Talk:Ian Botham: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
:: That's an interesting opinion. Which part is not supported by the sources and what's the accepted wikipedia definition of "tabloid fodder"? See [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]] which states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [[Special:Contributions/80.47.137.128|80.47.137.128]] ([[User talk:80.47.137.128|talk]]) 23:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
:: That's an interesting opinion. Which part is not supported by the sources and what's the accepted wikipedia definition of "tabloid fodder"? See [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]] which states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [[Special:Contributions/80.47.137.128|80.47.137.128]] ([[User talk:80.47.137.128|talk]]) 23:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Quite the [[WP:wikilawyer|wikilawyer]]ing going on here. But this is not noteworthy or relevant, i.e., it's tabloid fodder. Your sourcess are of generally very low quality. You've also misrepresented them. See also [[WP:VNOTSUFF]]: {{tq|"While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article."}} –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::Quite the [[WP:wikilawyer|wikilawyer]]ing going on here. But this is not noteworthy or relevant, i.e., it's tabloid fodder. Your sourcess are of generally very low quality. You've also misrepresented them. See also [[WP:VNOTSUFF]]: {{tq|"While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article."}} –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::[[WP:VNOTSUFF]] also states " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And on Wikipedia consensus is |
::::[[WP:VNOTSUFF]] also states " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And on Wikipedia consensus is built on the strength of arguments in order to prevent [[WP:stonewalling|Stonewalling]]. What are your arguments that it shouldn't be included other than the appeal to the nebulous and undefined term of "tabloid fodder"? You say the sources are of "very low quality" but they appear in the list of [[WP:RSP|perennial sources]] so I reject that argument. |
||
::::Regarding accusations of [[WP:wikilawyer|wikilawyering]], please see the "Use and misuse" section of the page which states "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term." Thank you [[Special:Contributions/80.47.137.128|80.47.137.128]] ([[User talk:80.47.137.128|talk]]) 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
::::Regarding accusations of [[WP:wikilawyer|wikilawyering]], please see the "Use and misuse" section of the page which states "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term." Thank you [[Special:Contributions/80.47.137.128|80.47.137.128]] ([[User talk:80.47.137.128|talk]]) 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:06, 1 November 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ian Botham 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 is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Categories
Does this article really need 13 categories? For example:
- Shouldn't Category:English batsmen, Category:English bowlers and Category:English all-rounders be mutually exclusive?
- Is it that helpful to have three county cricket affiliations (Category:Somerset cricketers, Category:Worcestershire cricketers and Category:Durham cricketers)?
- Is anyone going to look under Category:Queensland cricketers? If so, what about club sides that he played for?
- Surely all Category:English cricket captains were either Category:English ODI cricketers or Category:English test cricketers (alternatively, it may be sensible to have two sub-categories of England cricket captains, one for Test captains and one for ODI captains, with possibly a further category for Test and ODI captains)
(No objections to Category:Wisden Cricketers of the Year or Category:Cricket writers and broadcasters, though). --ALoan (Talk) 13:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Desribing Botham as one of 'Englands best-ever cricketers' (whilst this may be true) is surely only the opinion of the author and hence should not be stipulated as fact. Paulo Fontaine 04:05, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
many great authorities on the game rate him as the greatest player of his generation, and one of the greatest English players of all-time. That should count for something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.45.71 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- An all-rounder is both a batsman and a bowler; I don't see the terms being mutually exclusive. Though I do admit that (although I have retained these categorisations - along with the categorisation of "wicket-keeper", I'd be happy to remove them). Personally I find it interesting which major first-class sides a player played for. True, people are unlikely to search for Ian Botham under Queensland cricketers, but those looking for Queensland cricketers may find it interesting that Ian Botham played a (somewhat ill-fated) season for them. I think it's interesting to have an English cricketer captains category - it would be strange to have an English test cricketers other than test captains category, and so any test captain appears in both. Currently "English cricket captains" only includes those who have captained at least one test - though I take your point that a separate ODI captains category may be interesting, jguk 21:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the categories should stay. You couldn't leave 300-and-odd-wicket Botham off a list of English Bowlers becasue he batted too well. Categories are a way into an article as much as a way out of them, and part of the appeal of wiki is meandering where you didn't intend to go. Epeeist smudge 13:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Dick Pic
Why's there no mention of the time he accidentally tweeted a pic of his own cock?
Family history
Shouldn't this statement quote a source? Should it be deleted without one?
From an early age, he always wanted his own way in a devoutly, almost religious, single-minded fashion. When informed that Ian wanted to be a sportsman, the careers master at his school said to him 'Fine, everyone wants to play sport, but what are you really going to do?
MichaelMaggs 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Michael
- That is a fairly famous quote and one I've heard before (or at least words to that effect) on television. I'll find a source on it as i'm sure it will have found its way to print somehwere. --LiamE 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've been having a good look around and not tracked it down yet. Has any got Ian's autobiography to hand to see if its in there? --LiamE 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the second introductory paragraph a little bit over the top? I respect this person as one of the best cricketers of his time, but the tone of the language there does not really strike me as something I would expect from an encyclopedia. --Kinetek
I believe the almost legendary effect that Geoffrey Hallett had on Botham's early life should be in this section. I know it's been in before, but it as quickly deleted. It should be in permanentely.
Additional nickname
Another nickname - in the England team - for Ian Botham was "Guy the Gorilla". It came, apparently, from a Christmas Party down under, when he dressed up in a gorilla suit.
It gave rise to Geoffrey Boycott's notorious "order" to skipper Mike Brearley in 1981: "Put the gorilla on at the other end!" - which worked: 3 wickets for 1 run ... and another win.
81.102.133.198 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
comments on opposition in 1981
I've removed/rewritten to sentences downplaying Botham's achievements in 1981. "the 1981 Australian team had been weakened by the effects of the Packer affair" -- No, Packer (WSC) cricket had ended 2 years before and all players (except Greg Chappell) were available. If the team was weak, it wasn't due to WSC cricket. "The 1981 Australian team was not highly rated and many regard it as the worst team Australia has ever produced" - who are those "many"? I don't believe them. Australia in the early 80s was pretty strong and even drew a series with the Windies the next summer. The team was much weaker in the mid 80s. Rocksong 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Should it not be mentioned that Beefy is a role model and inspiration to David Brent ?Plutonium27 13:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is of sufficiently high importance in the broader context of Botham's life ROxBo 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it should have been made clear that Imran Khan's accusation of racism was made in the context of a heated quarrel about ball tampering and was never substantiated.
- Meltingpot
62.137.152.247 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Mother in law remark: is this not in the article anywhere ? It was also used as a sledge against him in the 1992 world cup final ? worth metioning ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.18 (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This made no sense, and had nothing to do with IT Botham.
Test Centuries and 5 Wicket Hauls
I have added a table and a few comments in regards to his records in this area--Philipjelley (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
All-time rankings
"[I]n the top 5 in the history of the game" - is that the top 5 all-rounders? Apologies for clueless query - but might be good to clarify. Regards,Notreallydavid (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Wine and dogs trivia
User:Nbagigafreak added some content about Botham naming his dogs after grape varieties, and having a range of wines named after him. The sources are a YouTube video and an ad for the wine. To me, this is undue trivia. I reverted with just such a comment. User:Nbagigafreak has just restored the words, with no Edit summary or other communication. I don't want an edit war, and won't revert, but let it be recorded that I don't think this content improves the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why didn't you discuss it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Controversy Section rewrite
I changed this section around. In some respects linking the two events separated by 10 years to the word "courted" was never going to stand. Also we are talking about libel actions which is more civil law (not an expert so don't quote me on that) or if at all falling into criminal law at least is only concerned with the "civil" behavior of those involved.
The particular court cases should have dates, duration, judgement, judge's name, etc. This needs to be in full. In the sole libel action for ball tampering - the balls were presented to the jury and this needs to be included to show that justice is about detail no matter how small. I'm being serious.
If you disagree with my edits then revert to previous edit.
Sluffs (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to help others find counter-claims for the controversy section.
I just did the Viv Richards early career section using his mid-career bio written with David Foot published in 1979. Richards mentions visiting Ian Botham's parents a few times while they shared a flat and the night they got ejected from a nightclub as well as other social and playing memories - all of which occurred around 1974 onwards. I think its important to mention this since the controversy section may give a one sided impression of Botham without any history especially in relationship to the Khan vs Botham and Lamb court case. Root articles in details drawn from the widest sources to get a balanced view IMO.
Sluffs (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate Blue Links
I've removed some duplicated blue links. I can see why previous editors may have thought that the length of the article meant that it may be better to have multiple blue links for readers to look up words. However it is already quite a colorful article with a large number of blue links. If you really think its necessary to link to Imran Khan and the England Cricket Team multiple times then restore the links but I think its better to encourage readers to stay and finish the article from top to bottom - which brings me onto the personal section which is below a big table of matches played. If you are reading a paper book cricket biography the statistics tables are normally at the back in an appendix. This is a biography with stats so I would like to suggest that the table be moved to the end of the text.
I think bios need to have the "life" bits - I know a lot of people who do the hero bit like to think their heroes descended from some higher plane fully formed with their heroic talents already completely "in the bag" but I think the struggle and battles of an early career and the disappointments and victories makes for an interesting biography.
Take for example the Viv Richards early career section that I've just done. I mention his job as assistant groundsmen at Lansdown C.C. in Bath and gave the impression it was to help support him financially (which it was) but I left out the fact that Richards actually had to do the work - he really did work - Viv Richards took the roller out and prepared the field all for £1 a week (a year later he was earning big money) - so hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. Keith Richards from the Rolling Stones mentions the first time he met Muddy Waters at Chess Studio - he looked up at a man painting a wall in overalls and lo and behold saw Muddy (I got this from an interview with Keith Richards in the book Blues Guitar published by Guitar Player Magazine). I hope I haven't overstepped the mark by pointing this out. Cheers.
Sluffs (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ian Botham/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Needs citations... plange 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ian Botham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505055546/http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=celebrity-x-factor&method=full&objectid=22143891&siteid=93463-name_page.html to http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=celebrity-x-factor&method=full&objectid=22143891&siteid=93463-name_page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple issues
I see the article has been tagged for multiple issues. Would anyone like to try and improve the article objectively and introduce some additional citations? Jack | talk page 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I made a start myself but this remains a very poor article indeed. Whoever did the main "work" was focused on the 1981 series and there have been several inputs by people who are fascinated by all the trivia about Ian Botham. Appalling. Someone needs to concentrate on his full career and get things into perspective as I've tried to do with all the POV crap that was there re the 1981 series. Jack | talk page 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I started on this a while back, User:Harrias/Ian Botham, but it's not the sort of project I can really get back into fully at the moment, though I still hope to complete it. Harrias talk 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Harrias. Even though it's unfinished, your draft is infinitely better than the mess I found in the published article yesterday. One thing you need to watch out for, though, is the dead or spurious citation links. I won't use your content for anything I do here, other than for checking and correction of minor errors where applicable, because it's your work and you must take the credit. My main concern for the moment is the sourcing but the biggest issue the article has is the lack of overall career coverage. I'll do what I can to remove any dubious content and/or citations and I'll try to put some kind of career detail in, even if only in summary form. Thanks for letting me see your draft and good luck with it when you have time to complete it. Jack | talk page 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Harrias, I've had a go at this and I've removed all the dead and dubious citation links. I'd advise you in your version to limit yourself to the ones now in the article as they are all valid. What would be good, given that you obviously have the Doust and Murphy books, would be if you could fill in the early life and career development sections up to 1974. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 16:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I started on this a while back, User:Harrias/Ian Botham, but it's not the sort of project I can really get back into fully at the moment, though I still hope to complete it. Harrias talk 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hacking of Twitter Account
The hacking of the subjects twitter account was covered by many reliable sources. What are the reasons this shouldn't be on the page? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is not a tabloid. What you've been adding is also not supported by the sources. Neither is the claim that his account was compromised. Even if it were, this is tabloid fodder. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's an interesting opinion. Which part is not supported by the sources and what's the accepted wikipedia definition of "tabloid fodder"? See WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." 80.47.137.128 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Quite the wikilawyering going on here. But this is not noteworthy or relevant, i.e., it's tabloid fodder. Your sourcess are of generally very low quality. You've also misrepresented them. See also WP:VNOTSUFF:
"While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article."
–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- WP:VNOTSUFF also states " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And on Wikipedia consensus is built on the strength of arguments in order to prevent Stonewalling. What are your arguments that it shouldn't be included other than the appeal to the nebulous and undefined term of "tabloid fodder"? You say the sources are of "very low quality" but they appear in the list of perennial sources so I reject that argument.
- Quite the wikilawyering going on here. But this is not noteworthy or relevant, i.e., it's tabloid fodder. Your sourcess are of generally very low quality. You've also misrepresented them. See also WP:VNOTSUFF:
- That's an interesting opinion. Which part is not supported by the sources and what's the accepted wikipedia definition of "tabloid fodder"? See WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." 80.47.137.128 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding accusations of wikilawyering, please see the "Use and misuse" section of the page which states "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term." Thank you 80.47.137.128 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Mid-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class cricket articles
- High-importance cricket articles
- B-Class cricket articles of High-importance
- Somerset cricket task force articles
- WikiProject Cricket articles
- B-Class football articles
- Low-importance football articles
- B-Class football in England articles
- Low-importance football in England articles
- Football in England task force articles
- WikiProject Football articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Somerset articles
- Low-importance Somerset articles
- WikiProject Somerset articles
- B-Class Cheshire articles
- Low-importance Cheshire articles