Jump to content

Talk:2010 AFF Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brunei Football Team

[edit]

Do anybody have the current news for Brunei national football team, if you do, please put it up, thanks Andy4190 (talk)

Goalscorers

[edit]

Somebody has mess with the goalscorers for Malaysia national football team, can someone please fix it. I think this a vandalism. Andy4190 (talk)

Laser Used by Malaysian Fans

[edit]

Many people who watched AFF Cup finals had said malaysian Fans used Laser to blinded Indonesia Goalkeeper, Markus Harris. Can someone find for me the article about that. Andy4190 (talk) Many who view the 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup finals had claimed that the Malaysian Fan were using Laser to blinded Indonesian Goalkeeper. This is also were the same as Vietnam, Vietnamese fans claimed that the Malaysian use laser to distracted and blind the Vietnam Goalkeeper. Laser is another big part of success in Malaysia football team at 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup. Andy4190 (talk ^^^ This is a fact.

This isn't important for this article is it. Your telling me Malaysia use a laser everytime they score? So why don't they use it more often? All you are talking about is the semi finals and final, what about the laser then? They didn't need it to qualify? Druryfire (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still the issue of Malaysia's home spectators laser beams against both Vietnam and Indonesia squad has gain wide attention in medias and also AFC, the controversies worth to mention in this article. The same laser beam issue also has been an important issue for FIFA during Argentina Vs Nigeria match in Ellis Park FIFA World Cup. Providing the references is considered sufficient to maintain this controversy part. (Gunkarta (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
The AFC aswell? Ok, so why hasn't anyone referenced it? Druryfire (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that FIFA interest warrants keeping it in (and @Druryfire if I find an AFC ref will add it), but the use of the word irradiation is not used in its commonest usage, and seems a tad misleading (imo). Have reworked a accordinglyIcarusgeek (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article from FIFA.com is just a regular match report that happens to mention the laser incident but is not specific to it. It doesn't mention FIFA's concerns or condemnation to the incident unless there is another source which states otherwise. Therefore the way it's written (about FIFA's supposed reaction) is a bit much. As for the AFC, I can only find this match report. There's no mention of the incident. Banana Fingers (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Fined or Banned from FIFA, AFC, AFF about Malaysia (FAM) using the laser?? What happen if the Malaysian Fan user the laser on Second leg of the final, what will FIFA, AFC, AFF do with them ?? Andy4190 (talk

So your expecting the guy who used the laser to be allowed into the stadium in Indonesia? If he is, then thats an Indonesian flaw isn't it? Besides, aren't such incidents supposed to be brought to the AFC's attention, i'm not aware of any FA logging a compliant or the match official using it in his report. By the way, I want one of those laser's in my mobile aswell! Druryfire (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there people keep deleting Incidents article, im not sure why they do that, but it is vandalism. Can someone post the Incidents article back, please. The Incidents article is very important in the page due to the news found in different sites.Andy4190 (talk

Considering that most of the removals/vandalism are by anonymous IPs, protecting the page should put keep such behaviour to a minimum. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not meant to start pointing fingers, but the first incident section blanking/deletion was started by User:Mnftfc (Malaysian National Football Team Fan Club). From the name you know clearly whose side this user stands for. Clearly this laser incident discounted and questioned Malaysian Soccer fan fairness and maybe put them on shame. I gave this user the warning not to blank the incident section without proper discussion. Later the deletion guerilla began by anonymous IPs, so.., go figure... (Gunkarta (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Considering that the title have fingers had been pointed to the Malaysian team supporters, and the contention that the laser pointers played a major part in the the Malaysian team's victory, wouldn't it be fairer still to give POV from Malaysian sides? True, many Malaysians were disgusted by the usage of the laser pointer, but to be fair to the Malaysian side, their fans were not the first to use the laser pointer in the competition. 1 of the Indonesian goals in the 5 - 1 mauling of the Malaysian side in the qualifying rounds could also be attributed to the usage of the laser pointer (video evidence can be seen in youtube). Another issue that should be addressed would be how much does the laser pointer actually affect the players sight while playing. As we can see in European football matches, this had almost become a norm. In fact, while almost all evidences available here points to Malaysian being the main users of the laser, the same can be said of Indonesian during the 2nd leg of the finals when the Malaysian keeper was facing a penalty kick from a handball, which he nonchalantly shrugged off. This itself may warrant another article on the effects of laser during football matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.109.97 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see here most of the editor is from Indonesia so they won't admit it this laser incident started from 5-1 win against Malaysia even there are evidence on this. Their reference also from their media which sometimes can be biased. They only put the blame on Malaysian fans even 2nd leg final also they said from Malaysian fans. This is an article, you should put all the incidents happen throughout the tournament, not from one side only. Also the references should comes from neutral countries media. The BIG different is, both goalkeepers was being shot with laser pointer, only one who act like a childish and become headlines in the media.
Those who want to add incidents of alleged Indonesian fans using lasers can start by finding a wikipedia approved source to back up their claims. The laser incident by malaysian fans was backed by by Fifa's report as well as various news agencies even quoting Malaysia's PM commenting on it, so it is notable and deserves coverage in this article. So 2 points. Provide reliable sources and show that it is notable to justify its inclusion. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the "Incident" section should include writeups on the actual incidents only. The coach's excuse for their loss should not be included as it should be under a different heading as these are separate issues. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a coach's excuse (if any) be under a different heading/section? At the end of the day, it's related with the incident. Banana Fingers (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For one, the section is about incidents, not a match analysis. There was also no commentary made by any coach in the vietnam matchup, as the point of at section was to highlight the laser pointing incidents, not related issues. Also, the coach was speaking in the context of his team losing because of poor defence, not because of the laser pointing incident. The only correlation is that the statement was made after the same match. If e comment by the coach was accepted, this would open a whole new can of worms. i.e. It would be justifiable to add the statement by the Malaysian PM which he said he was upset by the actions of the Malaysian fans which spoilt a "clean" win. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At most, it would only be a sub-section within the 'Incidents' heading under something such as 'reactions' or 'aftermath', but not a completely different section all together. But like I said, if any at all (if there was any reactions, comments, etc regarding this incdient). Banana Fingers (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution against that due to risk of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Opening a "reaction" subsection could mean open season on fans on both sides wanting to add all sorts of reaction contents to push their personal agendas to slant the article their way. Hence a minimalistic approach with bare facts is prefered, at least IMHO. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, minimal approach only presenting datas and quotations from credible sources regarding this laser incidents is sufficient. Those edit war and deletion guerilla (section blanking) should stop immediately (Gunkarta (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

The line "Indonesia eventually lost the match 3–0 with the first goal being scored right after play was resumed." is also an aftermath and post-match analysis and is not related to the laser incident. Shouldn't it be deleted as well? The 'Incident' section should only report the incident not the result of the match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.57.243 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is relevant although would need to be better worked in to the article better. There were definitely some commentators who were neither Indonesian nor Malaysian who suggested that the Indonesians may have been distracted or rattled as a result of the stop in play and the laser incident that caused it so this may have partially resulted in the first goal (and from there the Indonesians just fell apart). Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

[edit]

Where did all these given figures come from? Banana Fingers (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the stadium in Jakarta is stated as having capacity 88000; and the final at the same stadium having attendance of 100000. Can anyone more knowledgeable than I correct the inconsistencies? Icarusgeek (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact capacity of the stadium would need to be known first. WorldStadiums.com lists the Bung Karno as a 100,000 seater. The match report for the second leg says "The crowd, which included Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had filled every seat in the 85,000-capacity stadium..." Banana Fingers (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Factual Accuacy tag

[edit]

I have removed the factual accuracy tag as the incidents are being reported by reliable and credible sources, as per wikipedia requirements. The bias tag can remain as language plays a part in bianess and the controversial section as it is does warrant looking at, especially with the ongoing edit warring. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much more neutral can it possibly be? It was actual me that is responsible for editing that section to it's current state. And compared to earlier revisions done to this section, my revision is more simpler and as neutral as possible. This is also considering the sources that are available. So again, I don't know how much more neutral it can be made. Either it is left as is with the POV tag removed or the entire section gets removed altogether. Banana Fingers (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I think it is already neutral alright, I like this simple latest edition of this section. I suspected it was because the failure to provides data, quotations and references for Malaysian fan's defense that push them to this. Maybe they should provides data and quotations (if there any) from credible sources media, AFC or FIFA for Malaysian defense instead, rather than posting neutrality tag. I say remove the neutrality tag. Wikipedia is not the place to push your agenda or nationalistic pride, saving face, whitewash the "incident" as if it never happened. Just present the facts and data. Oh yeah, could Malaysian fans be a gentleman and do the courtesy to participate in this discussion without "forget" to sign their post. (Gunkarta (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I thought it was worth leaving behind due to the ongoing edit war. It functions as a warning flag for any senior editors that the version they are seeing might be one of those biased versions that keep being reverted. I can almost guarantee that someone will come along to revert that section to some biased form again. Possibly another alternative would be to re-add the tag whenever one of those weird edits reoccur. I'll take whatever keeps the vandals out or at least keeps the other editors informed that a edit war is ongoing that potentially keeps the article biased. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the tagging. the tagging here can be seen as a form of WP:weasel behaviour aimed at raising doubts over statemebts that are reliable as per wiki requirements. On a related note, we really should just request for this page to be protected as suggested by Zhanzhao. DanS76 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both indonesian and malaysian fans using laser

[edit]

indonesian fans started using laser in their home stadium againt malaysia n philipines.. they denies that they're cheating..but I've proof! please click the link below..

Youtube is hardly a valid and credible source for wikipedia, as it can be edited as uploader pleased. If you have other better source, go ahead. Please try harder (and do better) to find references and sources, preferably from media or AFC/FIFA page. From your statement "indon" you clearly harbour resentment (Gunkarta (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Shah 88, your post on Gunkarta's page is threading WP:CIVIL. That, and the fact that you have definely crossed 3rrr, insisting on POV pushing with sources that are unacceptable by wikipedia standards. Please follow community rules here, and take this as a fair warning. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.tribunnews.com/2010/12/21/sinar-laser-pendukung-timnas-ganggu-kiper-malaysia Shah 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Finally a decent reliable source. Why didn't you just provide this in the first place? Now all you have to do is just work this source and writeup into the incident section so that the POV tag can be removed. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Shah 88: So present your case and references that laser also used by Indonesian fans, you don't have to start the edit war and call me "indon" or anonymously insult me in the process. Here in wikipedia community we have rules. I saw the football matches, the Indonesian fans laser is brief while Malaysian fan's laser in Bukit Jalil Stadium is persistent and abundant. Still I don't deny if there was Indonesian fan's laser foul too. PS: Your reference is Tribun, our own Indonesian media, I think that's the difference between us, in Indonesia we dare to poit out and admit our own people misbehaving and mistakes, unlike you whom blinded by your nationalistic agenda tried to erase and defend the obvious Malaysian fan laser beams foul and yell "hey... we're not the only one (using laser)", still that doesn't justify it's okay to do that laser to try to blind football players. (Gunkarta (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Please stick to reports about incidences about the laser pointing only. Additional information should only be made given in this section IF it is important in context. I.e. The walk off and its timing since it was in protest to that one particular laser incident. I've also removed the fact that the 1st goal was scored after the players' return as it is obvious from the timing mentioned. Its also not necessary to mention that the Malaysian players were quoted as having ignored the lasers shone at them as those, as they did not do anything in protest about it. Pointing it out explicitly would be considered POV-pushing. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Issues

[edit]

This is to head off a potential tag-warring. Tagging changes has already been discussed above. As mentioned by otther editors, abuse of tagging can be construed as a form of weasel language. Also it was already discussed that the way to balance the article is via balancing it with the introduction of sourced content that mentions counter allegations. Changing tags would cot contribute to the article at all. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maan, that tag-craze dude is at it again. what should we do on this weasel attitude? (Gunkarta (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
typical provocator.. Shah 16:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah 88 (talk • contribs)
Look whose talking, the uncivilized one... it was you whom provoke edit war and now tag war. More violation to come from this Shah user I presume. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Oh yeah becareful on WP:3RR (Gunkarta (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Attention please!

[edit]

this page does not belong to indon barbarian.. Shah 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah 88 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me..., Indon barbarian? this page does not belongs to ultranationalist Malaysian football fan either. More violation on WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Consider this as fair warning for you. You will hear from me soon. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Namecalling and 3rrrr being carried out by both parties. Both Shah88 and Gunkarta, please cool down, or you will find yourself on the noticeboards. Instead of reverting and namecalling, why don't either of you raise this issue to the respective noticeboards? If either of you wont, I shall after the next namecalling/3rrr instance. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me...? I am calm down. I did not call him with offensive names as he did to me. I do not performed 3RR violation. Please check your fact straight. Thank you (Gunkarta (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]


Based on past instances, "ultranationalist Malaysian football fan" would be considered name calling. Also by engaging in an edit war on grey areas with another editor, as mentioned by SatuSoru on your page, both parties are technically guilty of 3RRR. Again, there have been many cases in the past when both parties in an edit war have been penalized. The proper way to control reverts which one suspects to be vandalism deal with it would be to make sure one does not revert more than 3 times yourself, and simultaneously raise a report on the 3RRR boards about the edit war issue. 23:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolution of tagging mess

[edit]

Currently, the #malaysiacheatslaser is on its own "Incidents" section. If someone can write up a prose summary of the tournament this could have been avoided and minimized what POV-pushing since it's merely a paragraph w/in a section and not its own section. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ASEAN Football Championship which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AFF Championship which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on 2010 AFF Championship. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_AFF_Championship&oldid=1196560069"