Talk:Mahmoud Dahoud

First player of Syrian origin/descent...

There is no need to include information about Dahoud being the fist player of Syrian origin/descent to score in the Bundesliga. Not only is the phrasing unsettled, this information falls well within WP:NOTNEWS. Anwegmann (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only does it fail WP:NOTNEWS, but the IP user’s persistent edits also fail WP:CITE and WP:OR as it does not state in the articles that Dahoud is the first player of Syrian descent to score in the competition. —Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

IP user is again making wholesale changes that are completely against what the sources are stating. They've been reverted by multiple editors, yet they continue with the constant revisions.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ronnnaldo7: wholesale changes against what the sources are stating? give an example! you are the one who wrote whatever then changed content based on my recommendations. I added nothing neither for or against, lol! I only edited subheadings and added the player's statement from Reuters which you removed, meanwhile you insist to mention the president back home when parents immigrated! Focus on the better display and learn how to write a proper citation instead of only removing my edits which enhanced display overall. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing with personal attacks towards me on your talk page and continuously changing the content of the article that go against what the sources are stating. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517, please stop edit warring and use the talk page. The article states the Syrian FA sent Dahoud home. Your edits are going against the premise of the source. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ronnnaldo7: the link you provided is a poor source, they misinterpreted the events, the player wanted to leave earlier before the alleged release, the statements even contradict that fact about release, "he left" they wrote, then you have to keep it neutral as you removed player's response! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the article, he was released from the team camp. As long as the article meets WP:RS, we have to state the facts. You're stating they misinterpreted the events, but aren't providing any sources to the contrary. I've now reworded the sentence to be more neutral, which takes both sides into consideration - both the player's and the FA's. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

1. I see two sources, both saying that Dahoud left because the SFA couldn't meet some demands made by Dahoud. Neither source says Dahoud "opted out".
2. "Allegations" needs to be struck, that makes no sense. The SFA said they were unable to meet the demands, and neither source says anything to contradict that.

Is there any disagreement about this? Paradoctor (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. It seems the discrepancy between the sources seems to be whether or not the player left on his accord or was sent home by the FA. It looks like we've now hopefully found a happy medium with the latest edit mentioning both. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ronnnaldo7: I would only believe the official statement "he left" not your proposed "reliable source" which titled "sends Dahoud home", which home? Amuda or Stuttgart. I can easily include another version of events with reliable Arabic sources, yet you would ignore them as always, as you did to being the first Syrian to score in UCL as stated here, so do not act as being the savior. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For future reference: WP:FOREIGNSOURCES Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided Paradoctor (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: In reality, the SFA were literally begging for him to stay, as they were recruiting some mediocre players from Argentina, let alone someone played in Bundesliga and UCL, so why should they be the ones who decided to release him, as he accepted to come in the first place! Yet, he left as he was not satisfied with the preparations and unfulfilled promises, so they claimed that his agent was involved, yet there were pictures of him training so they could speak directly. He refused to comment on what SFA mentioned, as he highlighted the facts about principles, conditions and methods of being professionals, so yes he opted to leave not "sent home" or "released". 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:V: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

As you have provided no supporting source, and as this is a contentious matter, I'll remove the "opted out" claim.

Consider that a WP:CHALLENGE: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Also, why are going on about the "sent home" thing? It's not in the article and it never was, right? Paradoctor (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems Ronnaldo7 blindsided me there. I'd appreciate if you could not do that the next time (if there is one), that's playing with matches. Please give discussion a chance to gel before ramming it in unilaterally. Paradoctor (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the article that states the FA sent him home.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: As Kicker reported here: "Although he described the opportunity to play for Syria as a “project close to his heart,” it will not make his debut. The Syrian Football Association announced on Instagram that Dahoud HAD LEFT the training camp. The reason: They are not able to "fulfill his demands, which were sent to us by his advisor, which will have an impact on the national team." However, no details were given." Sky Sport made a headline: "Dahoud left before Syria debut", so honestly only a misinterpretation of the statement made by that source that he was released, and only supported by Ronnnaldo7. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither of these says "opted out". They say "left", the same as the sources already in the article. Paradoctor (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: if opted out meant he refused to participate in the first place, then you are right, incorrect! Regarding your comment about Ronnaldo7 published version, you can tell that they would only keep their preferred version and instantly remove any other, then complain that I am the one who reverts and contradicts that "sent home" source! However, I only trust your judgement and hopefully, you can write yourself the most accurate version with all sources provided. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

you can write yourself Uh, no thanks. I'm here to help a couple of inexperienced editors get their bearings.

To that end, I suggest you always quote the bit from the source that supports the article. The {{cite}} templates all have a |quote= parameter for exactly that purpose. And try to rein your appetite for analyzing and judging other editors. That's a surefire way to creating WP:drama. Comment on content, not on fellow editors, right?

I have told you already, but for the benefit of @Ronnnaldo7: I repeat here: When you see that discussion has stalled, start WP:dispute resolution That should direct you to constructive approaches for all the standard situations. You'Re not alone, help and air support is only a request away.

And both of you, please replace reverts with comments on talk. I'll keep watching here for a while, but I hope you can resolve further disagreements without me. Paradoctor (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: Had I not proposed a neutral display, that another user would have kept their "released" version without adding player's statement. I asked you to write it yourself, as if I add another version, another edit war with that "sent home source" as an excuse. I would propose removing the other source and keeping only Reuters and Kicker which cited SFA instagram, as ... unfulfilled promises of the Syrian FA, which stated that they could not manage to meet demands from his agent. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

another edit war is only possible if you participate. So don't. You should know by now how to handle being reverted.

What is the first step after someone reverts an edit of yours? Paradoctor (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: first step would be revert back, maybe? 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

...🤦

Ok. What about reading the WP:EDITSUMMARY? Paradoctor (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Continued at your talk, this is offtopic here. Paradoctor (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Who broke up with whom not clear from sources

There are several possibilities:

1. Dahoud left against the will of SFA
2. The SFA gave him an option to leave, but didn't mandate it
3. The SFA told him to go, no choice

Three sources merely say he left/departed, which is compatible with either of the three scenarios. The fourth, bulinews.com, says both that he was "sent home" and that he was "released". This excludes the first scenario, but leaves open which of the two remaining. So, until further statements come in, all we can say is that he left, but not who was zooming who. Paradoctor (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: I initially asked you to write the final version, yet you refused and called both users inexperienced, even though I called you wise earlier! You argue that THREE sources could not clearly state that he decided to leave by himself, and would keep the only one which mentioned that he was "sent home"! After I wrote my version, you contributed instantly, where were you when I asked you to edit the other user's version?! Withdrew means the same as left voluntarily, as "left" was already used in the first sentence! You re-added that source, without even adding the publisher! Then you wrote a prolonged quote from each ref which is totally unnecessary, and has rarely been used in any other article with similar info, then you call me inexperienced! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

adding the publisher Feel free to do it yourself.

Withdrew means the same as left voluntarily Right. And none of the sources says he left voluntarily. Only that he left. Different things.

quote from each ref which is totally unnecessary That is your opinion, not mine. Either way, there is nothing that prohibits it, so there is nothing to discuss here.

then you call me inexperienced I called you inexperienced before that. More to the point, why are we talking about this? You are new to the ways of Wikipedia, that is a fact. This is not a moral judgment or something, so there is no need to be defensive about it. Paradoctor (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)