Talk:Bobby Robson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bobby Robson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 18, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Football (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dutch football task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Spanish football task force.
 
WikiProject North East England (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Absence of a See also section[edit]

I just want to open up for comment an issue I have with this article, in that it has no See also section. I believe the article would benefit from one, what with what I believe is the average or novice reader's usual expectancy to see one in the TOC of most articles over stub or page size. Also, it's position above the three pages of references is more user friendly to find than the catagory's put up as the alternative to it below. Further info at my talk page Robson + See also MickMacNee (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for see also sections at all, all information required is within the article. This is a dangerous precedent, like bloated External links sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The one issue has got nothing to do with the other, you sound like a wiki perfectionist who has no appreciation for the normal reader, merely seeking minimalism for the sake of it. 'No need for See also sections at all' - is that your opinion of all articles? because it doesn't exactly fit with normal WP practice. MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, please don't forget this article is a featured one and that it saw a huge amount of review before the bronze star was awarded. Not one single editor believed that the lack of a See also section was an issue. Adding this section is dangerous since what's the difference between the UEFA cup winning managers and Novocastrians or Newcastle United managers or Knights of the realm or any other category that Robson fits into? Once you've picked one for a section like this then all others are equally valid. And that's what I'm trying to avoid. You have the link, it's in the category, that's what the categories are for. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As per my talk page, perhap FA reviewers are a little too biased on wiki perfectionism and don't appreciate what helps the average reader who may not understand categories and the like, and wherein multiple link methods are helpfull, and not seen as clutter. Are you seriously suggesting the list would be onerously long, even if it were the case that there exists an article for every category you mention, which I doubt. See also managers who have won this major european trophy is patently different from see also a list of famous novocastrians. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As per your talk page, why have two threads of discussion?! FA reviewers want "perfect" articles, that's right!! That's the whole point. The reason we have categories is so we don't have terribly long See also sections. Robson exists in 26 categories (ignoring supercategories) so if all are given equal gravitas (and a West Brom fan probably thinks the fact he played for them is equally as important as him winning the UEFA Cup at Ipswich) then you end up with a bloated list of See also's. That's the whole point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hence the notability guidelines. I fail to see the equivalence between a list entry between the two subjects. I say again, with 3 pages worth of references I see no point in objecting to this on the grounds of style alone. If your sense of perfection is the minimisation of navigation opportunities then I must have misunderstood the purpose of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hence the notability guidelines"? I'm not objecting on style alone. Three pages of references is what helps make this article featured - all facts are cited. I'm objecting to your addition of one category as a See also and the inevitable corollary that there's no reason not to add another 25. That's the purpose of categories. I believe you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, adding endless wikilinks (which are already linked to) is most certainly not what this project is about. I have nothing more to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, you don't even appreciate the purpose of see also sections, hence your abject dismissal of them due to some wierd sense of wiki perfection, despite their use in millions of other articles that already have categories etc, completely ignoring one of the basic principles of wiki navigation, one of the founding principles of wikipedia, easy access to information to a normal reader, and not expert editors. MickMacNee (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the reason not to unilaterally 25 or 50 or how ever many other article links there may be, being notability, i.e. the likelihood of someone wanting to find a list of famous novocastrians when looking at Bobby Robson. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Subjective I'm afraid. Just because you're interested in UEFA cup winning managers, what makes that more or less notable than, say, FA Cup winning mangers, England managers, England international footballers, Knights of the Realm? Nothing. Unless you're being subjective... which is why we have categories! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As you keep saying, I don't appreciate the purpose of see also sections? No, not when you're linking the same thing for the third time, and as I've mentioned countless times, leading the way to adding an additional 25 see also categories. Oh, did I say categories? So use the categories. That's what they're for. "Expert editors"? Come on. Wiki articles couldn't be much simpler. If it's blue you can click on it. Is that in need of expertise? Please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:OVERLINK. Absolutely no mention that you should be excluding STANDARD sections just because you think there already enough links in an article. And like I said, it is not a correct assumption that every category in the article would be included in a see also section. This sounds more and more like a case of I don't like it. You've already edited the list article so it should be patently clear that lists and categories do not give the same information. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I've lost the will to defend this. The Robson article is one of about three FAs about a footballer in the whole of Wikipedia. "Your" list is linked to now due to the lousy sucbox. What more do you want? I (and all other reviewers) failed to believe the See also section will add anything but since you're determined (and looking at your edit history you're proving a point yourself) I can't maintain the energy to discuss this with you any more. I will continue to remove your See also section as it adds nothing. Nothing. Not a bean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you trying to imply with those references to 'my' and 'your'? Thanks for your opinion on the 'lousy' sucbox, that really is a nice touch. I created that list and that category because it was not readily available anywhere else in WP, that's what adding to the encyclopoedia is all about, not jealously protecting what you think makes a good article. If you want to show me a specific section where a see also section was discussed in an FA review I might be persuaded this is not just your opinion, otherwise I will continue to believe it is purely a case of experienced editors overlooking the basics of how users find and navigate through articles. If you are prepared to guard against it, go right ahead, I couldn't give a monkeys. In fact, go and remove the sections I added to all the other articles if it will make you feel any better. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that this issue be discussed elsewhere (perhaps WP:FOOTY), assuming that you are willing to accept any consensus reached? Failing that, I could ask WPFOOTY members to leave their thoughts here. I offer no opinion on the matter but would like to see this settled, which it clearly won't be while it's just two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints. --Jameboy (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, I donn't want my lousy edits to disrupt the pursuit of perfection. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh cmon, no need to get sarcastic about it. You raise a valid point - a See Also section would be a perfectly reasonable addition to the article. Only question is - what would you put in it that would not be inherently POV, or better treated elsewhere? Disambigs (Pop Robson and Bryan Robson come to mind) are better treated at the article head. Other Newcastle/England/Ipswich (etc) managers are linked through the cats. I'd happily support the inclusion of a See Also if you suggest a couple of articles that are NPOV to include and aren't better (or already) treated elsewhere in the article. And I suspect you'd quickly have consensus for it. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, any article that is related to his notability for what he is best known as, a football player and manager. i.e. the list of uefa cup winning managers, list of football knights (not created yet), list of managers to win XYZ trophy. Definitely not general articles like england players, general knighthoods, novocastrians etc etc. I don't think references to brian robson are relevant. I am undecided on including any lists of managers of a club/team, on the one hand there are not that many lists like that, on the other hand the show boxes at the bottom already include more information than categories or suc boxes. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<moving back here> Chaps - what do you think of including see alsos to lists that include Robson and aren't covered by cats? That wouldn't be POV. Shall we see if we can find two or three (that do exist!)? --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Got bored. List of football personalities with British honours MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

England/English[edit]

Regarding the opening sentence, isn't it more normal (although possibly not more logical) to refer to the England football manager, not the English football manager? 4u1e (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the "English" referred to his nationality, per WP:MOSBIO, not to the team he managed. --RobertGtalk 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, which was the other possibility. In that case the re-wording you applied (former English > English former) is appropriate. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotect![edit]

Why is this not semiprotected?!? Vandals are hitting this page like CRAZY! ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

When it's main page we tend not to protect... Keep up the good reverting... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's pictures of ejaculating penises on this page now. and i can't seem to remove them.

I know, what in the world is going on? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a message at WP:AN/I, hopefully someone will see it swiftly and fix it. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is not confined to this article. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I semiprotected it. Alexius, we can figure out the problem with other pages in the meantime, but this one being featured, I figured I might as well just protect it. The penises everywhere made me do it! -kevin talkemail 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Poloris (now blocked) had inserted the offending image into Template:PSV Eindhoven managers, which was transcluded onto this (and other) pages. It should all be sorted now... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully it will go away in 25 mins. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not being an admin I can't technically semi-protect, but I hope everybody understood. Sorry for any harm done, but I think it was worth protecting until the source of the vandalism was fixed. -kevin talkemail 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your actions were spot on. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sir Bobby Robson Foundation[edit]

Could a link be added to The Sir Bobby Robson Foundation at http://www.sirbobbyrobsonfoundation.org.uk/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.134.83 (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This link seems appropriate so I have added it in External links. --Jameboy (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

B17, mms, research.--82.39.194.245 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The separate section Bobby Robson Foundation has caused a bit of a problem IMO, as the stuff about his illness now appears in both this new section and the Personal Life section. It jumps around too much. How about incorporating the ...Foundation section back into the Life outside football section? This would flow better, surely? --Jameboy (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NUFC 8-0 Sheffield Wednesday, not the record home victory[edit]

In his first home match in charge, Newcastle defeated Sheffield Wednesday 8–0, still the club record home victory.

This is untrue. Newcastle's record home victory was:

October 5, 1946: Football League Divsion 2

Newcastle United 13 - 0 Newport County

Attendence: 52,137. scorers: Charlie Wayman (5 mins), Len Shackleton (7 mins), Charlie Wayman (28 mins), Charlie Wayman (30 mins), Len Shackleton (31 mins), Len Shackleton (35 mins), Len Shackleton (36 mins), Len Shackleton (53 mins), Jackie Milburn (66 mins), Jackie Milburn (69 mins), Charlie Wayman (73 mins), Roy Bentley (82 mins), Len Shackleton (87 mins)

Details of the game can be found in numerous sources. Here's two of them. NUFC.com 1946/47 season stats: http://www.nufc.com/html/1946-47.html

Joannou, Paul: United: The First 100 Years and More: The Official History of Newcastle United FC, 1882-1995 (2nd Edition), (Leicester: Polar Print, 1995) pp.172-173 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.242.204 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-naming of ITFC's North Stand after Sir Bobby[edit]

Hello, There is a petition about getting ITFC to rename there North Stand after Sir Bobby Robson. Link is blacklisted though... its an Ipetitions one. Shall we mention it? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge footnote[edit]

Why is there an essay written in footnote #124? It seems unnecessary. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Never played for Vancouver Royals[edit]

This site confirms that Robson was never even on the roster of the Vancouver Royals, let alone played for them...was he a coach only, one suspects? GiantSnowman 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

His autobiography states he was a player-manager. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Vancouver be in the infobox under manager also?Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected[edit]

Hi everyone. I've semi protected the page after the news of Bobby's death because we've already started getting vandalism through and that's far from ideal on such a high profile page and when there's so many ordinary edits to contend with as well. It's only 3 days to start with and hopefully that should be enough. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

cue the usual collection of badly-written edits and newly-created 'death' sections that will have to be removed or replaced. I do wish people wouldn't treat such pages as news tickers. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Place of death[edit]

Anyone know where in County Durham he died? Information yes (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He died at home, is there a referenced source of the town/village he lived in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mercenary 73 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Smoking[edit]

Anyone know any specific details, such as when he started, how many per day, if he quit? Information yes (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No but in a biography about one of the greatest football managers ever to have lived, do we really need to know how many a day he smoked, if indeed he did? Some people smoke 40 a day and live to be 100, some don't smoke at all and die of lung cancer when their 30. Is this relevant? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That an article as long as this one, about someone so important, does not even mention his smoking, is a major omission. A biography is about someone's life, and there is no doubt that smoking is a relevant part of the life of everyone who smokes. It is all the more relevant when it causes the smoker's death, which, in this case, it almost certainly did. The vast majority of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Many other Wikipedia biographies mention the subject's smoking, sometimes using terms such as 'chain smoker' 'heavy smoker' or 'used to smoke; gave up in 1990'. Many readers of this article will want to know if he smoked, and will come here to find out. The article should be able to inform the reader of the basic facts of the subject's life. Information yes (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be convinced that Robson smoked. Have you any reliable sources for this? As it happens it appears that the first cancer he was diagnosed with was bowel cancer (in 1991, per this) Tonywalton Talk 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer. However, the lungs are also a receptive site for cancers spreading from other parts of the body, and in such cases it's often this secondary lung cancer which is the direct cause of death. As TonyWalton mentions above, and as the article makes clear, Robson was treated for various cancers over a long period. Think we'd be wise to avoid assuming that smoking caused Robson's death until and unless reliable sources confirm it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. This is a pertinent link, which explicitly mentions cancer of the colon as a common primary source. Tonywalton Talk 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this needs a mention at all, but I did a google search and I've found nothing to suggest he smoked - I'm sure if he had it would have been mentioned somewhere, especially considering he was a professional footballer back in the day. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a reliable source, which is why I am asking here. I am not certain Robson smoked, therefore I can't be certain that smoking caused his death. I have seen it stated that he was a former smoker, but not on a good enough source to use. He certainly died of primary lung cancer, not secondary. Over 80% of primary lung cancers are caused by smoking. He had other cancers previously, but they did not cause his death, though they would have weakened him. He had colorectal cancer in the early 90's, and recovered from that. It is not possible for a person to have colon cancer for over a decade and a half; untreated it would metastasise to the liver and be fatal years earlier. It is strange that there is an absence of information about such a relevant point. There will be many people who are thinking / saying: "he died of lung cancer - so, did he smoke?" If he never smoked, why isn't there the kind of media coverage that Roy Castle's lung cancer received? For a professional footballer to smoke seems contradictory, but it was not unusual at the time he was playing. Information yes (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So the whole smoking thing is speculation? Even if he did smoke (and there's zero evidence of this), you couldn't attribute his death to it. Honestly, this article is about one of the greatest football managers to have ever lived, not about the intricacies of the various cancers he suffered. I think we've covered it in more than sufficient detail. Now let's along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm Sir Bobby was never a smoker, that comes from conversations with relatives and TV interviews, notably the tribute program that aired about 2 years ago.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Clough's relatives claimed he never smoked, but there are photographs of him smoking online. (92.7.22.81 (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC))

Position[edit]

The article says "Robson describes Jackie Milburn and Len Shackleton as his childhood heroes.[4] Both played for Newcastle in the inside-forward position...." Jackie Milburn played initially for Newcastle as a winger but for most of his career he was centre-forward. He was certainly not an inside-forward. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Milburn> Tbfinn (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)TBF 2 August 2009

During his final seasons at Newcastle, Jackie Milburn played at Inside Right as Newcastle at that time had signed Vic Keeble to play the Centre Forward role, and Len White to play the Right Wing role.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Life outside football[edit]

This contains "death" as a sub-heading. A bit strange for a section titled Life outside football. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it takes a little fix...[edit]

... this sounds bad: "However, it was during his time at West Bromwich Albion that he graduated to the full England squad, with his first call-up in 1956. His manager, Vic Buckingham, advocated the "push and run" approach to the game, a precursor to "total football", and playing this, Robson graduated to the full England squad in 1956". Two times the same thing in a few of lines... --87.6.114.110 (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)