|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Cricket||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 A bit fannish?
- 3 Reads more like a newspaper report
- 4 Headings, Subheadings and a Reorder
- 5 The new fielding section
- 6 Monty Panesar is a devout Jatt Sikh
- 7 Inzamam-ul-Haq has more than one stomach?
- 8 Ashes 2006/07
- 9 Nicnames
- 10 ODI before Test?
- 11 Antihype
- 12 "Panesar owns two Balti houses in Luton"?
- 13 Monty in India?/against West Indies
- 14 First Sikh??
- 15 First Name
- 16 POV
"as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in the 2007 edition"? Are you sure? I read it the othher day and I thought it was Murlithran
Rahul Dravid did most definitely receive a harsh decision - he was bowled!
Lol, guys - this isn't a chat page! Still I thought Monty did brilliantly in the 2nd Test. John Smith's 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Monty was fantastic in the 2nd test! Speedboy Salesman
A bit fannish?
This article seems to come perilously close to a fan appreciation page at times. I can understand the feelings behind it - I think Monty's wonderful - but it's not really encyclopedic. Loganberry (Talk) 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It definitely is. I won't be able to make many subtle changes until he comes to Australia this year.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you please check out my section below.--StewartM82 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done a rewrite to remove the blatant POV and some of the unencyclopedic fluff and personal opinions put in there over a period of time. I tagged the stuff which seems to be "fair call" but needs some substantiation and polish. Please have a look.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have gone through the "Cricket Ability" section to try and weed out some of the grammar issues, and to add some citations where possible. I have also noticed that a lot of this article has been opinion, part of which I am guilty of, so I have done my best to address any of those issues in an effort to make a more objectively-worded document.Robinwillott 12:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fantastic work! This article is starting to look more like an encyclopaedia entry and less like a fan article. Keep up the good job.--StewartM82 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Monty fan, too, but I think the first section is still too much about the Monty cult - there's nothing on his cricketing achievements. Should it mention that he's become England's first-choice spinner, taken Aussie wickets etc, before (briefly) stuff about why he's such a character? 22.214.171.124 11:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The whole article reads like a flyer from the Monty Panesar fan club. His career is in serious decline and for all we know, his international career may be over. His lack of cricketing nous has cost his dear and may prove terminal - where is this reflected in the article? It just reads like an account of one triumph after another. --John Price (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Reads more like a newspaper report
This article stinks of rampant bias. It is obviously been written by a huge fan.
"Most consider him the top spinner in England."
No sources are supported here. Blatant weasel words. I have added the appropriate tag. Also it seems that the author here constantly interchanges between the first name and last name. Perhaps someone to go through a change all of the instances of Monty to Panesar.this further suggests to me that this article has been written by a fan.
"Monty is not a batsman, but can survive a good ball and can be considered a fighter. "
"The thought of an English spinner being able to take wickets with his stock delivery, as well as having a doosra spells exciting times for English cricket."
I have removed this sentence. It is not really informative and unnecessary.
This article is a good start however it reads more like a newspaper report that an encyclopaedia entry. --StewartM82 14:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a bit unfair on the lad. As far as i am concern, he has done brilliantly for this country and i ready to praise him.
- I think you have totally missed the point here. It's not about his cricketing ability nor his service to England. It's about trying to keep encyclopaedia standards within articles. I strongly suggest you first sign your posts, and you also check out Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Specifically the part on weasel words. I have readded the weasel words tag. let's not turn this into an unnecessary edit war. If you are the author of this article don't take this the wrong way. Like I said initially, it's a good start however it needs some fixing.--StewartM82 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. However, I have been adding links to some articles to make sure all info is true.
I also agree, it is easy to lose sight of the need to apply objective rules to a subject that obviously inspires excitement and passion!
Headings, Subheadings and a Reorder
I have added headings and subheadings to this article. I have not changed any of the content though. Also, I have shuffled some of the text around. For example, have moved the personal life section to the end of the article. I think all of the cricket staff is more relevant. Not to say that the personal life section does not have a place here.--StewartM82 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work. This needed further order, i didn't think to do this at the time, but looking at it now, it works much better. Nice one!! Robinwillott 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep the trivia, its relevant the guy has cult status
The new fielding section
Great job on expanding this section. However you can't say "in most people's opinion" or things of this nature unless you have citations. added weasel words. --StewartM82 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Monty Panesar is a devout Jatt Sikh
This is an absurd statement ... Jatt is a caste and if he is a devout Sikh then he would not believe in the caste system ... a contradiction in terms.
AND just to put the records straight the name panesar indicates he has origins from the Sikh Ramgharia caste and not Jatt. also comfirmed by the sydney morning herald —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Highwaytg (talk • contribs) 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
- Not that this had anything to do with cricket, but in practice many Sikhs do follow the caste system. I know of some Khatri Sikhs who would prefer marrying Hindu Khatris than Jat Sikhs. Btw, your second sentence almost contradicts your first since you mention his caste. Also, this type of info should be limited on a cricketer's page, so I wonder if just Sikh is enough. GizzaChat © 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Inzamam-ul-Haq has more than one stomach?
From the article: one of his [Inzy's] stomachs. Changed it, but thought it was too funny to just leave it without a marker--126.96.36.199 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this is written in the future tense, which needs to be reworked at some point. --Aioth 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I had a go. Speedboy Salesman 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- He was, this article is blatant POV. Leave it to the English to go nuts after one player --188.8.131.52 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
ODI before Test?
Shouldn't the section "ODI Selection" be AFTER the "Test Selection" as Panesar was including in England's Test squad for ODI? I've moved it anyway. Sorry about all the edits I kept leaving out brackets etc. Speedboy Salesman 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done my best to tone it down - Rothorpe 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Panesar owns two Balti houses in Luton"?
Monty in India?/against West Indies
Since India was his first tour I think we need a section on this. The Test selection section is not enough.
Also his dominance against West Indies needs its own section just to show how great Monty is! Monsta666 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to put Monty's international career in chronological order. I will merge personal life and background together as these section contain duplicate information. Physical attributes is now in bowling section. Have also removed part of background to early and domestic career. Monsta666 12:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Monty Panesar is not the first sikh to play for england, as it says in the wiki article, it was vikram singh solanki, who is sikh and started playin way before him —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:28, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Actually the article says he was the first Sikh to play test cricket for England- Bopara has only played ODIs -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Bopara
- The presence of Singh in the name does not automatically make someone Sikh. Solankis are Hindu Rajputs. Tintin 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
His given names are Mudhsuden Singh; Monty is a nickname. There should be no confusion here, all usual sources agree. He is NOT "Monty Singh" or "Mohammed Singh", so please stop the edit warring between two equally incorrect options, cheers. EJBH (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is so POV, I'm going to attempt to clean it up. I'll keep demonstrable, citable facts, but things such as "It was Panesar's ability with the ball that enabled him to become England's number-one spin bowler before being replaced by Graeme Swann in 2008" will be edited/removed. This is meant to be a NPOV article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)