPN, that is four experienced wikipedia editors and presently we have content in the article that is clearly disputable with differing reports in different citations, I am going to add this content Off2riorob ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You people have lost the plot. Reading this article, I get no idea that Coulibaly is a horrible referee who created a firestorm of controversy for his performance in the World Cup, the article is just "ho, hum, a typical day at the office for our man Koman, nothing to see here, just move along." That's total nonsense. These are the facts:
1. Coulibaly was an obscure government inspector until the World Cup came along. 2. He had his 15 minutes of fame in the US - Slovenia match. 3. He made a number of bad calls, against both sides, failed to control the match. 4. He became a lightning rod for criticism around the world. South African TV said he was a disgrace to Africa and showed the world that African football officiating is third rate. 5. No one, with the possible exception of some Wikipedians with strong anti-American sentiments, has come forward to defend Coulibably. His poor performance and the wall of mystery FIFA erected around it, is an indictment of FIFA. You can read sentiments to that effect in the sports press in virtually every country in the world. 6. It is not the case that the pro-Coulibably element here is better informed about football than the anti-Coulibaly and anti-FIFA element.
This article needs to be reflect the controversy about the system that selects incompetent officials for the World Cup. One billion people saw this man totally screw up the match because he was clearly over his head. You can't hide that fact from the world, you simply undermine WikiCredility by refusing to own up to it.
Coulibably's 15 minutes of fame came from screwing up USA-Slovenia. Deal with it. RichardBennett ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC).
In this edit [2] the details of the match has been removed with the edit summary of Should not be included; he was not the referee of that match; not even a linesman. imo this is clearly wrong and requires reverting, the subject was a fourth official in that game and the details should be included if he was officially involved. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
FIFA does consider fourth officials to be important and have authourity in the match and are also there to substitute any injury. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
He was not the referee. Show me one other article where the scores of a match are included in the page for a 4th official? That score could be included for the guatemalan ref for that match, but not Coulibaly. That fact that he held up a scoreboard to announce the Subs is not important or notable to his career. Should we include that Coulibaly went to the grocery story this morning? It would be only notable if the guatemalan ref had to be relieved by Coulibaly, which he was not. Dfourni ( talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So what if he wasn't the referee, he was a trusted official and the details of the match are totally fine to add. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the 2010 World Cup section. The article gives equal amount of attention to his blown call that is does to his ability to hold up a scoreboard. How is that at all indicative of Coulibaly? In 20 years, are people going to remember the blown call or his scoreboard holding abilities. If you want to keep that match in the article, then the controversy has to be greatly expanded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfourni ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Good that article is better to add such content. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This content is being added with the edit summary of,,add more on the current exclusion. imo it is excessive and POV, he was involved yesterday and may not have even been scheduladed to be involved in the next daysd match, are all the refereess involved every day? No. Is there an official statement from FIFA that he has been excluded? Or are there other quality citations supporting this claim that he has been excluded officially or because of this one bad call? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | FIFA later excluded him from the next round, and reports indicated he would not work any more matches at the 2010 World Cup. [1] | ” |
Please present the additional reports that support your desired addition, thanks. It is total POV and should not be includsed without a stronger claim. We have no claim that he was to have been included, so it is incorrect to assert that he was excluded. 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob ( talk)
He is not involved in some matches, that is all, he was involved yesterday and he is not excluded at all , FIFA have not saisd that, if they have provide the citations here please. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The referees are not involved in all matches, it is totally possible that he was not scheduled to take any part in these upcoming matches, have you got a citation that supports that FIFA has excluded him from these matches or a comment from FIFA that they have or intend to punish him or exclude him in any way|? no FIFA have not said that. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
References
A User User Dfourni is warring this article into the see also section Don Denkinger with the claim that They both are best known for blowing a call in a sports game imo that is POV and the link should be removed. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the word controversial in the opening section. Can the word just be changed to incorrect? There is no real controversy about whether the call was correct. Almost everyone agrees that the call was wrong. Saying he made the wrong call is as controversial as saying the Earth is round. While there are people who believe the call was right...there are also people who believe the earth is flat. Dfourni ( talk) 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Don Denkinger's article starts off with incorrect. I'm just not sure if controversial does the decision justice. It would be one thing if there was a 50:50 split on whether the call was wrong, but it seems like an overwhelming majority agree the call was wrong. Dfourni ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged the article as NPOV , weak claims all about how he has been excluded by FIFA etc. fifa later confirmed to yahoo sports that they had excluded Coliby from the second round.. fifa did no such thing at all. What fifa did was choose from a pool of referees say 100 the 20 it needs and as the tournament goes on less and less referees are needed and they start sending some home, all fifa did was sent out a list of names that they have chosen to referee the next games, Coliby is simply one of the names not chosen, fifa will not comment about a specific referee, there is also no quote for the claim in the article from fifa that it is highly unlikely that Couliby was work anymore matches. Also POV is adding that so far Couliby has offered no explanation for the call,-why should he? Its like adding a double negative- so far jonny hasn't said anything about it. we don't add POV like that. We report what has happened not what has not. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
We have this Coulibaly was not chosen to officiate in the second round through June 23, 2010. beyond that we don't know and fifa have yet to say. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This content is just an attack, poorly cited and just an attack by American editors on a poor referee (living person) that it is normal to make the occasional misjudgment, and easy to claim this sort of rubbish, content results in an attack, with all of those valueless citations, awful. The content is clearly not neutral and opini0onated, as in imagine what the content would look like and cited to Slovenian reports, answer, a lot different. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You could add, the Slovakians thought he refereed the game very well but the American supporters thought he was wrong and as usual a lot of people blamed the referee. He made two mistakes and 5000 correct decisions. As you can see from the addition of todays match, that is more like it, neutral and not pointing the finger of blame, he also made some incorrect decisions today and some correct ones, the way it has been written it results in a tabloid match report style titillating attack. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It does need a write in a slightly more neutral way, less accusatory more balanced, choose the strongest of the citations especially for the claim the he is going to be under a official review and that he was given a low rating, where are the official FIFA comments regarding those claims? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this article has been placed in the Flagged revisions trial due to ongoing vandalism. Changes to this article by non-auto-confirmed users will not normally be visible unless "accepted" by a more experienced user. Please see this article for more information on flagged revisions. Ronnotel ( talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the next match the referee also disallowed a clear goal for offside, this was clearly visible in the videos., everyone shouted referee in the end USA football team went through top of their group to the next phase and they all lived happily ever after. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
tweak... In the next USA football team match the another referee Frank De Bleeckere also disallowed an American goal, this time for offside., everyone shouted referee in the end USA football team went through top of their group to the next phase and they all lived happily ever after. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with (or at least would not contest) some of Off2riorob's other changes, but I do not agree with the deletion from the lede of the following sentence: "He is best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia." This is true, and neutrally stated. No one outside Africa would know who he was otherwise. Opinions? -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Asserting that the most notable thing about him is one decision that is questioned is a bit much imo. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
And imo adding such a comment to the lead is nothing less that an attack. He is most notable for making a mistake in not allowing America a have a goal. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
He is a football referee they by there very nature make decisions supporters of teams don't like. Don denk is no president for this article, I fail to see what I am even talking to a person that makes edits to italian articles adding a famous for diving category. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Who says it is a mistake, its all POV keep it out of the lede, leave him alone move on the tomorrows match. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
All Referees make controversial decisions that is there job, one side doesn't like it (thats your side) and the other side does, please move along to tomorrows match, that should be your interest now. This person will not be remembered at all.
Off2riorob (
talk)
16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Off2riorob - you appear to be arguing against consensus here. If the edit in question was poorly sourced or unnecessarily negative then I would agree with you per WP:BLP. However, IMHO, neither applies and on balance it is a service to the reader to state up front why the subject is notable. I'd like to see some sort of statement included. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
One thing i would point out though - he didn't disallow the goal, he whistled before that goal ever happened (Actually, he whistled right before Maurice Edu actually hit the ball). In other words: He called a controversial foul which cost the US a goal. The Lede should probably be modified to reflect this, as it is currently not entirely accurate. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A note on the word choice: it's constantly referred to as a "disallowed goal," but for what it's worth, Coulibaly didn't actually "disallow" the goal because he didn't have to. He stopped play with his whistle before the ball was kicked by Maurice Edu. A player kicked the ball into the goal after the referee blew the whistle to stop play. This goal isn't disallowed. It was never valid to begin with because play was stopped immediately when the referee blew the whistle. That the player(s) continued is of no relevance. A "disallowed goal" is when an apparent goal is scored, then ruled out afterwards because of an infraction - that is, not whistled until after the apparent goal has seemingly been scored.
Wikipedia's articles on football referees should not become a compendium of transgressions against the United States. Jorge Larrionda is another example (and in desperate need of cleaning up). The articles should be careful not to give too much attention to the opinions of television commentators as if they are unbias or even qualified assessors. For example, John Harkes, who covered Slovenia vs. United States, has often demonstrated a lack of knowledge when it comes to the rules of football. Slow Graffiti ( talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning (briefly, of course) that the disallowed goal had no effect on USA's match since the ended up winning their group? How about something like: "USA went on to finish first in their group." Ronnotel ( talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like another couple edits attempting to remove this sentence from the lede: He is best known for controversially disallowing a goal in the 2010 World Cup match between USA and Slovenia.
We already discussed this above, and it seemed that most people agreed with the idea that he is indeed best known for his performance, while a few postings suggested tweaking the wording away from the single call made during the America-Slovenia game, and a couple others disagreed with the whole sentence. I have restored this sentence because it was the result of discussion here, however it certainly isn't written in stone by any means. I would encourage those editing to make their comments and suggestions for how it could be improved here, rather than slugging it out on the article's history page. It is best that everyone be fully represented here on the talk page, so that an honest consensus can be reached. Thanks :)
-- Joren ( talk) 16:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Balloonman, the fact that Coublibaly's Wikipedia page was visited more after that match, and the fact that web references focus on that game, and the suggestion that "Everytime there is a controversial call in soccer in America, this play will be brought up" do not in themselves necessarily establish that this particular game gives him the most international notability. Which is why I asked: "Have those who claim he is "best known" for that call read the African press (including in its paper-only versions) over the course of Coulibaly's career, to get some idea of what he is known for? If not, you can only state what he is known for in the narrow context of US football fans, and not within the broader and more notable context within which he is better known." And which is why I said this may be a case of systemic bias. This may be what he's best known for in the US, but the US is just one country. There may be other aspects of his career that give him far greater notability among football fans throughout the whole of Africa. He officiated the final of the CAF Cup! To put it a different way, imagine Pierluigi Collina officiating a match between Mali and Chad, and declaring a controversial foul which deprives Mali of a crucial goal. In Mali, where people may not have heard of him before, Collina would thence be known above all for that one controversial decision. But in Europe, where he officiates most of his games, Collina is already well known for his distinguished career, and that one game would be incidental at best. Would we give prominence to the understandable annoyance of Malian fans? I think not. Coulibaly is considered one of the very best referees in Africa - good enough to be selected for the CAF final, the most important game in the confederation. To Africans, his one questionable call in the US v Slovenia match is likely to be incidental at best. That's unlikely to be what he's known for, in most of the countries in which he's known. Wikipedia page views or Google hits are of no use to us here in establishing his notability; all they give us is the perspective of Internet users, and primarily of Americans. To determine what Coulibaly is "best known" for, we would have to examine in particular the Africa media over the course of his career - including media which cannot be accessed via the Internet. That's what's meant by "systemic bias", and I would encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy page on the issue. Aridd ( talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
John, I agree; the claim in the opening section does not seem entirely objective or unquestionable. Balloonman, it is likely that there are more people in the world who know Coulibaly because he officiates CAF matches at the highest level than there are people who dwell primarily on his questionable call in USA v SLO. The fact that most of those who know Coulibaly for his career in the CAF are Africans is immaterial. The point is, the statement in the opening section of the article is unverifiable (unless someone wants to somehow conduct a thorough examination of Coulibaly's notability in the CAF context), probably false, and at the very least questionable. Even if it is true, it can't be verified, so it can't be claimed as fact. Aridd ( talk) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't take me long at all to find ENGLISH sources on this from a number of countries:
The Shanghai Daily stated Worse still, Coulibaly never had to account for his terrible decision, or explain it to anyone. Referee decisions in football, no matter how egregiously...' but it's a pay site.
And then there are a number of articles that are talking about coverage of this in other countries.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The contentious editing of this article has been covered in the mainstream press, including the story below. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Koman Coulibaly. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Koman Coulibaly. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Koman Coulibaly. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)