Talk:Gary Speed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

'Early career'[edit]

Seriously, there should be significantly more written about his time at Leeds and Everton and the controversial circumstances in which he left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.211.178 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nickname[edit]

Correct me if im wrong but Gary is not a nickname considering it is actually his given name.

Club[edit]

signed permanent now with Sheffield United, he only signed on loan until after the Bolton F.A cup game making him unable to play. Also if you look on Bolton website he's not on the profile list anymore.

Death[edit]

He committed suicide as one newspaper has just confirmed The BBC is reporting suicide too. R.I.P GARY SPEED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcraig11 (talkcontribs) 18:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Telegraph online has slightly more details at this still very early stage in the knowledge gathering. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8918628/Wales-boss-Gary-Speed-found-dead.html Vurogj (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a bit. We've got to be careful as there will be a lot of speculation flying about at the moment. matt (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian obituary lists his death as 27 November 2011.--EchetusXe 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We can say 26/27 November - we know he was dead on 27 and alive on 26?TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Both the Guardian[1] and Telegraph[2] obits say 27th and it will be taken as that officially. Nasnema  Chat  02:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks good – I've removed the editnotice. Thanks for the sources. matt (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An inquest into Speed's death is being opened - see: http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16119776 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.237.177 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't the word suicide being used in the article? It should read he committed suicide. 31.205.42.149 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the inquest hasn't been held yet. Sources report apparent suicide. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Then that's what should be in the article. If we report he was hanged but don't say it was suicide (or it is being reported as suicide) then that suggests he was murdered. Which is incorrect. Adam4267 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

'Committed' suicide[edit]

As it says here - http://www.samaritans.org/media_centre/guide_to_reporting_suicide.aspx - suicide is not illegal in the UK and therefore one doesn't 'commit' suicide. Can the wording please be changed?78.86.150.78 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, I've done it myself. Didn't realise I could if I logged in! Tommurphy86 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that it is a particularly important question, but the word 'commit' is not only for criminal acts. Anybody who claims that it is is committing an error. I understand that the organization to which you referred is attempting to neutralize the emotional responses to suicide, but the phrase 'commit suicide' is perfectly valid and well established.Rugbyhelp (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that 'committed suicide' is valid and well established, but so are 'killed himself' and 'topped himself', but neither are appropriate, and are quite unhelpful when dealing with such an emotive and sensitive topic. 78.86.150.78 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we please reach a consensus instead of people simply undoing edits because they like the word 'commit'? I've given clear reasons why it should not be used: It is a term that was used when suicide was illegal, and as such implies that it is 'wrong' to do so. This interpretation is consistent with the Wiktionary definition at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commit. As an objective encyclopaedia that sort of implication is inappropriate. The counter-argument that it is a commonly used term is reasonable, but as I said, terms such as 'topped himself' are also commonly used but are not appropriate. Furthermore, I appreciate the guidance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Euphemisms. However, 'died from/of suicide' is no less clear or direct that 'committed suicide'. Could those in favour of using the word 'committed' please explain why they think the word associated with, as Wiktionary says, a crime, sin or fault, should be used instead of a more objective word? Tommurphy86 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody on Earth says "died from suicide". And this is an encyclopaedia. So we use encyclopaedic terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
People do say 'died from suicide'. If you google "died-from-suicide", there are 469,000 hits. Not as many as "committed-suicide", I agree, but certainly more than the figure of zero that you have suggested. Tommurphy86 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and you are misinterpreting it anyway. As it says on that page Committed suicide is a commonly used term and the word committ, in that sense, does not infer that it is criminal. Adam4267 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, 'committ' isn't a word at all, and it would be implying, not inferring. I am not disputing that it is a commonly-used term; I am saying that it is a pejorative term, and there are other equally clear but far more neutral terms that could be used instead. I've yet to hear a reason why the word 'commit' is so important to this article, when it doesn't confer any extra clarity, and does carry with it implications that are far from objective. I agree that the definition I provided does not necessarily mean criminal, but if not, it does mean a sin or a fault. You are welcome to believe that suicide is a sin or a fault, but I don't think it's appropriate to choose language that reflects that opinion when there are other options that carry no such implications. Tommurphy86 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say that "commit" is the usual verb; it is regularly used, for example, in the wikipedia article and in general parlance (compare died from suicide to committed suicide). U+003F? 17:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I accept that point. However, many pejorative terms are in common parlance, and maintaining the word 'committed' does not add to the clarity of the article whatsoever, but does continue to reinforce the word's everyday usage, especially at a time when suicide is 'in the news'. Tommurphy86 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mirror of reliable sources. And we use WP:ENGVAR. British reliable sources routinely and dispassionately use the term "commit" with suicide. Including with this person. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a link to media guidance on reporting suicide. People are starting to follow the guidance, but many choose not to, preferring to follow the crowd instead, even though their only justification is "Everyone else does it do it must be correct". Is Wikipedia to be in that category? The use of the phrase may be dispassionate, but the term itself certainly isn't, for the reasons I've given. I find it difficult to understand why many people here are keen to cling on to this outdated term. 31.75.71.54 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"Following the crowd", as you put it, is what Wikipedia does, by cornerstone policy. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
But I think that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If we simply did what the majority do, we'd use 'seperately', 'definately', 'millenium' and 'embarassing', and we'd use 'foetus' rather than 'fetus' on the basis that the former is well-established despite the etymology being incorrect. 31.90.184.156 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a democracy but it does use verifiability. If our sources have mere typos, it's not a problem to correct them. If our sources use specific terminology, we should use it, not some PC version. Wikipedia is not censored. It is worth noting Google, "died from suicide" gets about 0.5m hits, "committed suicide" gets around 11.7 million, including nearly 5,000 news hits of that phrase in the last 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you agree that 0.5m is slightly more than 'Nobody on Earth'? Would you agree that your enormously inaccurate estimation of the term's usage reflects a pre-conception that despite having found to be incorrect, you are determined to cling to? I also think that saying "some PC version" is quite dismissive. 31.90.184.156 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you're missing the whole point of this, Wikipedia uses verifiable reliable sources, not a PC version which is very much a minority in our verifiable reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And let's be very specific about this. Reliable sources such as the Daily Telegraph use "committed suicide", in fact it has 40,000+ Ghits in this case while your preference has 90 Ghits. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that the term 'from suicide' is actually used in the introduction to this very article; it is only in the Death section that the word 'committed' is used. Clearly no one has an issue with that particular terminology, but rather with my editing, otherwise the introduction would have been changed as well. I very much hope that my pointing out of this fact doesn't lead to the introduction being changed to reflect this pro-'committed' agenda. 31.75.71.54 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As soon as the inquest gives its verdict, that should probably replace that line. --Dweller (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more information on the matter:

http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=231&name=DLFE-70.pdf
http://www.suicideprevention.ca/about-suicide/the-power-of-words/

I still haven't heard a good reason for why the word 'committed' is so important to the clarity and accuracy of this article. Tommurphy86 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

These are all very interesting but what do they have to do with verifiable sources relating to Gary Speed's suicide? I know it's a sensitive subject but this is becoming a bit soapbox really, we use verifiable sources, not PC-based phraseology. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the term is PC-based? Tommurphy86 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the terminology you're propounding is that which we'd consider the common verifiable version? (hint: try to focus on the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not the PC-based alternatives)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly verifiable - you proved that yourself (having originally said it has never been used by anyone on Earth). As for the Soapbox comment - yes, I agree. I think it's therefore more appropriate to use a neutral term than one which implies a crime, sin or fault. You're entitled to your opinion of Gary Speed, but Wikipedia isn't the place to express it through your choice of language. Tommurphy86 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't use "neutral" terms, we use "verifiable" terms. Read the policies and guidelines. It's not "my" choice of language, it's the overwhelming universal consensus to use that terminology. I note your interest in this kind of thing beforehand. A single purpose account? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's two sections of the guidelines for you:
We don't use neutral terms? I agree with the guidance which states that non-judgemental language must be balanced against clarity. Do you find the alternative that I have offered unclear?
What single purpose could that possibly be? What do you mean by 'this kind of thing'? The two people in question had very little in common, both in life and in death. Tommurphy86 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If, as I suspect you'll say, previous Wikipedia activity is relevant to current disputes, would it be relevant that you have previously bemoaned what you perceive to be political correctness? Tommurphy86 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, you have to (a) go with consensus and (b) realise that if verifiable content says "committed suicide", then you have to get over it and accept that's what will be reported in Wikipedia. There is overwhelming evidence to support that this type of event is reported in this way, PC or otherwise. We're not here to interpret social norms or make difficult concepts socially acceptable, we're here to write encyclopaedic articles. I've got nothing else to add here, and look forward to seeing others add to the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011[edit]

In the sentence, "Both the FIFA and Welsh flags at FIFA's headquarters were at half mast as a mark of respect," the word "mast" should be changed to "staff" as a mast is to be found on a ship whereas a staff refers to a flag pole on land.

12.239.189.130 (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Both are correct - see Half-staff --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

6.1 Tributes[edit]

Please consider adding:

On Tuesday, November 29, two days after Gary Speed's death, the club he signed for as a boy and with whom he won the old English Second Division and First Division titles, Leeds United, played away to Nottingham Forest in a Championship League game. In the 11th minute, symbolising the number shirt Gary Speed wore for Leeds, Leeds fans began signing "Oh Gary Gary, Gary Gary Gary Gary Gary Speed" for 11 minutes. As they copncluded their signing, Robert Snodgrass scored the first goal for Leeds in what would go on to be a 4-0 victory. It was reported after the game that Glyn Snodin, on the current Leeds coaching staff and a former teammate of Gary Speed, gave the team stirring speech about Gary Speed that insired a terrific display by the team. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.205.93 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

While maybe not writing it in the exact way you have done there. I think other tributes, especially those of his former clubs, should be added. Adam4267 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The whole tributes section seems to be fairly excessive in my opinion, and the level of detail in the IP's suggestion reflects this. I appreciate it's a recent event and he was someone that few people appeared to dislike, but detailing every tribute from every person who was remotely associated with him seems overboard for an encylopeadia. BulbaThor (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There has been a lot of tributes and a huge amount of media coverage on it. But maybe it is excessive? I personally think it is ok and that there is nothing wrong with expanding it a bit more for, Leeds & Newcastle's tributes etc. But if other people think it's too excessive then it may well be. Adam4267 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Best known[edit]

I disagree that he is best known for his spell at Newcastle. He made more appearances, scored more goals while he was at Leeds. He also played in a side that won the league at Leeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.140 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.leedsunited.com/news/20111130/a-fitting-tribute-for-gary_2247585_2532655