This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alan Oakley (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is listed on the NPOV backlog. Text edited. Since the NPOV tag was placed without discussion, and there's no discussion suggesting disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
i simply don't see what evidence has been provided to suggest that 'oakley has offended readers' beyond the one who wrote the original article. the whole thing stinks of one person with an axe to grind against oakley, and mentions nothing of what i'm sure is a long and distinguished editorial career going by his listed former positions. instead it's a diatribe against 'his' decision to label the various football codes' content in the Herald as football, league and union. this is before even getting to the unattributed and nonsensical claim that "Herald's delining sales have been contributed to Oakley's editorial style." Dibo 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
You are starting to engage in Lawyering Dibo, which is strictly forbidden. You yourself know that all those facts are true so I must truely doubt your motivations.... Ehinger222 11:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well cite away Dibo, cite away. Ehinger222 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith. What I meant was that the remaining words required citation. I am in agreement with you about the justice of the Wikipedia laws and their application in this instance. Ehinger222 13:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As you have said, add the citations. Ehinger222 10:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
simple biographical information that is by its nature indisputable (yes, alan oakley exists and is a newspaper editor) doesn't need to be cited.
what needs to be cited is any 'fact' that may be disputed. for example - 'alan oakley is a newspaper editor' does not need citing - its truth is easily verified and is not under question. 'alan oakley is trying to destroy rugby league' certainly does, if it warrants inclusion in wikipedia at all (which i doubt). Dibo 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
simple biographical information that is by its nature indisputable (yes, alan oakley exists and is a newspaper editor)- Is he? Prove it, those facts are not indisputable unless you have appropriate citations. its truth is easily verified and is not under question. Yes it is easily verifiable, so simply verify it if you do not want it removed... I have no time to do it. Check the facts and make sure that they are correct or I will be bold and remove them. alan oakley is trying to destroy rugby league- When was this ever asserted? I believe the comment was that some fanatics believe that but that this is unlikely. Check it yourself if you would like to get the right quote. This type of conjecture is not wikipedian and rightly removed.
However the comments attributed to him at that time were definitely indisputable, to the same extent that the material kept is. They both rightly require citation. Ehinger222 04:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Notably, Oakley has challenged the popular conception for what football is, by calling soccer football, although prevoiusly the term football was used for the southern Australian code of football, Australian Rules Football. The popular use of the word football in Sydney, (as it has been for 140 years since the beginning of organised football), is rugby football, particuarly rugby league football
The above has a large number of problems. "Notably, Oakley has challenged the popular conception for what football is, by calling soccer football" This needs to be cited. You also should cite why this is notable.
The popular use of the word football in Sydney, (as it has been for 140 years since the beginning of organised football), is rugby football, particuarly rugby league football Really? Well League was formed in Sydney in 1907 according to Rugby league in Australia. Compare this to Assoication Football, where from 1882, the NSW association was called the "English Football Association". So I would say that this claim of 140 years ownership can be strongly debated. There is also assoications such as the Gladesville Hornsby Football Association. I cannot find a foundation date online, but google shows clubs joining the association in 1953. SBS, Northern Spirit FC and others all called the sport football 8-10 years ago so I would say the Oakley is not notable for this, and 147.10.112.157 has a strong POV to push here. Tancred 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. In response to your other points: (1) Oakley is clearly "prominent" as ed of the SMH! (2) As you also say: "controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements". A quick web search will find examples of the controversy: e.g. "this English git [i.e. Oakley] should be sacked as of now. How dare he attempt to re-impose his English cultural imperialism on us." (3) "Some media outlets" is fine with me. (4) The nature of the dispute regarding the word football needs to be xplained, we can't presume that people will know that. Grant65 | Talk 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is only this: That it should be noted in some form, along with his editorship as I am an avid league supporter and I am not used to calling soccer football. The use is validated on wikipedia often by referring to media outlets, so it is more than reasonable to trace their source IMO.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
147.10.112.157 (
talk •
contribs).
Are you saying that Oakley has nothing to do with the usage of "football" by the SMH? Grant65 | Talk 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::::During Oakley's term at the Herald, the paper began referring to
football (soccer) as "football" rather than "soccer".
References
Hello, I am going to be one of the mediators listening to this case. Please see Alan Oakley Mediation Cabal to participate in this voluntary mediation. I also invite all who may wish to partake in any discussion of this to please post here, as this talk page will be watched and discussion added to the discussion portion of the case. Somitho 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alan Oakley (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is listed on the NPOV backlog. Text edited. Since the NPOV tag was placed without discussion, and there's no discussion suggesting disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
i simply don't see what evidence has been provided to suggest that 'oakley has offended readers' beyond the one who wrote the original article. the whole thing stinks of one person with an axe to grind against oakley, and mentions nothing of what i'm sure is a long and distinguished editorial career going by his listed former positions. instead it's a diatribe against 'his' decision to label the various football codes' content in the Herald as football, league and union. this is before even getting to the unattributed and nonsensical claim that "Herald's delining sales have been contributed to Oakley's editorial style." Dibo 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
You are starting to engage in Lawyering Dibo, which is strictly forbidden. You yourself know that all those facts are true so I must truely doubt your motivations.... Ehinger222 11:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well cite away Dibo, cite away. Ehinger222 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith. What I meant was that the remaining words required citation. I am in agreement with you about the justice of the Wikipedia laws and their application in this instance. Ehinger222 13:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As you have said, add the citations. Ehinger222 10:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
simple biographical information that is by its nature indisputable (yes, alan oakley exists and is a newspaper editor) doesn't need to be cited.
what needs to be cited is any 'fact' that may be disputed. for example - 'alan oakley is a newspaper editor' does not need citing - its truth is easily verified and is not under question. 'alan oakley is trying to destroy rugby league' certainly does, if it warrants inclusion in wikipedia at all (which i doubt). Dibo 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
simple biographical information that is by its nature indisputable (yes, alan oakley exists and is a newspaper editor)- Is he? Prove it, those facts are not indisputable unless you have appropriate citations. its truth is easily verified and is not under question. Yes it is easily verifiable, so simply verify it if you do not want it removed... I have no time to do it. Check the facts and make sure that they are correct or I will be bold and remove them. alan oakley is trying to destroy rugby league- When was this ever asserted? I believe the comment was that some fanatics believe that but that this is unlikely. Check it yourself if you would like to get the right quote. This type of conjecture is not wikipedian and rightly removed.
However the comments attributed to him at that time were definitely indisputable, to the same extent that the material kept is. They both rightly require citation. Ehinger222 04:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Notably, Oakley has challenged the popular conception for what football is, by calling soccer football, although prevoiusly the term football was used for the southern Australian code of football, Australian Rules Football. The popular use of the word football in Sydney, (as it has been for 140 years since the beginning of organised football), is rugby football, particuarly rugby league football
The above has a large number of problems. "Notably, Oakley has challenged the popular conception for what football is, by calling soccer football" This needs to be cited. You also should cite why this is notable.
The popular use of the word football in Sydney, (as it has been for 140 years since the beginning of organised football), is rugby football, particuarly rugby league football Really? Well League was formed in Sydney in 1907 according to Rugby league in Australia. Compare this to Assoication Football, where from 1882, the NSW association was called the "English Football Association". So I would say that this claim of 140 years ownership can be strongly debated. There is also assoications such as the Gladesville Hornsby Football Association. I cannot find a foundation date online, but google shows clubs joining the association in 1953. SBS, Northern Spirit FC and others all called the sport football 8-10 years ago so I would say the Oakley is not notable for this, and 147.10.112.157 has a strong POV to push here. Tancred 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. In response to your other points: (1) Oakley is clearly "prominent" as ed of the SMH! (2) As you also say: "controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements". A quick web search will find examples of the controversy: e.g. "this English git [i.e. Oakley] should be sacked as of now. How dare he attempt to re-impose his English cultural imperialism on us." (3) "Some media outlets" is fine with me. (4) The nature of the dispute regarding the word football needs to be xplained, we can't presume that people will know that. Grant65 | Talk 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is only this: That it should be noted in some form, along with his editorship as I am an avid league supporter and I am not used to calling soccer football. The use is validated on wikipedia often by referring to media outlets, so it is more than reasonable to trace their source IMO.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
147.10.112.157 (
talk •
contribs).
Are you saying that Oakley has nothing to do with the usage of "football" by the SMH? Grant65 | Talk 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::::During Oakley's term at the Herald, the paper began referring to
football (soccer) as "football" rather than "soccer".
References
Hello, I am going to be one of the mediators listening to this case. Please see Alan Oakley Mediation Cabal to participate in this voluntary mediation. I also invite all who may wish to partake in any discussion of this to please post here, as this talk page will be watched and discussion added to the discussion portion of the case. Somitho 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)