Talk:Sydney Roosters Juniors

POV check

Not really my field, but phrases like "it appeared a large coincidence", "it was an unethical and unreasonable decision" and "a number of 'back-door' deals were done" suggest that some work is needed here. Gimboid13 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Back door deals were done to entice clubs to the Rabbitohs. It never went through Roosters administration when the deals were done...how other way could you possibly put it?

Taking junior clubs away is an unethical decision, its not being emotive, its stating what the result of the action taken was, and that was being unethical. Just because an article outlines things that report things that happened does not breach neutral standpoint, as no emotive text is used and everything is dervied and contributed to actions that took place.

When you see the words, 'and they're a bunch of bastards for doing so' then question its neutral purpose. In the meantime, I think is time the neutral banner was taken off.124.185.109.39 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is more than just the absence of name-calling. According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, articles should "...assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions." Accusing someone of "unethical and unreasonable" behaviour is an opinion, not a fact. I'm happy to remove the neutrality banner, and the offending content, but I thought I'd give someone with a better understanding of the subject an opportunity first. Gimboid13 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unethical and unreasonable behaviour can be accepted as factual based in accordance with community conditions, i.e a standard of ethics within a community.

It would be greatly appreciated if you did remove the neutral banner, this piece is a delicate one and was attempted a year ago but was scrapped because it was blatant bias. In the history of the Roosters juniors, I think its been a job well done to try to give a greater understanding of the situation that occured without being emotive or prompting bias. 124.185.242.139 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do both sides to this dispute accept that the behaviour was unethical? Community standards are relevant, but the article makes no reference to who has judged the behaviour as "unethical and unreasonable". Is there a judicial ruling of some sort or is it just the author's personal opinion? Gimboid13 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article really answers that for you, which is why Im arguing its neutral standpoint. It makes note of the fact that the Roosters did neglect their junior base, but in saying that Souths did not need to go about it the way they did. No, Souths do not think they acted in an unethical way because as mentioned in the article they were giving oppurtunity to neglected clubs. However, the other point is from another side is that they acted in an unethical way in their acquirements. It puts 2 sides to the story, which is why I argue the neutral banner.

The article makes note of the fact that it wasn't the acquiring of the clubs that was unethical, it was the way in which it was done. A major difference. As for just the thoughts of the author, I have been busy trying to obtain a link to an article of several former rooster club presidents stating their regret in the way the matter was carried out.

Its not a lone point of view at all, definately something that is well acknowledged not only by Roosters fans but also many NSWRL fans at the time.124.185.110.36 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still missing the difference between facts and opinions. Accusing someone of "unethical and unreasonable" behaviour is an opinion. It should only appear if it can be attributed, preferably to someone with a bit more authority than just "Roosters fans". Although the article mentioned Souths' support for neglected clubs it was still heavily biased. I've removed some of the more obvious POV statements. Gimboid13 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sydney Roosters Juniors. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/the-rivalry-that-will-never-die/2008/03/08/1204780126220.html?

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).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)