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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GiantSnowman wrote: "respectfully disagree. Having one section after the other means we have a chronological biography. His career ended because of crime. The sections used to be merged"
At issue here is that the crime is not part of his career. Certainly it shortened the career. But crime with this much detail is probably appropriate for a new Personal Life section. People seeking to understand the subject's football contributions would sensibly look at his Career. Currently we have almost half of his career specifying details of his crime. How can that be a balanced presentation of 5 years of professional engagement? I also suspect the details of his removal, questioning, suspension, arrest, confirmation of suspension, releasing from employment, court adjournment, hearing status (remote), followup appearance request, and guilty plea can be condensed into about two sentences rather than eight. This is an encyclopedia, rather than a breathless account of twists and turns tangential to the noteworthy traits of this athlete's professional career. WP:UNDUE comes to my mind. I bet a lot of people follow such details (I myself like a podcast called Crime in Sports), but this coverage is far too specific. If you won't isolate it, perhaps you would condense it. Mcfnord ( talk) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not how it works. Reverted. Giant Snowman 09:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Arriving here from WP:3O, just to make sure that I have the the issue totally clear, am I correct in supposing that one of you would like to include the sentence "On 28 September the club confirmed that Robinson remained suspended.". And that one of you wouldn't? May I further inquire of both of you whether one more opinion that disagrees with your personal view would persuade you to accept a minimal 2 vs 1 "consensus", and move on to more profitable endeavours? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I note that the sentence at immediate issue is sourced, is relevant, and can certainly be included if there is a consensus to do so. In my judgement, having never heard of the article's subject before, the sentence is at best redundant. The story flows better without it. I suggest removing it and have boldly done so. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
GiantSnowman has asserted that he and I are collaborating under WP:BRD, a voluntary process I agree to try.
Without providing thoughtful commentary (just saying 'rv - fine as it is'), GiantSnowman has reverted a number of changes I made to the article. Why such a terse and non-specific rationale? Why such sweeping reverts? Is that how WP:BRD works best? I know GiantSnowman holds the view that the content was fine (even perfect) before my changes appeared... but he also knows I disagree. How can collaboration under WP:BRD hinge on personal preference like this, with such sweeping reverts as this? Is GiantSnowman really focusing on his most pressing concerns?
WP:BRD kind of implies I zero in on the most valuable changes. Happy to proceed that way. Let's examine this revision. In this revision, we skip past the zigs and zags of a normal court process, which does involve appearing remotely, or adjourning and resuming, and we skip to the critical fact: The subject pled guilty. While the trivia about court process is true, it is also unhelpful and distracting. GiantSnowman has asserted that the encyclopedia should include all well-sourced facts, but I must disagree. Ultimately I think we all must persuade GiantSnowman that his unusual claim about encyclopedia inclusion is mistaken. A great many true and well-sourced facts don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. A third editor who weighted in on our last disagreement agreed not all well-sourced facts belong in the encyclopedia.
GiantSnowman knows what he likes, but he doesn't explain why. I am trying to explain why I think my changes yield more valuable encyclopedia prose than the content he calls "fine". Please examine, consider, and share your views with my thanks.
Thanks for the ping. I have done a little research, not on the gentleman in question, but on the style of writing that seems to be accepted in Wikipedia on footballer etc. BLPs. Not something that I'd previously taken any interest in. I have the impression that what I'd regard as trivial details of no long-term interest are widely written into Wikipedia articles about spectator sports. I presume - indeed I have come across at least one definite comment - that people who watch, write about, read about, spectator sports enjoy that sort of writing. On that basis I wouldn't bother to argue against the inclusion of minimal details about football, and that would include the fact that he was removed from a game ten minutes before it started. But the administrative interim detail of court cases, I suggest, is not something that either a footy fan, or the general reader, would care about. I propose to revert to Mcfnord's version. Giant Snowman, can I ask you to take a step back and rethink this specific issue? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GiantSnowman wrote: "respectfully disagree. Having one section after the other means we have a chronological biography. His career ended because of crime. The sections used to be merged"
At issue here is that the crime is not part of his career. Certainly it shortened the career. But crime with this much detail is probably appropriate for a new Personal Life section. People seeking to understand the subject's football contributions would sensibly look at his Career. Currently we have almost half of his career specifying details of his crime. How can that be a balanced presentation of 5 years of professional engagement? I also suspect the details of his removal, questioning, suspension, arrest, confirmation of suspension, releasing from employment, court adjournment, hearing status (remote), followup appearance request, and guilty plea can be condensed into about two sentences rather than eight. This is an encyclopedia, rather than a breathless account of twists and turns tangential to the noteworthy traits of this athlete's professional career. WP:UNDUE comes to my mind. I bet a lot of people follow such details (I myself like a podcast called Crime in Sports), but this coverage is far too specific. If you won't isolate it, perhaps you would condense it. Mcfnord ( talk) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not how it works. Reverted. Giant Snowman 09:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Arriving here from WP:3O, just to make sure that I have the the issue totally clear, am I correct in supposing that one of you would like to include the sentence "On 28 September the club confirmed that Robinson remained suspended.". And that one of you wouldn't? May I further inquire of both of you whether one more opinion that disagrees with your personal view would persuade you to accept a minimal 2 vs 1 "consensus", and move on to more profitable endeavours? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I note that the sentence at immediate issue is sourced, is relevant, and can certainly be included if there is a consensus to do so. In my judgement, having never heard of the article's subject before, the sentence is at best redundant. The story flows better without it. I suggest removing it and have boldly done so. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
GiantSnowman has asserted that he and I are collaborating under WP:BRD, a voluntary process I agree to try.
Without providing thoughtful commentary (just saying 'rv - fine as it is'), GiantSnowman has reverted a number of changes I made to the article. Why such a terse and non-specific rationale? Why such sweeping reverts? Is that how WP:BRD works best? I know GiantSnowman holds the view that the content was fine (even perfect) before my changes appeared... but he also knows I disagree. How can collaboration under WP:BRD hinge on personal preference like this, with such sweeping reverts as this? Is GiantSnowman really focusing on his most pressing concerns?
WP:BRD kind of implies I zero in on the most valuable changes. Happy to proceed that way. Let's examine this revision. In this revision, we skip past the zigs and zags of a normal court process, which does involve appearing remotely, or adjourning and resuming, and we skip to the critical fact: The subject pled guilty. While the trivia about court process is true, it is also unhelpful and distracting. GiantSnowman has asserted that the encyclopedia should include all well-sourced facts, but I must disagree. Ultimately I think we all must persuade GiantSnowman that his unusual claim about encyclopedia inclusion is mistaken. A great many true and well-sourced facts don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. A third editor who weighted in on our last disagreement agreed not all well-sourced facts belong in the encyclopedia.
GiantSnowman knows what he likes, but he doesn't explain why. I am trying to explain why I think my changes yield more valuable encyclopedia prose than the content he calls "fine". Please examine, consider, and share your views with my thanks.
Thanks for the ping. I have done a little research, not on the gentleman in question, but on the style of writing that seems to be accepted in Wikipedia on footballer etc. BLPs. Not something that I'd previously taken any interest in. I have the impression that what I'd regard as trivial details of no long-term interest are widely written into Wikipedia articles about spectator sports. I presume - indeed I have come across at least one definite comment - that people who watch, write about, read about, spectator sports enjoy that sort of writing. On that basis I wouldn't bother to argue against the inclusion of minimal details about football, and that would include the fact that he was removed from a game ten minutes before it started. But the administrative interim detail of court cases, I suggest, is not something that either a footy fan, or the general reader, would care about. I propose to revert to Mcfnord's version. Giant Snowman, can I ask you to take a step back and rethink this specific issue? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)