Talk:2004 FA Cup final

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: England / Manchester United / Season Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the season article task force. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2004/04/FACup_Final_MR.htm
  • In 2003–04 FA Cup on 2011-05-25 07:39:41, 404 Not Found
  • In 2003–04 FA Cup on 2011-06-11 07:15:13, 404 Not Found

--

I am attempting to correct simple factual errors and opinions presented on this page. The edits are self-explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvataRatavA (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but unfortunately you haven't supported your edits with any sources. Per

Jay 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not flouting any standards, I am correcting factual errors with the same or better (verifiable) referencing (n compariiisn to what previously existed on the page). If it was good enough before, it's good enough now. I will continue to alter the article to represent facts, not opinions. Also, what difference does it make where I am from? Facts are facts.Despite your attempt to report this as vandalismm without using the talk page first, you accuse me of flouting standards... and that is called being a hypocrite, sir/madam. I do not appreciate your tone or language or snide references to your assumed superiority either. If you have nothing to contribute in a meaningful way, please do not bother to harass me with your opinions.

AvataRatavA (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)AvataRataVAvataRatavA (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your attempts to convince anyone of the contrary, you were flouting the guidelines by not providing any references for your edits. Furthermore, where you are from doesn't make a difference, but the language you use does; this article uses British English as it deals with a subject primarily related to the UK - did you even read

Jay 16:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

How condescending. Fact over form sir, fact over form. AvataRataVAvataRatavA (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, fact and form must have equal prominence for us to have a respected encyclopaedia. Furthermore, you still haven't provided any reliable sources for the controversial claims you're making. –

Jay 18:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It would appear to me you intend to gainsay changes made to your factual errors. You have nothing new in your criticisms and I diagree with your opinions both in the article and talk page. I will no longer respond to you therefore as long as you intend to protect your misinformation. May I suggest you get a copy of the game and watch it? AvataRatavA (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)AvataRataV[reply]

Okay, let's go through your changes one by one:

1. You claim Millwall got frustrated and it negatively affected their play, but you have not provided a source for this, despite it being quite a controversial claim. There is no way for someone who has never seen the match to confirm or deny your assertion.
2. You claim Tim Howard claimed a catch "easily". That is an opinion and a
   weasel word
   , which has no place here.
3. You claim Jeff Winter did not see an alleged foul by Neil Harris on Tim Howard; this is a serious allegation against the referee, especially without a source. I've seen the game, so I'm familiar with the incident, but without a source to back it up, it has no place in the article. The only source you have provided is a link to the Laws of the Game, which may support your assertion that the foul warranted a red card, but without a source to indicate the severity of the foul in the first place, you can't make any claims about the punishment it may or may not have deserved.
4. You claim David Livermore was "extraordinarily lucky" not to receive a red card, followed by an unnecessarily detailed account of the incident from your own point of view. The only source you provide for the incident is a YouTube clip, which is not admissible per
   WP:PRIMARY
   .
5. You use the opinions of one television commentator to substantiate your opinion of Millwall's challenges during the game, but unless he's written an opinion piece in a published medium, those opinions in commentary do not necessarily reflect the dominant view of the incident and should not be treated as such.

I've run through the entire summary of the match and I'm trying to cut out the bias and source it correctly. Please refrain from making any "corrections" until I'm done. –