Talk:Hughie Gallacher

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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone and tags[edit]

Hi Chris,

Nice hat.

Could you elaborate more please on the concerns that you have highlighted on this page? Firstly you refer to the later life section. All the stuff that I have added I believe I have the added the source of the info. If the source of the info is unclear please let me know and I will gladly update it.

As a small point it was slightly amusing to notice that you mark a page for not using sufficiently encyclopedic language. Then you begin the detail of your criticism with "Jesus" ? Something of a contradiction perhaps?

Best regards, S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talkcontribs) 01:16, 17 July 2008

S, I Think the article about later life isnt bad at all and is very politely put in such a way i think my dad (Hughie Jr) would like. Thank you for your time and effort in Sourcing all that information, and when Dad gets a look at it i'll let you know about what he thinks
Lee Gallacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lee,
Many thanks for the positive nature of your comment. I'll keep an eye open to see if you have any further updates when I get back from Macedonia.
Best wishes to you and the rest of the Gallacher family,
Socheid (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi S,
Apologies for the belated reply.
The major problem is that of the tone. While much of it may be drawn directly from the sources, this does not in itself preserve a neutral point of view if the sources themselves are written in a sympathetic tone - which is the case in almost all of them. While I applaud your writing skills, it is important that our articles not be seen to be expressing a particular point of view or preference, and this is the current state of the article. A statement like "When Gallacher hung up his size-six boots he was happy and contented man, a man with a family he adored. Treated as an honorary Geordie, he could not set foot on the streets or walk into a bar without being met like a hero" could be taken to "After retirement, Gallagher was a popular figure in the North East" without losing any of the factual value while being considerably more neutral in tone. Doing this throughout would leave us with a great article which did not appear to contain any personal interpretation on behalf of its authors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Chris,

Thanks for being a good fellow and replying, no need to apologise at all.

I'm about to dash out and I have something of a busy few days lined up. Please allow me to consider your comments and respond accordingly. Thanks also for the constructive nature of your reply.

Very best wishes, Socheid (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again Chris,

I have endeavoured to take your comments on board and gone through the article accordingly. If it's not too much trouble I would be grateful for your constructive critique.

Regards, (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on this some more myself. As it is, I still think that there are parts of it which borrow too heavily from the first given reference (some passages are taken almost word-for-word from it), but with the removal of some of the more flowery prose I think it's acceptable enough that I have de-tagged it. The article still has a lot of room for improvement, but it now reads like a solid biography and not like an essay or obituary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi again Lee,

Yourself and your dad may be interested in the feature on your your grandfather here

A lot of the content you will be familiar with already from wikipedia but there is no constraint on an encyclopaedic written style.

Best wishes, Socheid (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced nature of edits[edit]

I'm irritated by the unsourced nature of most of the information on this page, particularly regarding the alleged assault on the son. I am also irritated that this entry seems to have been written (wholly or in part) by this man's family and his family friends. I don't think this is entirely consistent with wikipedia's stated aims and objectives. There is, of course, nothing wrong with people making entries on their relatives or friends (if they are worthy of note, which this man plainly is), but the rules for sourcing are the same for them as they are for anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi the unsigned person above,
All of the information that I have in this article has been sourced. This includes the info on the later life section of Hughie Gallacher. However I have now added the source of the info in question to the end of every paragraph if that helps to clarify things. Please take a look and advise your opinion.
Your comment related to the friends and family of the man in question. Could you provide the info you have to back this up please?
I wonder if it may be possible that you could be a good chap and create an id for yourself like the rest of us have for when you are going to make comments such as those that you have? There are benefits in doing so that I am sure you could find listed in wikipedia if you'd care to take a look?
As for your being 'irritated', i'm not sure of this is the place for you to vent your feelings on the basis of what seems to be an inability to control your emotions.
Very best wishes,
Socheid (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately this has crept back in, by virtue of family members editing the page again. More attention really needs to be drawn here to resolve this properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading, many years ago, that Hughie died at what was known as "dead man's crossing". I've no idea why it was so-called. Bfuzzy (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Most prolific Scotland goalscorer?[edit]

This article makes reference in one of the opening paragraphs to Gallacher being "the most prolific goals per game scorer" for the Scottish national team, and there are several references throughout the article to him scoring 23 goals in 20 games. Both of these points are at odds with Scotland_national_football_team_records#Highest_goalscorers which says he got 24 goals in 20 games, but also that Robert Hamilton got 15 goals in 11 games meaning that he has a higher ratio of goals per game than Gallacher, and there are other Scottish internationals not listed there who have higher ratios such as George Ker who scored 10 goals in 5 games. I would hazard a guess that the 23 goals in 20 games is going to be the accurate figure for Gallacher's international record but I don't personally know. If someone does know for certain, could they please correct the appropriate article? With the above in mind, I have edited the reference to him being the most prolific scorer since that is not the case. --Dalimyr (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)