Talk:James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

However, he left Rugby Town after three games by mutual consent, following being fined by the club for dissent.

This is not referenced at all . It’s quite concerning when going through this page the amount of in referenced statements being made about Rowe. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Not referenced at all? There is literally a reference attached to the sentence, which you even copied in your post here. I also notice that immediately following this edit request you edited Daniel Webb (footballer) to say "After Rowe left the club, Webb remained a snake at the club under new manager Paul Cook". RedPatch (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above comment. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this can’t be used because it is unsourced and a blog. I think Rowe played 6 games at Rugby when researching so even that is wrong

It’s known in the fan base that Danny Webb has been a snake in his role at Leyton Orient and again while at Chesterfield. I will look for a reference from his Orient Days Super Mario 1887 (talk)

It's the club's official site, not a blog though. RedPatch (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a blog on their official site by an unknown. What type of dissent was it. This would never be on an official site . You’re on dangerous grounds and I would suggest it’s removed. It’s basically a random dig with no substance. If there was a report on this in a media reference to quote and rely on then yes by all means it should stay. I’ve looked and there is no media report ? Unless you can source one. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with RedPatch, source seems acceptable. It's not a blog afaict, it's similar to using a company's own website, which is acceptable if done right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not acceptable because there is no right of reply and not a media source. It needs taking down Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RS and stop wasting peoples time by making stuff up. If you keep doing that a WP:ADMIN may WP:BLOCK you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry that’s very rude. Not making anything up there is no media source to confirm this random point. You’re relying on a blog from the club site . Who was the author of this for example? What was the dissent ? When was the dissent ? It’s very odd you continue to pick and choose what you wish to be factual and not . Please remove this as per Wiki reference guidelines it falls short . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Again this has been edited with no foundation of a reference and the one used from the FA site has nothing to do with Rowe or Rugby Town. WP:ADMIN Please give a temporary block WP:BLOCK to Egghead06 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång Super Mario 1887 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you would object to the use of this reference from Rugby Town. It was already being used (above) to support his time with Histon, although I do note there is nothing to support this appearances and goals at Histon as given in the infobox??--Egghead06 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

buddy it’s a bit strange now. You’ve constantly gone on about his manager stats and kept editing incorrect ones including trying to exclude his time in his last role . You’re now taking away an edit that was made 3 years ago , you’re also trying to edit the opening paragraph about Rowe that’s been in place 3 years too. It’s all a bit odd, are you ok? The topic of dissent around his departure and the fine he paid apparently at Rugby Town would be recorded on the FA site. It’s just a fact, and despite my extensive searches and that of others this has not been found. Therefore it needs to be removed until such time it’s found. Quite simple. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So we have a reference which supports a statement but in your view this is not acceptable as we can’t find this information somewhere else. Pretty sure Wikipedia doesn’t function in this way. And, thanks for asking, I am fine today buddy.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad you’re fine. No, I will make it clear again, it’s pretty simple . All club fines are made public knowledge on the FA site. You’re making a statement that Rowe was fined for dissent. Yet there is not in the public domain anywhere unless you can find it ? Who is the author of this source ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s covered in the very reference after the statement!--Egghead06 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No it isn’t you’re literally making it up. There is no fine on the FA site relating to Rowe or Rugby Town. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy for it to stay in if it was on solid ground. Are you really going to go through what your friend Graa Sang did about Rowe marital status only to be proven to be wrong ? By all means raise a disagreement and let the discussion commence … Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The source literally says "Signed for Rugby in July 2005 and never hit any sort of form and after being fined by the club for dissent he was released by mutual consent only three games into his career." I’m not concerned about where this ISN'T written. BTW, this is already a discussion.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

2020</ref>

Egghead06 needs to stop violating this page with unreliable sources and unreliable information. It seems he has a personal vendetta against Rowe. Unsure if he knows him personally but is very factious in his editing.

I noticed that this was provided a few years back too.

- the match stats of Rowe's tenure at Gloucester City and Chesterfield are listed on Soccerway website, including FA Trophy. Just need to scroll back and they are listed. Soccerway is a reliable source of information. Immersive01 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Very odd how you’re now attempting to use soccer base as a source and the stats are far more unreliable. It doesn’t matter if they have concluded what wins Rowe for it isn’t a reliable site that is used for referencing manager statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Mario 1887 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Equally odd now Rowe didn’t manage at all at AFC Fylde.

Please revert edits back to original along with solid references .

Super Mario 1887 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the stats, per FIFA and by extension WikiProject Football, if a match ends in a draw and is then decided in PKs, it is officially a draw and not a win/loss. That was the original issue on the page earlier. Explained and referenced at Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Overview The reversion to the soccerbase reflects that. The AFC Frylde stats should be re-added though. RedPatch (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I can see that however soccer see isn’t a reliable source. Transfermarkt is a far superior and reliable source. These are the stats that need to be used. For example Rowe managed 23 games at Gloucester. Please adjust accordingly .

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523 Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024 (2)

This is just going around in circles . As per edit reasoning below this should be removed. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In 2015, Rowe left West Ham after having been disciplined for "poor practice" regarding young players. Following an internal investigation caused by complaints, he was ordered to undertake awareness training.

this needs removing. Reason being reference 21 does not say anywhere there were complaints. It also doesn’t mention an internal investigation. It says there was an anonymous letter sent to the club. Secondly reference 22 says Rowe was sanctioned,  ? Sanctioned with what and what proof is there. This paragraph isn’t a reflection of what’s reported. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Noticed a further incorrect justification of this passage by RedPatch. It isn’t what is referenced at all from the article. The article says an anonymous letter was sent in nothing about internal complaints. This is as explained by quite a few different users speculative to say the least. Needs removing. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The article text follows the sources. Earlier discussion at Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)/Archive_1#Recent_edits_about_the_circumstances_under_which_he_left_West_Ham.

WP: "Following an internal investigation caused by complaints, he was ordered to undertake awareness training."

Sources[1][2]: "West Ham United have disciplined their new assistant academy director for “poor practice” following complaints about his treatment of young players. James Rowe, who works with children as young as nine, was also ordered to undertake awareness training following an internal investigation by the Premier League side, the outcome of which was backed by the Football Association."

So the WP-text is a correct summary of the source, which is WP:BLP-good. If by "reference 21" you meant [3], you didn't read it or you're making stuff up.

Ping @RedPatch and @Girth Summit if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I can’t read the source it isn’t clear but there is no internal complaints confirmed by the club. This needs taking down or rewording because it is misinformation. If you’re the administrator then please could you deal with this correctly as @RedPatch is simply continuing to vandalise this page with weak sources. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If you can't read the source, don't make up stuff about what it does or doesn't say, that is WP:DISRUPTIVE. And no, RedPatch is not vandalizing this article. See WP:VANDALIZE. You saying something is misinformation doesn't make it so. We don't need the club saying there was an internal investigation, The Telegraph saying so is enough for WP-purposes. The goal of any WP-article is to summarize the cited WP:RS on the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No you’re making it up unfortunately and editing what you see fit. The incorrect statistics being one that you’re simply ignoring . There can’t be a correct summary as no one can show a link for the readers to view it’s locked . Your point has no foundation unfortunately. We have to ensure what’s stated or factual. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Super Mario 1887 - I skimmed through the discussion above to try to work out what the disagreement is about, and I see you making accusation of vandalism and bad faith editing against at least two contributors to this page. Those are personal attacks, which should not be made on an article's talk page - you need to not do things like that, or you can expect your account to be blocked. If you have very strong evidence that someone is editing in bad faith, you can take it to WP:ANI, but I would caution you that reports there can backfire if the evidence is not persuasive. Now, have you read through the discussion above that Gråbergs Gråa Sång linked to, in which this content was discussed? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

On this website, WP:PAYWALLED sources are ok. On your own website, do and write as you like. We, as in Wikipedians, follow WP:RS. But you are right that I'm ignoring the statistics, they don't interest me. And you are free to ignore WP-articles or parts of them that don't interest you, per WP:CHOICE. WP is a hobby. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh so you are interested in making baseless controversial individual character references and ignoring the WP:REFERENCING guidelines. I must say that’s not cool at all. WP is not a hobby to slander people and to ensure pages are credible we all have to ensure the facts are correctly stated or not at all. If you are removing sections or making edits could you ensure it is correct to do so or if put right by facts from others such as me or I’ve noticed many others have challenged you surrounding matters on this page and backed up with referencing could you ensure that you complete the task of putting it right. An example of this is Rowe’s education and qualifications. It is quite clearly quoted in an article recently that you were wrong to edit and remove a section. Please rewrite or indeed out the original passage back in. Thank you in advance. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024 (3)

+ Managerial record by team and tenure Super Mario 1887 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kline • talk • contribs 05:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The manager statistics are completely wrong, if it continues I will try to contact the original creator of this page to highlight and simply delete it. It has to be factual and soccerbase is not a reliable source.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

please can you also stop allowing @RedPatch to hide replies and set permanent links on false information. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you're accussing me of various things on various sections of this thread:

Re:vandalism...First of all, I was the one who cleaned up this article a couple years ago when it was getting vandalized with derogatory posts as well as COI concerns when it was asked on WikiProjectFootball and cleaned it up with only sourced material. Secondly, I've only made three edits to the article in the last two years (2 this week and one months ago: 1) Re-adding deleted clubs from the infobox that are sourced in the prose from playing career 2) an article typo where part of the next sentence was included twice "He went to Holland. He went to Amsterdam. and 3) way back in April Changing PK matches to draws rather than wins which is what PK matches are deemed by FIFA

Re:hiding replies....I am not the one who has been hiding replies, that was you See This Example, I simply re-added it back to the discussion See example.

Regarding stats, I haven't touched the stats section since April, which was to update the PK matches as mentioned above which you acknowledged as okay.

As for Transfrmarkt vs Soccerway vs Soccerbase. WikiProject:Football does not consider Transfrmarkt as an allowed source. That has nothing to do with me. If you would like to see it changed to be allowed, please raise the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. RedPatch (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Transfrmarkt is not deemed as an acceptable source on Wiki as it is considered to be in part user generated and thus not reliable. I don’t personally support this idea, but, hey that’s consensus.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok that’s fair but in terms of the statistics why would you solely be focusing on re adding stuff that is ambiguous to say the least. The sources you have re added can not be seen as. You’re going of random quotes from other users that they apparently read ? Why wouldn’t you delete the statistics and go back to the original stars per Soccerway as clearly the stats that replaced them are not reliable ? Numerous examples being Rowe has managed more than 93 games I believe and his last role was not Chesterfield. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I re-added the AFC Fylde stats (again I WAS NOT the one who removed it), with a citation needed tag, since the soccerway site does not specifically list coaches records. I haven't been re-adding sources, please stop saying I did. All I did was re-add that he played for Stamford and Rugby Town in the infobox when it was removed which is backed up by sourcing. Frankly, I'm just tired of editing this article which gets edited so often from both sides (supporters and opponents) that I basically stopped editing it and let others take care of it (hence I've only made the three (now four) minor edits since 2022) - so please stop saying I'm the one maintaining the article and "adding ambiguous sources" - I haven't been editing the article for two years. RedPatch (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi RedPatch that’s fair I think however it’s clear Soccerbase cannot be used . That’s the point I’m trying to make . What are the main sites used for other managers ? That would be helpful Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. I'm not really sure the best places for National League football as the lower divisions of England are not my area of expertise. There are other editors there who know more about non-league football than I do RedPatch (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand why there would be supporters and opponents . the facts just need to stated and backed up as per referencing guidelines. For example a blog on a club site with no author is totally ambiguous . Also a reference that is fire walled and randomly quoted for readers to view themselves is ambiguous too. They can’t be relied on. However an article in telegraph or guardian that isn’t blocked for the general reader to view can be referenced. As should the stats of his career too. It’s quite clear. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

By supporters and opponents, what I meant was when people would edit it with non-neutral comments. Not going to look for specifics in the edit history, but writing things like XYZ is the best ever / XYZ is a terrible player or just deleting content (rather than writing in neutral terms). Happens on so many pages (that's why pages like Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi are permanently protected). RedPatch (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Would you agree that references of articles that are blocked from the general public and then apparently quoted from cannot be relied on? The whole purpose of wiki is transparency. ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Having to pay/borrow/go to a library to access a source is no hindrance on this website. WP has been around more than 20 years, many things have been discussed before and put into policies and guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok so show the free reader who views this page and other pages the article then no problems to refer to it. At the moment it’s random and certianly is not what’s been reported by West Ham his employer or Rowe himself. I cannot find a comment from either on it. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not making yourself understood, at least not to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Because you seem only interested in changing controversial things on this page and it isn’t okay. For example you was shown facts with a reference concerning Rowe’s qualifications over a day ago. something that you incorrectly deleted a while back concerning his qualifications. Instead of changing this to the correct facts you have ignored it yet backed up or edited other things on the page that are quite clearly ambiguous at best. An example is at outlined in the Wiki referencing guidelines, it is quite clear that if you are relying on a media source and quoting direct from it then that reference would need to be open to the general public. Surrounding Rowe’s departure from West Ham there is neither a quote from the club or himself in regards to this matter and certainly nowhere where it proves an internal investigation existed. All FA and club internal investigations would been made public and this is nowhere to be found. Therefore we cannot rely on the telegraph source / reference at this stage. If the firewall is removed and indeed the quote you rely on matches what’s written then of course no problems it should remain. The current passage needs removing unless anyone can add anymore facts to his departure. Another issue raised is Rowe’s statistics - soccerbase clearly have the wrong information and cannot be relied on. It’s clear , they have the amount of games Rowe has managed wrong , his wins draws and losses are all incorrect. Just because the references you rely on say something about someone’s statistics or departure doesn’t mean it can be relied on. If you have not got time to do the research and look at the dates of employment at each club and which games he managed during that period and ensure the facts are stated correctly then kindly pass the administration to someone else that will. Please stop threatening me with being blocked , I am simply showing facts in a polite manner to ensure it is right. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Why we don’t do this is covered above in the section Stats Source from 2021 - nothing has changed.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don’t use soccer base as a reliable source hence why Rowe’s games are out of sync . Please if you’re going to change statistics make sure it’s with a reliable source or I will report you for violating the page. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Managerial Statisitics

| style="text-align:center" |64 | style="text-align:center" |36 | style="text-align:center" |16 | style="text-align:center" |12 | style="text-align:center" |056.25 | |- |align=left|AFC Fylde |align=left|7 March 2022 |align=left|29 September 2022 | style="text-align:center" |27 | style="text-align:center" |16 | style="text-align:center" |6 | style="text-align:center" |5 | style="text-align:center" |059.26 | |- !colspan=3|Total | style="font-weight:bold;background:#efefef;text-align:center" | | style="font-weight:bold;background:#efefef;text-align:center" |4,662 | style="font-weight:bold;background:#efefef;text-align:center" |2,127 | style="font-weight:bold;background:#efefef;text-align:center" |2,328 | style="font-weight:bold;background:#efefef;text-align:center" |005.17

These are not the correct statistics.calculating each game from the start of his tenure appointments at each club to end date these are the correct stats game by game:

Rowe has managed 114 games won : 62 drew: 27 Lost: 25

separated and detailed stats of each game on the clubs official websites , soccerway and also Transfermarket determine that Rowe’s statistics for each club are:

Gloucester: played: 23 won: 10 drew: 4 lost: 9

https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/england/gloucester-city-fc/

https://www.gloucestercityafc.com/fixtures-results

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

Chesterfield: played: 64 won: 36 ( x 2 penalty wins as per RedPatch point penalties count as draws so 16 draws not 14 as below). drew: 16 lost: 12

https://chesterfield-fc.co.uk/matches/fixtures-results-2

https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/england/chesterfield-fc/723/

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

AFC Fylde played: 27 won: 16 drew: 7 lost: 4 (penalty wins or losses count as draws)

https://www.afcfylde.co.uk/1st-team-2021-22-fixtures-results/

https://www.afcfylde.co.uk/1st-team-2022-23-fixtures-results/

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/england/afc-fylde/13630/

Please choose or combine any of sites and sources above for each stats. Soccerbase is not reliable and it also hasn’t covered fylde. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As to reliable sources, I don't know why you seem to be pushing for the use of Transfermarkt. Apart from it shouldn't be used on the English Wikipedia because it's user-generated, as people have told you above – see WP:TRANSFERMARKT – a quick check on its page for Mr Rowe shows it omits games for all three clubs he managed and also has his Gloucester end date wrong (see below).

Soccerbase is reliable for what it covers. It doesn't claim to be complete below Football League level, and doesn't include qualifying rounds of the FA Cup or the FA Trophy. Saying that, it's complete for the National League in recent years, though not for its regional divisions. Its page for Mr Rowe omits Gloucester's 20/21 FA Cup 2nd QR game and has his end date wrong, but appears correct and complete for Chesterfield.

Gloucester City confirmed on its official website on 24 November 2020 that Mr Rowe had left the club and that Jake Cole would take the Gateshead match later that day. So, as also stated in the GloucestershireLive report of his departure (currently ref #38 in the article), "his final match was a 2-1 win at Guiseley last Saturday" i.e 21 November 2020.

For Gloucester, Soccerbase includes three matches (D1 L2) between 21 Nov and their end date of 7 Dec, but excludes the FA Cup 2QR loss on pens (D1), so subtracting L2 from their published figures gives P24 W10 D5 L9.

Counting matches isn't really a satisfactory way of compiling stats tables – it's unreasonable to expect our readers to count WLDs, and there's far too much scope for editors to get it wrong – but Soccerway records P24 W10 D5 L9.

If it were me, I'd use Soccerbase for Gloucester and Chesterfield with a sourced note explaining the Gloucester discrepancy. As to Fylde, I've no idea where to find reliable stats other than by counting, but both Soccerway and the AFC Fylde website count 26 played and not the 27 in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi the soccerbase chesterfield stats are wrong that’s why they can’t be relied on. Rowe managed 64 games. 81.102.106.25 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Think perhaps you've misread it? Mr Rowe's Soccerbase page says: P64 W36 D16 L12. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi think the chesterfield stats only been updated recently as last time I checked they were incorrect . It’s good they are now right on soccerbase. Problem with referencing the Gloucester stats only a soccer are reference is that they display the wrong stats and that’s the whole point. it cannot be a normal satisfactory way but for AFC Fylde and Gloucester stats Soccerway enables the reader the correct detailed stats on the time of tenure. It’s just the way it is. So I think keep soccerbase for Chesterfield and use Soccerway for Gloucester and Fylde . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's actually common practice with player stats that a main source omits a match, or has an obvious typo, or doesn't do team sheets for early rounds of a competition, so editors need to add sourced notes to cover any discrepancies.

An alternative for Gloucester would be this from the Derbyshire Times, which gives 10-4-10, and add a note explaining that one of the "losses" was the FA Cup match mentioned above, lost on pens so counted statistically as a draw, to make the figures 10-5-9. Soccerway colours that FA Cup match as a loss, so the reader would need to be told what's going on anyway.

As I said above, it isn't a good idea to source figures by counting matches. It might be better to omit stats entirely for any club for which the only way to source the material is by counting tiny coloured squares. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi yes makes sense. Actually x 2 draws on the chesterfield stats for Rowe are penalty wins too. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Mario 1887: Noticed your change to the stats in the article, and I think you might have miscounted. Both Soccerway and the AFC Fylde website count 26 games after 7 March and before 29 September. We're also agreed on 6 draws. Fylde lost to Gloucester on 26 March, York on 2 May, Boston on 15 May, Banbury on 13 August and Scarborough on 20 August, which is definitely 5 losses. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Mario 1887: repeating the ping because i messed it up the first time... Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Struway2 In case you didn't notice, Super Mario 1887 is indeffed now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

References

New disagreement

I added this bit:

"The drawn out legal process cost Rowe tens of thousands of pounds, and the family had to sell their home."

per [4], and was reverted at [5]. IMO, it's reasonable content, and the source is good. I was also going to add per [6] that Rowe was critical of the length of the process, but I'll hold on that for the moment. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sticking by the facts again. I really don’t understand the point you are raising. You have no proof with the fa or club or the type of dissent or the amount the fine was. Neither is confirmed in the source you have off

as you say are the official club and FA sites. I am removing again until you can come up with a specific source that highlights the above. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be talking about something else than the topic of this thread. Please don't do that, it confuses discussion. Start your own thread, or if there is one already, use that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Rowe isn’t quoted saying the above yet is quoted during the article first hand. If you believe Rowe has been critical use one of his own quotes that backs it up. Not what the author has written. 1 st hand not 2nd hand . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you mean "was critical" I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing, that's allowed and even encouraged on this website. Did you read [7] and conclude "Nope, he's not critical of the length of the process"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you read “Rowe was critical of the process and the justice system “ nope. Stick to facts not your own bias . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I read "In a statement, James Rowe said “poor management of the investigation” caused the case to stretch out almost three years from the time the allegation was made" and, also from his statement, "Although a fair and proper verdict has been reached, an injustice has still been enacted against Mr Rowe, given the length of time this case has taken to be resolved and the poor management of the investigation resulting in numerous and unnecessary court hearings." What did you read? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Where did you read a quote from Rowe or his legal representation that it cost him thousands of pounds , he was upset at the cost or indeed he sold his family home ? Also if he sold his family home he can’t still be living in a Breaston then can he. You see you’re reading some parts and adding your own bias . It needs to stop. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Quotes from Rowe is not what is needed on WP, WP:RS are. Which can include quotes from Rowe, sure. In this case the source is [8]. Selling one home does not stop people from getting another home. Homes do not need to be owned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You cannot be serious ? Without quotes from Rowe the source (article) you are referring to would be non existent . You’re way off the track of relevance here, and shifting from one thing to another . You are claiming that him selling his home is him complaining about the cost of the case ? So you think he’s sold his house in Breaston Derbyshire which is reported to be on Blind Lane in Breaston Derbyshire and he’s bought a different house or rented a different house on Blind Lane Breaston as reported on the media . It’s actually wild , have you not heard of the word misinformation? How do you not know that Rowe owned multiple homes yet kept his house in Breaston Derbyshire ? In addition still where does he say or his legal representation say he was unhappy with the cost of investigation. You’re not making sense . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is reported in a reliable source. The journalist can edit down Rowe's comments so some of his points appear as plain text rather than a direct quote, so that the article is concise, accurate and relevant. I would not expect an interview in a national newspaper to be a straight reproduction of every word he said. Spike 'em (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, not every single fact about the trial / aftermath needs to be mentioned here, it needs to be given due weight. Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Right , now we are on the same wavelength. What’s happening here is that Gråbergs Gråa Sång is backing her edits up with a certain point and then when that is disproven she is claiming a different reason why the source should remain. An example of this is that she said the Telegraph article on October 7 th was simply to show Rowe was married . Now that’s been disproven she is saying the article should be used for other purposes. In this talk she suggests that Rowe shows he js unhappy with the cost of the investigation so selling his home is relevant. But neither Rowe or any of his representatives have said they were unhappy with the cost of the investigation. It’s quite simple it needs removing . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Rowe being married has not been disproven, read that thread again. And I didn't say should. And I'm not a "her". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Well considering about 3 weeks ago he has done an article that’s referenced on his page referring to his partner as his fiancée I would think you are being slightly out of touch with reality on your editing on this page. Please start respecting other editors and contributions such as these that are based on fact and sourced. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Spike 'em, due weight is what I was going for with "The drawn out legal process cost Rowe tens of thousands of pounds, and the family had to sell their home.", see start of thread. IMO that is due weight, since I consider that a fairly serious consequence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Your over complicating it and trying to out way too many details in . He was accused and acquitted . Or what could be edited in from editors is endless . Rowe is a football manager and this page existed before the accusation . I think it’s odd how you are attempting to constantly edit this page with hunches. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the suggested addition is complicated. And not hunches, WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

He was accused and acquitted . That’s it. You have no proof Rowe was critical of the cost of the investigation. Please refrain from reading media reports and adding your own bias on this pace. That’s not editing that’s opinion. Stick to the facts. Please respect other editors. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The suggested sentence, sourced to [9], does not mention Rowe's view on anything. What is "proof" to you is not the issue on WP, WP:RS is. The [10] source notes he's critical of the length of the process. From where I'm sitting, that's quite a reasonable position. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and you are attempting to link the sale of his family home a source of him criticising the process . There might have been multiple reasons he sold his home, nonetheless he is a football manager and that is why this page was created. His it a public figure because of his profession not because of all these other edits you are trying to bolt on. Please respect what I , RedPatch, Spike ‘em and a few other editors have been trying to do here. Let’s keep the page on track. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:EW

@RedPatch, other interested, do you have an opinion on the ongoing EW on this? Previous related discussion at Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_November_2024. And in the ES Super Mario 1887 is again accusing other editors of WP:VANDALISM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

this is not true again. You are putting references in that are not specific to the point you are trying to raise . It’s quite simple , you have used a link to an FA site that doesn’t highlight any fine for any dissent by Rowe. So it can’t be used and nor can the point you are trying to use as you cannot reference it. It’s quite clear. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And it's clear that other editors disagree with your take on the [11] source. It says "Signed for Rugby in July 2005 and never hit any sort of form and after being fined by the club for dissent he was released by mutual consent only three games into his career." It's Rugby's official website and it's the sort of thing they can be expected to know about their players, their area of expertise. Your demand that it should have more details is your own preference, not something based in policy, sources write what they write and we use them as best we can.

• "Previous related discussion at Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_November_2024." That is true.
• "And in the ES Super Mario 1887 is again accusing other editors of WP:VANDALISM." That is also true.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And we have another WP:EW

Super Mario 1887 doesn't like this ref [12] being in the article, see our recent editwarring on that. Other editors, please weigh in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Super Mario 1887, on [13], I don't understand your thinking. The Telegraph says he's married. What, for WP-purposes, do you consider "proof" in this context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and we will have further if you continue to add randomly.

1. has Rowe said anywhere he is married or mentioned his wife? In fact in court numerously she was referred to as his partner.

2. has she said they are married?

3. is there a public announcement to rely on or a marriage certification?

Your bias and controversy on this page needs to be challenged and will continue to be until you are balanced and stick to facts. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, quotes from Rowe are not needed, WP:RS are. But it's good to know you intend to keep edit-warring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph is good enough, unless there are sources of similar quality contradicting their reporting. We need neither an announcement from Rowe nor a marriage certification. Super Mario 1887, please self-revert your change to the "Personal life" section. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t good enough at all as I can just put in 3 references that refer to Rowe other half as his partner. What a strange reply. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad you understand my thinking now. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

moderating discussion

I'm going to try to moderate here to see if it will help.

Super Mario 1887, you seem to be objecting to the use of the Telegraph source to support the assertion that Rowe is married, is that correct? Do you have another source that could be used to support that fact? Valereee (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's one from the BBC. Would that source be acceptable to you? Valereee (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

in the Guardian, Rowe mentions My fiancee was pregnant with our second son at the time... Spike 'em (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Spike ‘em common sense at last. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Valereee I’m happy for you to moderate because every edit that I have challenged you will see I have backed up with fact or lack of fact in the case of sources used that are irrelevant by certain users. An example of this is the manager statistics, or professional career. As above clearly if Rowe is quoting fiancée than he is not married at the time of the telegraph and BBC sources that pre dated the guardian article. So we can assume he isn’t married so my edits are correct. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying that although the BBC in October is calling her his wife, that shouldn't trump him saying in November that last July she was his fiance? Valereee (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Last July ? The article in the guardian was last month Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the article says, "My fiancee was pregnant with our second son at the time and there were complications with his birth last July". But you think it's unlikely that an engaged couple who have just had their second child in July would be married by October? Valereee (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source from October calling her his wife, Telegraph again. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Things can change with time. Hence MOS:DATED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since there is debate and sources are inconsistent (one saying wife and another saying fiancee), you could just a more broad term like 'partner' (as a partner is an all-encompassing term that can include girlfriend, fiancee, wife, etc). RedPatch (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, per below, use an all-encompassing term that covers both possibilities. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@RedPatch My reading is that sources are inconsistent because things changed. 1 kid became 2 kids, etc. If you want to change "As of 2024, Rowe is married" to "As of 2024, Rowe is in a relationship" or somesuch, I won't fight that. But IMO, per [14][15] "married" is the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In replyo to Valereee @ 13:59)I interpret that as her currently being his fiancee . Where sources differ we either explain the difference or go with the less specific phrase. Spike 'em (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you interpret [16][17]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I literally just said : Where sources differ we either explain the difference or go with the less specific phrase Spike 'em (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're arguing that we'd say something like "In July of 2024 Rowe had a second child with his then-fiance; by October of 2024 he was married." Valereee (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I would not mention changing relationship status at all. It is unclear to me that he is definitely married. My interpretaion of his recent interview is that he is saying that his fiancee is still his fiancee (and they remain unmarried). Other sources mention his wife, but only do so in passing, not mentioning when he got married. They may be correct, or thay may just be making assumptions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're arguing use the more general phrase partner, rather than fiance or wife, either of which could be correct or incorrect? Valereee (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes: until it can be shown that they are definitely married then I would go with a more general term. Spike 'em (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and one more question, as I think it's important for future editors coming in here: At what point are you arguing we can be satisfied they're definitely married? That is, how many RS need to use the term wife? Valereee (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No hard number, just some evidence that the couple regard themseleves as married or show that a wedding has taken place. Media sources just recycling each other (including what the saw on here) in calling her "his wife" can grow exponentially and not actually prove anything. Spike 'em (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Valereee (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"As of 2024, Rowe has a partner, two sons and lives in Derbyshire."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Spike 'em, does that work for you? Valereee (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy with the text, but I would ditch the "thrusting penis" ref for something before or after the trial. Spike 'em (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All that ref says is Rowe’s wife and other family members were sitting in the public gallery. so does a poor job of verifying the sentence. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it was there to support wife and Derbyshire. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is the ref of those 2 that says he lives in Derbyshire now. What replacement do you suggest? Since we're spending time on this, let's make it BLP-right. Together, the refs are one wife and one fiancee, that explains why we write "partner". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your other telegraph ref, which mentions Derbyshire and wife but lacks thrusting penises in the headline? Spike 'em (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This one? It'll do. The thrusting penises-article may have other uses though, it's in-depth, national and generally RS. For WP-purposes, the headline doesn't matter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course the headline matters as it’s be proven to be a false allegation. It basically goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

On this website, you're wrong about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Mario 1887, is that the actual reason for this entire thing? You didn't like the headline, so you argued we shouldn't use it to support 'wife' so we could make the headline go away? Valereee (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Funny, I can swear someone recently said And if the only use of that source is to support that he has a wife, then it's not an unreasonable objection given that he was acquitted. Spike 'em (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"If." It may have other uses, it's a fairly detailed article. BUT, if consensus is in sight on this particular sentence, not that important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Which I clarified, if you'll check again. It's understandable that someone with a COI would like this headline to not be appearing in the references. But if that is indeed the actual reason -- not all this bickering over whether or not he's married -- then let's at minimum deal with the actual objection. Valereee (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@RedPatch, are you ok with the suggested wording/updated sourcing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

“As of 2024” that’s incorrect too. I think his first son was born in 2021. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that is fine. All that is saying that on today's date he has 2 children, it does not say when either of them was born. If the article remains untouched 5 years in the future (not much chance of that!) then the reader will be able to tell that this situation may have changed. Spike 'em (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I'll add these 2 sources, also from October, [18][19] to my argument for "married". Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Very passive aggressive again, please be respectful and polite . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who you're replying to here, @Super Mario 1887? Who are you accusing of being passive-aggressive, and in which post? Valereee (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s clear .

Valereee- now i have been proven right again that the article is not a good source of reference and indeed Rowe is not married your temporary block is appalling. In addition i have noticed you are ignoring my factual challenge to Rugby Town section on professional career that has been edited back in with a nonsense FA link that has nothing to do with Rowe. I have also just noticed to that now the Introduction paragraph has has information added to it which is nonsense . It seems Egghead06 and Greabags Graa Sang certainly have a vendetta against Rowe. It’s a shame this is continuing. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And I'm telling you it's not clear to me. If you're going to make accusations of bad faith against other editors, you need to provide support those accusations. We have policy on WP:personal attacks and WP:assuming good faith.

As I said as your talk, we understand that you're brand new here, and that we have a very steep learning curve. We have been taking that into consideration and giving you a lot of leeway while you learn. But if you make another unsupported accusation of bad faith, I will block you from this talk page, too. Valereee (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Super Mario 1887, want to make sure you saw this. I am happy to answer questions about this at your talk or mine. Valereee (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: In addition i have noticed you are ignoring my factual challenge to Rugby Town section on professional career that has been edited back in with a nonsense FA link that has nothing to do with Rowe. I'm not ignoring anything. I have no idea what this even means. I do not edit football, I do not know football terminology or sources, and I am not an editor at this article, just an administrator. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

it isn’t a steep learning curve at all. It’s quite simple make sure the statements made are backed up with reliable sources. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Responding to this at your user talk so as to limit tangential discussion here. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Attempt at conclusion

Valereee, other interested, per the many words above, it seems that

"As of 2024, Rowe has a partner, two sons and lives in Derbyshire."

has a kind of WP:CONSENSUS. Unless there is opposition, I'll insert it tomorrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No I’ll edit it today as per consensus of discussion. It’s best you do not considering the many incorrect edits you have made on this section over the past two days . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Current refs 69-71

Whoever added them (they are Soccerway refs) needs to improve their work, they don't look good in the ref-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You said 3 days ago that statistics didn’t interest you so you’re not bothered about them. I notice also that you said you only used the telegraph article on October 7 th to show was married . Now that your constant editing of Rowe being married has been squashed by facts You are now suggesting to extract other info from that source for other purposes. It seems you change your stance daily ? It would be helpful if you’re consistent for the sake of the page and the constant editing. Thank you in advance Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the statistics. The cites weren't formatted correctly (that got my attention), which could be seen by the redlinks in the ref-section. Other editors had fixed that before you commented. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Short lead

@Egghead06 You're right, it is short. I added something, see if you think it's enough. I'll note that I do NOT think the court-thing should be in the WP:LEAD, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

the lead is fine and has been for years Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

RedPatch, on [20], I disagree with you, like the banner says I think something like that is needed. The current WP:LEAD doesn't quite "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No I agree with RedPatch. Other managers do not have leads like this. You are over complicating sections with random adds. Please stop. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We're into WP:OTHERCONTENT now, but see for example

• Alun Armstrong (footballer)
• Craig Armstrong (footballer)
• Derek Armstrong (footballer) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. They gave 3/4 lines. Don’t list all their clubs do they. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But those WP:LEADs do mention some clubs, the lead in this article didn't. Perhaps some sort of compromise is possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Rowe is / was a professional manager. The lead was fine and the page by all accounts has had more than enough activity . It is not needed . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

More edit-warring ahead, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Why ? The examples you used don’t show Alun Armstrong teams he played for in his lead. The example you used contradict the point you are raising . I am not interested in edit war , I’m only interested in this instance on this page ensuring that is stays on track . I have compromised over the last days on numerous matters , without raiding disputes . I hope you will do the same . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Quote from that article's WP:LEAD:

"His career as a player, which ran between 1993 and 2007, included spells at Newcastle United, Stockport County, Middlesbrough, Ipswich Town, two spells at Darlington, Rushden & Diamonds and concluding it with a brief spell at Newcastle Blue Star." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes but he is a far more notable player than Rowe. He played at the highest level. Rowe is notable for his managerial career to date. That’s where you’re missing the understanding I think. ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have to disagree that an edit like [21] is "random". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You are repeatedly going into sections that have been sound for years and adding content that is not required or already exists on other sections. That’s random. When challenged about this from numerous editors you simply disagree on everything and raise disputes. It’s all getting a bit much. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I agree with RedPatch. The lead is wrong . Rowe is a football manager and that’s what he is most notable for. You seem to be adding way too much stuff on his playing days rather than focusing on his managerial career. The lead was okay in my opinion because that’s where this page will get most focus. Please revert back to the original. Mumford11 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mumford11, if that's you again, Super Mario 1887, stop digging. If you EVER want to get unblocked, you must immediately stop creating sockpuppet accounts. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Credibility of References

As per WP:CRIME all referencing which include any of the false allegations against Rowe need to be removed. The allegations have been proven to be lies and reading around how best to handle this it’s clear misinformation cannot be shared on a public figures page. No information rather than misleading information is the guidance. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is undeniable that Rowe stood trial and was acquitted. It would not be a neutral and balanced account of his life to omit mention of the trial. Spike 'em (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think to report he stood trial is one thing but to reference sources that outline the details is what the allegations is spreading mis information. As per WP:CRIME Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please provide an example of a ref about the trial that would meet your, or Rowe's lawyers', approval. Spike 'em (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t a clue about Rowe or Rowe’s lawyers . It’s common knowledge that any articles in the public domain that consist of false allegations against public figures are brought down. This page will be no exception. I’m pretty neutral in this but attempting to add articles like the telegraph on October 7 th is an example of quite a few that have been challenged not just by me. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Many of the references used on John Leslie (TV presenter) (to pick a random example of someone acquitted of sex crimes) still seem to be active, so what you say is patently untrue. Until they get taken down, then it is fair to pick some recent non-sensationalist articles as references. Spike 'em (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I just looked … the specific details of the allegations against Leslie are not referenced so that’s untrue. I do agree he had a trial and was acquitted needs to be somewhere. however it’s dangerous territory using sources that go into detail on the specifics. Whether that’s to try and prove where Rowe lives or his marital Status . We don’t want the page removed. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already said above that we have better sources than the thrusting penis article, but you are yet to provide an example of an article you think is ok to reference his trial and acquittal. Until you do so I won't waste any more of either of our time. Spike 'em (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5849956/2024/10/17/james-rowe-trial-verdict/

this is an International one that looks credible . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And are you really suggesting that none of the BBC, Telegraph or the Guardian are credible? Spike 'em (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You’re missing my point I think . The allegations have been proven to be lies. So in effect the page is being used to spread further lies and insinuate Rowe has done something wrong. This goes for any public figure accused of false allegations , to prevent this page being completely removed we need to tread carefully as my hunch would be representatives of Rowe will just group this with the media sources you mention and it will all be getting removed. The allegations have been proven to be lies. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC also states 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. Spike 'em (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t noteworthy or relevant is it as it’s been proven to be lies. That’s my point . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree with it. The allegation and what came of it needs to stay included in the article (current article-content on it is generally fine, though per Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#New_disagreement there are some words I think can be reasonably added) per the extensive coverage spanning years (WP:NPOV), and it's certainly "relevant" for any reasonable use of the word "relevant." For example, it had a significant impact on the article-subject's life. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

what impact did it have on his life ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

He lost 2 jobs, haven't worked for the duration of the process (I think), had to pay money, sell his home, and got a lot of undesired media-coverage. There's probably more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

He could have sold his home to move out of the area , he might have alot of money so money is no objective. You’re speculating a great deal. One thing I agree is that it impacted his career , which is not speculation. If you want to speculate perhaps you should become a journalist ? Let’s stick to the facts of what we know through reliable sources. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"The case has cost him tens of thousands of pounds that will never be recovered. “We had to sell our home, which was hard,” he says. “The emotions of not working, losing my livelihood, I wasn’t in a great place. I’ve been carrying a weight, a dark cloud, around with me and trying to hide it in everyday interactions."" That doesn't sound to me like he sold his home to move out of the area. But people read stuff differently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My point exactly where is Rowe quoting that it has hit him hard on his personal life ? Nope the quote directly says it’s impacted his livelihood. It can be interpreted many ways , but your bias or my bias is not good editing. That’s misleading ! If it isn’t factual then the information remains out of the page. You know this really so please start being fair and sensible with your edits on this page . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh just a little nudge too , you keep adding that he is living in Derbyshire . How do you know this if you keep trying to edit in another section he had to sell his family home ? You are contradicting yourself . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Per [22] and other sources he lived in Derbyshire as of October. That's good enough for WP-purposes. It is possible to sell a home in Derbyshire and then get another home in Derbyshire. That's assuming the home they sold was in Derbyshire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad you’ve taken my point on board about where he resides. You are the perfect customer for these media outlets. You literally believe everything that’s printed and then state it as fact on this page. Of course some is true some isn’t true and some is the middle somewhere. let’s keep on track the page is about a football manager. That’s the main source of interest. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have trimmed some of the extraneous commentary from the article that is either solely opinion or was originally written at the time of the events and so has been superseded. After the fact all that needs to be stated is the leaving of the clubs, the subsequent charge and then the trial outcome. Content such as was sourced from Rowes interview with The Guardian needs to be attributed clearly to Rowe, whereas presently it was just an assertion in wikivoice. A sentence such as "Rowe complained about his treatment by Chesterfield" and / or words to that effect may be justifiable. Koncorde (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, I'm mostly ok with your cuts, but I did re-insert one thing:[23]. If you have an opinion on the content discussed at Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#New_disagreement, I'd like to hear it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts on that is about minimising an allegation that the person was found not guilty of. There's probably a way of not duplicating what is mentioned in the subsequent paragraph seperated only by a heading for Fylde, and it felt very clunky without the context of the arrest. Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We could change

• "...into allegations of misconduct, later disclosed as an allegation of sexual assault in November 2021."

to

• "...into what was later disclosed as an allegation of sexual assault in November 2021."

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Either of those works. Should move citations to end of sentences however rather than midsentence per MOS for citations. Currently article is a bit messy with midsentence cites when not really required (generally only used for controversial, or specific language use being supported). Koncorde (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And your cuts may have left a bit of overcite, but there is no rush on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, what MOS requires citations to go to the end of the sentence? I can think of multiple times I've needed 5 cits for a sentence and someone objected per WP:OVERCITE but not all the content was supported by all the cits. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:INLINECITE & WP:INLINE both quite clear, and I know there's a few other places where it's mentioned in a few MOS:

• As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas. For exceptions, see the WP:Manual of Style § Punctuation and footnotes. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker. Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings. The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.

and

• The best distance between the material and the citation is a matter of judgment. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to it within a sentence, but adding the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient. Editors should exercise caution when adding to or rearranging material to ensure that text-source relationships are maintained.

WP:OVERCITE is an essay, and really very much a feeling. If there's a simple statement and 14 sources, that's overcite. If there's a simple statement about complex case law and 14 sources, that may be overcite. If the citations are dated / aged and more up to date cites, or more reliable citations contain the same information, and we're still using stuff from a decade earlier - that's overcite. In the end if there is a single sentence requiring multiple cites because not everything is in one, I'd be wary of WP:SYNTH and be looking to see if it could be broken out or using a merged cite ref. Koncorde (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But that says and commas and includes it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, which clearly is not saying always end of sentence, and that it's a matter of judgement. I don't think we can make a blanket statement that MOS demands end of sentence. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Common sentences that may require multiple cits without being synth: "X was married in 2005; as of 2024 she and her partner have three children and live in Sussex, where they grow mushrooms and sunflowers." You could easily get marriage date, where they live, how many children they have, and the garden crops they grow from multiple cits, none of which include any of the other info. Valereee (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's saying end of sentence or paragraph unless there is contentious content. In short; unless there is some grand need to source something mid-sentence (such as never before mentioned information), it's not essential and actually detracts from readability when there are multiple cites mid-sentence (particularly around punctuation).

Regarding Synth; I don't disagree. I'm just saying that there are instances where multiple sources for one sentence is used for OR / Synth. For basic statements of fact, the most comprehensive article should be used, and only any other article that adds the missing content / context. If there are multiple sources covering a lot of the same content it's best to trim down to the minimum. A bad example of SYNTH I often see is "playing style" or similar (see Lionel Messi where honestly, not convinced a lot of it can be found in the sources for either him or Cristiano Ronaldo a lot of the time) and which is also where OVERCITE is very common (due to superlatives etc) as people try to desperately reinforce an opinion. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Some older potential sources

East Anglian Daily Times. Apparently I can't shorten the link because of the square brackets, you have to copypaste the whole thing.

https://www.eadt.co.uk/search/?search=%22James%20Rowe%22&sort=posted_date_asc&headline_only=false&site_id[]=1153&posted_date=&posted_date_from=&posted_date_to=&p=1&pp=20 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)