Jump to content

Talk:Kirk Broadfoot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egg in face

[edit]

I've been wondering whether it's really worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia that a footballer had an accident with a microwave. While undoubtedly amusing, it's not really particularly relevant to his main role as a footballer. I-hunter (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club he now plays for

[edit]

Given that Rangers FC where liquidated,It should state that Kirk now Plays for Sevco 5088 AKA Newco Rangers and not Rangers FC. I know its difficult to police wikipedia with so many fans who used to follow Rangers desperate for something to hold onto but the facts are there for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.189.161 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can wait until the status of Rangers is clarified, which should happen within the next week. James Morrison (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this article and many other are all in dispute resolution process to determine if wikipedia will say it isa new clbu or not--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HIV?

[edit]

Is HIV a real team - it links to a page about a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.174.115 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh,WP:NPF, seriously?

[edit]

So Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) deleted the "Personal life" section (see edit) with the edit summary, WP:NPF. He isn't a well known public figure and isn't relevant to his notability as a footballer.. Which is odd, since by virtue of being a professional footballer for an Old Firm club, he is a very well known public figure, and while his arrest record may not be relevant to his notability as a footballer (which is debatable, because football supporters are very interested in off-pitch activities of players), it's certainly relevant to his notability as a public person. You know, notable enough to be subject of multiple newspaper articles.

I'm just wondering on which planet a top flight footballer "isn't a well know public figure". --Mosmof (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF talks about people who are relatively unknown. Broadfoot may be reasonably well known in Scotland, and even then, probably only amongs football fans. Outside of Scotland, hardly anyone will know who he is. Therefore I would argue that he is "not generally well known", per the guideline. It's not as if he is a politician (or a public figure of that nature) and therefore incidents in his personal life are of significance. The two incidents mentioned did not affect his football career, which is why he has an article at all. With relatively minor football players there is a danger of articles having very little content about their life and career and being half filled with one unsavoury incident, which is undue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you seem to be misreading "public figure". I think you're conflating the term with someone who holds a public position - it simply means that he's someone who's known to the population at large. Also, Scottish people are people too - he's known outside of his social and professional circles. If the Scottish public knows him, then he's notable enough to talk about.
Plus, even among Scottish footballers (and the last time I checked, football was a popular sport in Scotland), being a member of an Old Firm club and a Scotland international. He is well known, relatively or otherwise. And again, while the incidents may not affect his notability as a football player directly, criminal incidents involving footballers are discussed in the public sphere.
And considering these incidents are discussed by major publications years after they happened, they're clearly notable.
Anyway, since there seems to be such a fundamental disagreement over how to apply WP:NPF, we should probably take the discussion there. --Mosmof (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussions is here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kirk Broadfoot. --Mosmof (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arrests where there was no conviction most certainly cannot be included and has been removed. the other incident appears to be the equivilent in the US of a misdemeaner which unless it is shown to be particularly influential in the persons life or particularly notorious is probably WP:UNDUE coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from "WP:BLPCRIME "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. " Not only has there been "no conviction yet secured", he was cleared of the charges. ABSOLUTELY inappropriate to include. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we're not talking about accusations here. There's no presumption of guilt in the edit - simple statement of fact that he was arrested, went to trial and was cleared. Conviction is the standard for inclusion seems unreasonably high. If it was really a petty crime not worth mentioning, then charges would have been dropped or the case dismissed before it went to trial. But since it went as far as the judge handing down a verdict, a single sentence does not seem unduly long. I'd look at Steven Gerrard#Personal life as reference (not necessarily as something to copy), where the "Phil Collins incident" gets a short paragraph mention even though the charges were dropped before it went to trial. If an incident is notable enough to receive a feature article in a major paper, then I don't see why one sentence is too much. --Mosmof (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you dont see what is wrong, then I suggest that you avoid any editing related to criminal charges and living people. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop editing if you don't see things my way" seems to go against the collaborative spirit of the project. Anyway, you seem to be overreaching with your application of WP:BLPCRIME. I'm not creating an article about an accused person. I'm editing an article about a famous person who happened to go to trial. And again, there's no presumption of fact - there's nothing in the sentence that implies he committed the crime, simply that he went to trial. --Mosmof (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "Stop editing if you don't see things my way" - I said that if you dont understand BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and related policies you should stop editing content in those areas. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Gerrard (Liverpool & England captain, European Cup winner, multiple award winner, etc) clearly qualifies as a public figure. There's probably several books written about his life and career. To compare him with Kirk Broadfoot (marginal player for Rangers & Scotland) is ludicrous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I mentioned it as a reference of a case where conviction isn't the standard for inclusion in an article and clearly framed it as a reference, not something to copy. Let's try to keep up. Mosmof (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kirk Broadfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirk Broadfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

replaced the web.archive.org link with the original BBC link as the latter is still live. Gricehead (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirk Broadfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirk_Broadfoot&oldid=1200372844"