Talk:Marlon King/Archive 1

Archive 1

100th career goal

"His second Premiership goal, the first in 3-3 draw with Fulham on 2 October maked his 100th goal in domestic competition." - the figures in the info box only total 73. Even taking into account the fact that they are only correct to the start of the season, he hasn't scored 27 goals this season, so the box must be wrong...... ChrisTheDude 08:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the box is nonsense. Whoever did the Watford infoboxes got them rather wrong. They seem to only contain league appearances and goals. I heard the 100th goal thing the paper and checks out on Soccerbase. I've been meaning to go round and change them all, but it's a a bit of a pain, really. HornetMike 13:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The footnote on the infobox states that it is only for league appearances. Whether it said that last October I haven't bothered to check. Kevin McE 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, a large number of editors, including myself, weren't aware of that footnote. It's very small! Anyway, after a discussion at the Football WikiProject, I think everyone appreciates what goes in the infobox and what doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HornetMike (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Jamaica caps

Does anyone have a source for his international appearances? The reliable source I normally use only lists players who have reached 30 caps, and the Jamaican Football Federation's website lists it as 18. I'm going to revert it for now, any help would be appreciated. WFCforLife (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Soccerbase gives 13 appearances with 6 goals. Keith D (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to find that Soccerbase is only reliable for domestic appearances. In any case, I'm sure the JFF wouldn't say that a player has more caps than he really has. WFCforLife (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Former?

I daren't bother removing it at this exact moment, but should we refer to him as a "former" professional footballer? We now have a source saying that he's been sacked by Wigan, but he hasn't retired from professional football, he simply doesn't have a club (a situation that is admittedly not going to change in the medium term). WFCforLife (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If he isn't playing football professionally, nor does it seems likely that he will be doing in the immediate future, then he isn't a professional footballer so "former" seems appropriate. Adambro (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We have no reason to assume that he will not seek to resume his career when released from prison, as he did last time, therefore it seems unreasonable to describe him as "former". Apart from anything else, Wigan have to give him 40 days notice, so he is still being paid as a pro footballer at the moment. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He isn't a former professional footballer.

According to Adambro's explanation, any footballer who is released by his club immediately before or after sustaining a long-term, but non-career threatening, injury would also be a former footballer as he/she would be without a club and without the hope of playing any time soon.

King has an 18-month sentence of which he may only have to serve half according to a document released by the House of Commons Library. (There might be complications with this due to the nature of his conviction.)

A best-case scenario for King would seem him back in training in July-August time. He could well be playing football again before Christmas next year.

In any case, until he retires himself he is not a "former" professional footballer. --Der Retter (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Kevin's comments, no of course we cannot assume he won't seek to resume his career upon release, but neither can we assume he will. Describing him as a former professional footballer is the most accurate description we can use without speculating on his future actions. A player becomes a professional footballer when they get a professional contract. If a player no longer has a professional contract then they aren't a professional footballer. This seems to be the case here.

In the situation Der Retter describes, I would suggest that such an individual should be described as a formal professional football player since they don't have a professional contract nor "the hope of playing any time soon". We can't simply wait indefinitely for someone to make a statement saying their never going to attempt to return to professional football, we could be waiting a very long time for such a statement whilst all the while our article declares them to be a professional footballer despite that being inaccurate. I'd suggest it is better to describe such a player as a former professional footballer on the understanding that the individual's situation could change in the future. Describing someone as a former professional does not mean that they will never play in a professional capacity ever again, rather just that they aren't now or in the immediate future. Adambro (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that Kevin McE has since removed the "former" description [1] which is a shame, particularly since he started this discussion and I'd clearly expressed my support for "former", because he should have left it a bit longer for this discussion to progress. Adambro (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple reading of the thread will establish that I did not initiate it. At present three people in this thread have given reasons why it is not a clear and indisputable fact that he has retired. "Describing someone as a former professional does not mean that they will never play in a professional capacity ever again": err, yes: it means precisely that. "Former" implies permanent withdrawal, not temporary, from a profession or condition: your definition is non-standard (at best). However, as always in Wikipedia, if you can find a reliable source that says as an established fact (rather than an opinion or a hope) that he will never again receive money for playing football, you can post that and it can be considered in the light of the myriad news reports today that call him a professional. Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kevin for my mistake in suggesting you had started this discussion, I mustn't have being paying enough attention. I disagree that "former" can only ever mean someone will never return to professional football since we cannot predict the future, anyone who has retired from pretty much any position could possibly return to that role but I'd also suggest that we cannot simply rely on someone declaring they've retired for us to describe a position as "former". However, as you note, consensus is against me on this issue so I'll happily accept the current situation. Adambro (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

Marlon king did not score a goal against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge in the FA Cup in 2002. It was against Arsenal at Highbury in the FA Cup in 2002. --82.47.2.163 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your observation is partly correct: he scored against Arsenal at Highbury in the league cup, and against Chelsea in the League Cup later the same year. But it seems subjective to pick out one goal, so I deleted it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Scoring for Gillingham against Arsenal and Chelsea isn't noteable? WFCforLife (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship

Does he hold Jamaican and British citizenship? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversies/Incidents - format

In light of the end of his trial, certain previous information and supporting references have now been publicly shared re previous Incidents. I think we should stick to something less antagonistic than Controversies in light of the public gallery protest, hence used the title Incidents. Having looked at this, there are 14 incidents in the history. An editor placed a prose tag around the section, but with so much information trying to prowse it all would make it very samey/uninformational. My thought is that there are enough pieces of information and supporting references around the two jail sentences, that these could be turned to prowse; but that the supplemental 12 incidents in the history will never look much different to any other list or reference supporting them. Thoughts? I thought about a table, but that would end up looking like some form of charge sheet, so dismissed it for the list format. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would remind you that Wikipedia isn't news. Do we need to cover every crime in such detail? Assuming that we do, see the guide on how to summarise important content. I will wait six hours for the content to be converted to prose, before I consider whether I should revert again, _(EDIT:) for as long as efforts are being made to discuss or improve the section._{(end of EDIT)} Given that the entire section has sprung up in five hours, I feel this is reasonable. WFCforLife (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The material should be integrated into the article body, and the less notable details removed so as to not assign them undue weight next to the career material. I've re-added the inexplicably removed {{csection}} tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that listing this section is problematic. I don't agree though that it is reasonable to say that it should be removed in six hours. We need time to discuss this properly, not having to work to an arbitrary deadline based upon the time over which the content was added. I don't see how that is relevant to anything. I also don't see the relevance of WP:NOTNEWS.

We probably don't need to list every detail of every incident King has been involved but it is important to summarise this information in some way to provide readers with appropriate context. We need to consider the appropriate weight to give to each incident. At first glance the most recent is also the most serious so should probably have more weight in the article than less serious incidents. My suggestion would be that we merge details of these incidents into the "Personal life" section or make it a subsection.

Whether these changes can be achieved in six hours it is impossible to say, but I would strongly discourage simply removing this section if that isn't the case. I may be mistaken of course but the material in the section seems accurate according to the sources so its inclusion is less likely to be harmful to readers that its removal. Adambro (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my arbitrary timeframe, but the prose version was fine apart from a few easily fixable POV phrases. As I said in my edit summary, I'm not necessarily objecting to anything that has been added, but it has to be written properly. There was a controversy section before, and I agree with renaming to either its current form or personal life, with no particular preference. But if the subsequent additions were so necessary, they could have been worked into the prose. I stand by the basis for my revert, albeit not the way I've handled it. As I said, if in five hours we can draw up a well sourced, comprehensive charge sheet, why should six hours to actually write properly it be an issue? There were 74 edits in the 20 hours before my revert, and exactly 1 in the two hours since I stated it should actually be written properly or be reverted. Read into that what you will. WFCforLife (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the key issue here is balance, and I don't think with fair input from all that will be achieved in 6hours. Certainly the long duration over which the incidents have occurred would not until now have been able to be time lined and correctly referenced. Hence, tagging it as News I can understand from the scale of addition, but not when you look at the depth of referencing pre-his latest conviction. What quite surprised me when collecting the references, was the extent of incidents, and particularly the reference of his own lawyer to Mike Tyson. Secondly, encompassing them in the main article, we would be dotting them around a presently incomplete football career time line - that will take an expert some time to fill out. However, balance that against the issue that he would have been tried under a "bad record" had the prosecution submitted their application in time, and I don't think that a section focused on incidents is inappropriate; it would then come down to a debate on presentation. Personally, I'd like more input from others before we come from a conclusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no excuse for fragmentary pseudo-sentences in an encyclopaedia. There is no need to detail every incident: I'll start working on a summary of what's there. Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth are you suggesting in your second-last sentence? Whether or not this material would have been presented differently in a case for the prosecution is completely irrelevant. We're here to write a neutral biography of the subject. That it has apparently escaped the public's attention that King has a history of convictions is precisely why we should ensure that it is not given undue weight compared to the volume of material on his footballing career. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The case would not have been tried differently, except for the fact his previous record would have been presented at the start of the trail and noted by the jury, as opposed to pre-sentencing. The fact he could have been tried under such a condition for his record in this particular area (ie: violence), should be taken into account in deciding the weight of coverage of the incidents here. It is a key legal input of fact, that the media are reporting, and that the presiding judge dismissed only on a time scale technicality as the defence case would need to be reconstrcuted. What we have to take into account, particularly in writing and referencing, is that the legal system structure means that certain facts and supporting references will come mout before the trail, and certain others afterwards. Secondly, Kevin McE are you concluding there should be a separate section? There was suggestion that it should be dotted into the generic time line? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely wrong. We assign weight based on how pertinent it is to a person's life, not how pertinent it may have been to a court case said person was involved in. I'm troubled that you seem to be approaching this with the goal of somehow "bringing the subject's history to light", which is definitely not what we're here for. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are his first three offences more significant than his entire time at Gillingham, Barnet and Dulwich Hamlet? I would also note that part of his early career has been REDUCED since his latest conviction, so clearly somebody believes that we went into too much detail there. WFCforLife (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is misrepresenting the edit in question: I made it clear that I was removing a statement that was factually incorrect, and that even if edited to present the true fact would be subjective impression of relative merits of one goal over another. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Note I have edited my first response in this section. My opinion on prose and weighting remains unchanged, but I was wrong to attempt to impose a deadline when discussion is taking place. WFCforLife (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd still rather we erred on the side of caution. That's rule #1 when dealing with BLPs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've compressed some of the less notorious cases into a couple of sentences, reduced the level of detail of court cases (not needed in such a brief biography), and rendered it in sentences rather than fragments. All the additional detail is available on cited articles for anyone wanting more detail. I've removed the style tag, but left the NPOV warning until eople here are happy that it is sufficiently factual, but I believe there is no major sense of judgementalism in the way it now reads. Kevin McE (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The reworking is excellent; thanks. I'd still concerned that perhaps it should be integrated better into the article body. For instance, assuming that he's going to continue playing following his release (which is almost guaranteed, considering that amount of money available to a Premier League-level striker), it's going to be weird having a ~1 year gap in the playing career section. Am I right in thinking that his previous convictions, while not unknown previously, have only drawn significant media attention in light of the new conviction? In that case it may be best leading with that one, following on from the end of the present career section, and then providing the backstory afterwards. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have brought the above 2 comments from above to prevent being buried. Agree 100% on the reworking. A quick check using Google to examine old news articles suggests most of these incidents have been reported by the media at one time or another. The article was created in 2006, after most of his convictions and obviously concentrated on his career. Leaky Caldron 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments regarding King's imprisonment

I don't want to revert things on this page at this time without at least getting some sort of agreement, but what the hell do Hodgson and Wenger have to do with anything? WFCforLife (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion media coverage today initiated by King's agent, about how he will get back into football when he is released. It's notable commentary by subject matter experts (managers) and worthy of brief summary. Leaky Caldron 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Discussion today"... WFCforLife (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"media coverage" Leaky Caldron 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Change the semantics as you wish, but the point remains the same. It's recentism, and it's subjective speculation, regardless of whether it's on a blog or the BBC. Any media source could have quoted any two managers in the country, and by the end of tomorrow all 92 league managers will have been asked their views on the matter. Should we list all 92's responses? If not, why these two? I don't dispute its neutrality or its accuracy, but this is an encylopaedia, not a news service. Let's leave the random he said she said to the media. WFCforLife (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The PFA have an involvement as his professional body. Whelan as his employer. The other 2 are there (in the BBC source) as counterpoints. I wouldn't list all 92 any more than I would have listed all of his convictions, but the compromise on that worked out very well. Leaky Caldron 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I don't know... I suppose it is balanced (and I completely agree about Whelan and the PFA). I just think the section is already quite long. I'll sleep on it, but it seems that I'm on my own so unless that changes I'm happy to leave it. WFCforLife (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A mic is stuck under someone's nose and he is asked for a comment about a matter that has nothing to do with him and to which he has given no particular consideration. Just because the media pad out their reports with it does not make it relevant. Kevin McE (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for saying that his actions were condemned by the PFA? All the cited BBC article says is that the PFA were keeping out of situation as it is a non-footballing matter. Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

which bit of Seegoon's edit about the reaction within football (since trimmed by me) do you disagree with? [2]. He is an international, EPL player. His agent was all over radio 5 live and other media outlets effectively touting King's services when he is released. The mic in this case wasn't stuck in front of just anyone. A club that he'd been linked with and another senior manager gave balancing opinions. I agree about the PFA bit, although there is a quote from Gordon Taylor in the linked source. Leaky Caldron 09:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a quote from Gordon Taylor, but stating that there is no policy to represent players in such circumstances certainly doesn't amount to condemnation, which is what the text claims. Hodgson admits that he scarcely knows King, and shows his club in a bad light for leaking false information to the press: Wenger has no more to do with Marlon King than any other manager of a team King might have played against. Their comments add nothing to our factual knowledge of Marlon King's life and actions, and the article does not benefit from being a survey of managers' opinions about the rehabilitation of offenders. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also untrue to say that Wenger disagreed with Hodgson: Wenger said nothing to condone King's actions (or to say that he agreed with right to rehabilitation), and did not say that he thought that King will sign for Fulham in the future. Kevin McE (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And re-reading the BBC article, Hodgson is not quoted as making any comment on King's actions either. So the addition to the article is not supported by the BBC citation, and I'll be deleting it forthwith. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or would have if Leaky caldron hadn't while I was typing :@) Nevertheless, even the current phrasing is problematic: although the BBC article says that the agent criticised the PFA, it doesn't give any clue as to what aspect of the PFA's actions he didn't like. And the lengthy quote from Taylor is essentially saying "nothing to do with us mate", in which case it is scarcely worth reporting. Why the fascination with reporting reaction and response to what happened? An encyclopaedia should report events, not provide a commentary on them: this is not a journalistic enterprise. Kevin McE (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Feel free to trim the PFA piece as you successfully did with the convictions list. However, there can be little doubt that the PFA, who represent MK and have made a public annoucement about him, is worthy of inclusion because they and what they have said is notable. If they had said they fully backed him and would pay for his appeal that would be notable too. Maybe their full response is more appropriate to their own article. Leaky Caldron 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

While there is a talk page discussion taking place I think it is inappropriate to remove sourced, notable material. Your justification above is not backed by policy as far as I can see and you should identify the policy before removing well sourced, verifiable & notable content because you think it is "too current". Leaky Caldron 11:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Don’t waste your time citing this WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper that is a stub essay. Instead, tell me what bit of this core policy is infringed WP:ISNOT#Content? Leaky Caldron 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have made no attempt to answer my question "Why the fascination with reporting reaction and response to what happened?" You have re-instated the assertion that the agent criticised the PFA's stance, although the source is in no way clear as to how he criticised it. You cite below the case of Lee Hughes, whose article has no contemporary response by any person other than Hughes. You ignore my comment that the PFA comments amount to no more than "Nothing to do with us." And you might like to consider WP:IINFO section 4: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own... Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Disagree that it is fascination

The agent's quote is in the source. Other's exist

I disagree that a respected professional body is saying "nothing to do with us"

I do not agree with your interpreation of WP:INFO making the events not notable

I think it is reported as a significant event in a notable person's life, it reports the facts but not the more salacious aspects

It could add that he is considering an appeal (if he is)

It cannot be brushed under the carpet

I would like other editor's opinion. Leaky Caldron 13:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that your comment about this material being "brushed under the carpet" is telling, and rather suggests that you should read our BLP policy in detail. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are selectively sniping. I raised 8 points above. I have added and now trimmed the PFA bit which I think is important enough (since they are his professional body) to include and not be brushed under the carpet. I did not write any of the well presented criminal past section and I have removed the 2 manager's quotes which I agree, on reflection, are not notable. What exactly is your complaint about my editing style here? Leaky Caldron 15:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to largely stay out of this today, but for what it's worth I think the PFA are worthy of inclusion, and that ignoring references and headers, the section is the same length as his entire Watford and Jamaica career combined. I won't make any more comments on the article today unless invited to do so, nor will I be editing. WFCforLife (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately not every profesional sportsman with a WP article has 14 criminal convictions, otherwise the sport/personal balance would be like it is here! You must edit as you see fit. I've seen nothing in your contributions that make your input less valuable than anyone elses and the nature of the "dispute" here is politely mild compared with many places! Without a doubt the best contribution here was made by Kevin yesterday, so whatever tension there is relates to interpretation, not POV. Incidentally, the Lee Hughes article has a similar balance and he had only the one high-profile conviction - not 14.Leaky Caldron 11:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is pure news fluff. The PFA would have, and undoubtedly have previously, said exactly the same thing in any other case where asked for comment on criminal action by one of their members. This will be deleted in due course, as it's boring trivia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Denying that it is fascination does not explain why the article benefits from these quotes, it merely dodges the issue on semantic grounds. There is no quote from the agent in the cited article. What contribution to knowledge about Marlon King's life do you believe that the PFA quote makes, if it is not asserting their lack of authority in the area? I agree entirely that this person's criminal record is relevant, and I have never suggested that it be "brushed under the carpet"; indeed, as you have acknowledged, I worked extensively on it yesterday. But it is the commentary made by others that seems to be, as Chris so well describes it, news fluff. Regardless of the status of WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper (a contribution I was unaware of until you mentioned it, so certainly not one I was going to cite), Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and so is not concerned with reaction and commentary on events, unless that response is itself of encyclopaedic note. So if you believe that an article, or section, PFA response to criminal cases involving its members would be justified, then by all means post this quote in it. It adds nothing to our knowledge of Marlon King. Kevin McE (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "dodging" anything. You asked "why the fascination" and I told you straightforwardly that I disagreed, I'm not fascinated and therefore not choosing my words selectively. You might assume good faith instead of assuming I'm running an agenda and trying to skirt around your concerns. I would rather prefer you accused me of not understanding policy. The are dozens of other references to the PFA’s statement and what the agent said he was unhappy with. I think it is important due to the PFA being his representative body and his agent’s expressed concern about them. His agent speaks on his behalf.

Considering WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, I still see the PFA / agent piece as relevant.

You ask what contribution to knowledge about Marlon King's life do I believe that the PFA quote makes? It tells us that throughout his career his professional body was willing to provide him assistance and that he did not make use of that. It tells us that he did not seek help for problems despite a succession of escalating episodes. If that is insufficient per policy, strike it.

Regards brushing under the carpet, as I said above, that related to the PFA piece, not the criminal record. Leaky Caldron 16:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Brushing under the carpet suggests that there is something concealed that should not be. I would contend that there is nothing substantive to hide. Yeah, if he had acknowledged a need for help, the PFA might have been able to point him in someone's direction, but so could any number of agencies. What someone might have been told they could have done had they told someone that they might need help is scarcely substantive fact. This is not hiding something under the carpet, it is simply that there is no litter on the floor. Kevin McE (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was adding to the article while you were here. The agent said that the PFA had not offered help, they contend that. If you still think it's not notable remove it. I think it offers insight. Leaky Caldron 18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That accusation by the agent, or any reference that quotes it, has only appeared in the article since my posting at 17:58. The PFA quote does directly reject the accusation, as it says that it was for a player to approach them, and Finnegan was saying that they didn't offer help to King. Still a distinct lack of anything substantive though, I would suggest: a minor spat between parties only slightly connected to the story. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained that I was adding it around the same time as you were here, 17:58 v 18:07. The PFA took it seriously enough to put out a statement that was picked up by the national press and the agent was making quite a big issue of the whole saga yesterday, including national radio interviews. Leaky Caldron 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on whether it is appropriate to include the PFA/Agent piece has hardened. The parties involved were once again in national radio discussion this morning and I cannot see any policy reason for leaving it out. Calling it "newscruf" is perjorative and appears to express your own point of view. I will seek to establish whether including the content is supported or excluded under our policies. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I had actually intended to say news fluff, which was Chris' phrase: note WFCforlifes's comment on my talkpage as well. I think you are in a clear minority on this, and that you are trying to incorporate a level of detail of response to a situation that could be deleted with no objection a few months or years hence with no objection: i.e., it is recentism. Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another essay - not policy. Actually, I think your reasoning just above is also wrong. In about 9 months time when he wants to play again the PFA are likely to be put back on the spot in relation to helping him. This brief piece provides context as well as documenting the ongoing, current concern of the agent on King's behalf. As for minority, I can only see 4 opinions expressed here. 2 - 2. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection I think the PFA are irrelevant at this moment in time. The PFA have said that they don't get involved without being asked, while King's agent has criticised them for not being more pro-active. So the question is, should we include a discussion about a body accused of not doing something that they don't do? My opinion is no. If, upon release, the spat between his agent and the PFA in some way impacts upon his career, I think it would then become very relevant. WFCforLife (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have received independent guidance that this piece conforms to policy. Leaky Caldron 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreements about the content of articles are resolved through discussions on their talk page. If you know of someone else who can offer advise on this issue then please invite them to comment here so everyone can judge their assessment. Simply saying you've "received independent guidance that this piece conforms to policy" isn't adequate justification to rein sate this material whilst others disagree about it. Having said that though, I don't see any real problem with this content but I must admit to not having followed the whole discussion about it. Adambro (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert pending this new input (and any subsequent discussion) but as things stand I do intend to undo it. WFCforLife (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Adambro & WFC, I should have supplied the grounds and a link but I was in a hurry earlier. I discussed it here [3] with an editor who offers guidance on NPOV via the WP:editor assistance service. Leaky Caldron 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One editor is one more opinion, it is not authoritative. I cannot fathom why you refer to this as an NPOV issue, it is whether Finnigan's speculation about the future, and his opinion of whether the PFA should be more proactive, is encyclopaedically relevant. Most people who have expressed an opinion here seem to think it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion isn't that it shouldn't be in the article because it's news. Mine is that the workings of the PFA are in no way relevant to Marlon King. King's agent has said that the PFA weren't pro-active in assisting him, the PFA say that they are a reactive organisation and that King hasn't approached them. Their response to the spat in no way suggests that they wouldn't help King once he's released, and is therefore in no way relevant. Anything the PFA have said about their future relationship with King would be extremely relevant, but as far as I'm aware they've said nothing on that front.

The only bit I agree with is keeping the statement by his agent that King will be seeking a new club upon his release. The rest of it, if anywhere, belongs on Finnegan and the PFA's pages. It's on neither, so why on earth it's here is beyond me. While I respect the opinion of PeterSymonds, I also think it was extremely bad form to act upon mediation before even informing the rest of us, and not giving us the opportunity to explain why we disagree. For those reasons I think it would be appropriate for you to remove the section until we're done here. I'm not going to do it myself because I think that would be counter-productive. WFCforLife (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is well sourced, verifiable and acceptable new content per policy. Whether or not you think it is "bad form", and why that should determine your decision is your POV. It should not influence your opinion whether the content is valid. You say because I did not consult with you, the content should be removed. I did not "act upon mediation." I sought advice which I am fully entitled to do per WP:editor assistance. If you read the header it says "Editor Assistance is intended as an informal method of requesting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor who may be more experienced about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation that you are experiencing. This process can also help in resolving disputes". Rather than continuing to debate it here with no fresh opinions and a no clear consensus (you were onside at the time by the way) I did what I thought was best to ensure that I was not misinterpreting any policy. I also left the content out, pending advice. The advice I have received from a credible source confirmed my understanding. Had it not, I would have left it out. I would appreciate you explaining (on my talk page if you prefer), why you believe I have acted in bad faith or against advisory guidelines. Leaky Caldron 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly apologise if I seem to have accused you of bad faith. All I was saying is that given that this is a controversial article, it would have been appropriate to post on this talk page that you were having a conversation about its content elsewhere. Going as far as actually making changes based upon that conversation before disclosing it was inadvisable. The very fact that you have sought external help is a very strong demonstration of good faith, and I applaud you for it. I just feel that it could have been handled differently. Water under the bridge now I hope.

Back on topic, I agree that it is well sourced, verifiable, acceptable for inclusion on wikipedia in general, and neutral. I simply do not agree that it belongs in this article. To clarify my position, I felt that the PFA were worthy of inclusion. The fault is mine for not being clear, but what I meant was that if the PFA had taken a stance similar to either Wenger or Hodgson, that would have been extremely noteworthy. Early news reports seemed to have suggested that they had, but that appears not to have been the case. But the PFA not doing something that they don't normally do isn't particularly relevant to Marlon King. Finnigan's criticism of the PFA may be of relevance to him, and criticism of the PFA may be relevant to it. WFCforLife (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Chrisdunn97, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} could i be a new editer for marlon king

Chrisdunn97 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Usb10 ^Connected? 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)