User talk:Deeb/arch1

Football Categories

Hej. :) The easiest way to find out what categories to add to an article is to check a similar article. For example, if creating an article on a women's national team, check which categories an already existing article on another women's national team has, and add the same type of categories (change continent, country and similar if needed). The WikiProject on Football (where most of the football discussions and info pages are) also has an incomplete page with general info on football categories. Good luck! – Elisson • Talk 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Earlier this year, I adviced you to not place articles in categories where they do not belong, and I hope that you can refrain from that now too. The same goes for adding sister links to non-existent content, and adding headings whithout content. – Elisson • Talk 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of Women in Football

[the following italic text was pasted from Johan Ellison's user page for reference:

Hi Johan. I have some serious concerns about the (probably unintentional) misogynistic POV in Football Project articles and am hoping to enlist your cooperation. I've attempted, over the past year, to begin correcting the biased POV by:

including women in football articles that previously made it seem as if only men play football or only men play well
creating new content/articles about women's football (e.g.: history, national teams and international competition)
wikifying articles related to women and football

I appreciate your passion for football and the enormous effort you've put into maintaining articles, the portal and the project. But, it is disconcerting to find my work undone without so much as an attempt to collaborate or find ways to improve the representation of women in Wikipedia football articles. Reverting to the biased content on women's role in soccer (Football (soccer) culture article) as "soccer mom or fan" is a violation of NPOV. And removing the Norwegian Premier League for women link from the Women's football around the world article is counter-productive, in the most generous interpretation. Perhaps it was not your intention to do anything POV. I would appreciate if you'd collaborate. Would you consider helping by finding a group of editors interested in improving the representation of women in football articles? Thanks. Deebki 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)]

I can't see how there is any anti-"women's football" POV in the Football Project, could you point me to something specific? You may even note that under the heading "Goals", the Project states that one of its 6 goals for writing articles is to write articles "on women's national teams in every country". Or are we writing somewhere that women aren't allowed to contribute? Or are we talking bad about women's football somewhere? Not as far as I know. It is great that you have tried to promote women's football, but do not try to tell anyone what to do. I, along with everyone else here, write about, and create articles on, exactly what we ourselves want to as long as it is accepted by the guidelines. You can not force anyone to write about women's football.

The truth is, Deeb, that no matter how you want to represent football, the overwhelming majority of players, youth players, referees and spectators of football—bot for "regular" (and yes, there generally is no "men's football", as both men and women are allowed to play in most of those leagues and competitions), and women's football—are men. In Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, less than 5 % of all players are women or girls. In North America, the number is of course much larger for women, but still only around 1/3 or the players. Putting those numbers together gives a hint on how much actual focus we should give to football and women's football respectively, on Wikipedia. Calling that POV pushing is lying, it is merely presenting facts.

Regarding my revert of the Norwegian Premier League for women addition, that was a pure mistake, I just wanted to revert your addition of strange categories to that article, as I have already pointed out here above. Regarding my revert of your change of the Football (soccer) culture article, I can't see that being POV? As said above, football in general is about men, and having a section for what differences there is for women is just natural. Having a section named "Women and men spectators", then a link right below that says "Main article: Women's football (soccer)", then the section itself almost exclusively talks about women or women's football, is in my opinion worse POV than it originally was.

No, my intention is not to have a POV, I am merely contributing to the things I am interrested in, and that generally does not include women's football. I don't have anything against collaborating with you, but then please be willing to collaborate with me too. As I wrote on your talk page in March this year, your addition of largely unrelated categories to several articles disturbed the general category layout the Football Project had created over some months, I told you to stop, and you did, great! But now you have started doing that again, and that is not what I want when trying to collaborate with you. I would also advice you to take a look at your contributions to articles and the fact that most of it is only taking the situation in United States into consideration, on for example Women's National Team (notice that someone has slapped a {{globalize}} on it) and Women's professional sports. It would be great if you could try to NPOV it a little to include the situation in other countries.

Regarding your final request, for me to find you "a group of editors interested in improving the representation of women in football articles", I don't know how I could do that better than you? There is around 100 more or less active members of the WikiProject, of which none of the more active editors seems very interrested in women's football. I think it is up to you to find people interrested in contributing to those articles. I myself is the only Wikipedia editor interrested in Swedish football and the only editor contributing regularly to Sweden-related football articles, but I'm not complaining about that. Instead I'll just have to accept the fact that not many persons are very interrested in that specific subject, and then do the best out of the situation. Best regards – Elisson • Talk 11:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Would you care to answer my conserns? – Elisson • Talk 12:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the === Women and football === section not being in its best place under == Fans ==, but where you had placed it, it was completely out of context (go see where you placed it, making it have the subheaders of == Bad behaviour == and == Ethnicity and football ==, is that what you call NPOV?), so do not try to blame it on me. I just moved it back to where it originally was located. I would propose moving it to under the == Society == header instead. Second thing, the soccer dad and soccer mom stuff is easy, read through WP:MM, and specifically the == Merge == section. Wikipedia does not need carbon copy articles, where only a term and a few words have changed. Thus I merged them, turning the less used term "soccer dad" into a redirect, and adding that term to the top of the soccer mom article. Do not fight Wikipedia guidelines. Well, if you blame me for "anti-women POV", you should first see to it that you yourself has a NPOV, and looking through your contributions, much of it is very "anti-globalized POV". Just telling you what I think, as you have told me what you think. Me, an admin? No. Sorry, you're wrong, I am not an admin. I have no responsibilities to do anything. Even if I happened to create the WikiProject, I still have no responsibilities. Anyone could have created it. I am here to write football articles (and history articles), I am not here to correct the POV you think you see everywhere. Why don't you try to do it by discussing it on the WikiProject instead? Why should everything have to go through me? And what mistake should I correct? I will not even comment your last section. Notice: I will be going away on monday, and will be away for at least four weeks, probably without any access to internet, so please answer quick or don't expect an answer. – Elisson • Talk 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]