Talk:Phil Dowd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

	Association football Portal The article on Phil Dowd is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] "Criticisms" Section?

I'm not entirely sure whether I get the point of the "criticisms" section. WP should be a forum of objective knowledge; and since (just about) every refereeing criticism has come from individuals partial to their clubs' benefits (players, managers, fans), I'm not entirely sure criticisms levelled by those individuals with vested interests should really be included on a WP entry for a referee. Otherwise every referee-related article would last for hundreds of pages!--Alexio 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, it is told in a prosaic, non-NPOV style, based on hearsay, otherwise where are all the sources for the alleged "criticisms"? This could be one for the BLP, I think. Not acceptable. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean this up a little. It seems rediculous to have such a long section unless this ref, who I don't know from adam, has an on the record verifiable problem or something. This reads like an angry fan who lost taking it out on the ref. Anyways --Tom 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and looked at most of the other refs in this category and very few if any have such a section. I'm sure most refs have many critics and articles saying how bad they are. Anyways.--Tom 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I totally agree with your edits - perhaps I haven't been bold enough. But I WAS going to give the original contributors a chance to qualify what they 'reported' by asking for citations. We'll see if they come back and re-add the stuff.

By the way, Phil Dowd has reached the very top of the English refereeing tree quite late in his career, so late in fact that he retires next season, and he will never get the chance to go on the UEFA or FIFA list. He is also seen as very abrasive in his on-field style, and each time he upsets a group of fans, this page tends to get a pasting. So, no record of poor officiating, but question marks over his diplomatic skills during a game, certainly. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Hi. In fact, following an incident on August 19, 2007 during a match in which the officials had decisions to make, and explain afterwards, and in which Dowd was fourth official, the main outline of the incident was duly added to the article, as one would expect. It did not involve direct criticism of Phil Dowd. It seems that the fine line between "criticisms" and valid incidents is getting increasingly blurred. Therefore, in bold mode, I am taking this discussion as a pointer toward consensus on the Criticism section, and integrating the text into the main article. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)