Talk:Glenn McGrath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Glenn McGrath is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Glenn McGrath is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] ettiquite

Please no not request citation where information is readily rerifiable, go to some effort youself!

[edit] awards

How do you put Glenn McGrath's name in the bowlers who have taken Bowlers who have taken 5 wickets in a Test innings 25 times or more box?--Rickster89 00:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done AlbinoMonkey 00:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glenn McGrath's name needs to be put in the Bowlers who have taken 300 ODI wickets box and I don't know how to do it.----Rickster89 11:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Image:Glenn mcgrath photo from tv screen.jpg
100px

Put this image up but it was reverted. Surely its fair use to have one low res tv screenshot that we took ourselves in an article? Astrokey44 11:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put a note on the talk page when I reverted it. My understanding is that a TV screenshot is only fair use when talking about the TV programme, not when talking about the person depicted. That's what it says on Template:Film-screenshot anyway. Stephen Turner 12:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
How about if it were put under this template? Template:Screenshot It just says screenshots in general there, although it does say theyd prefer a more specific template. And I also found a sports article which uses a pic under the film-screenshot template: Joey Harrington It would just be nice to get rid of all these black head silhouettes on all the cricket articles :/ Astrokey44 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I see you changed the template and then put the picture back. I don't think you've understood the issue here. We're not talking about Wikipedia policy, but about the law. Changing the template doesn't make the use of any images more or less legal. Only parliaments and courts can do that. The template is just a guideline to Wikipedia editors about the state of the law.
For a discussion about a very similar issue (but with magazine covers instead of TV programmes) see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Cover_Photos. So I'm afraid I've reverted your changes to Template:Film-screenshot. I'm not trying to be difficult here, although I realise it may seem like it. I too would love to see more photos of cricketers. It's just that we have to be very, very careful to stay on the right side of the law. As Wikipedia becomes one of the most high-profile sites on the internet, we are also at increasing risk of being sued for multiple copyright infringement.
Stephen Turner 08:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The thing is about that template, is I doubt it was put together by anyone who knew the law very well, its just someone strung a few words together, and now you accept it as fact because its in a nice little box. I seriously doubt Glenn McGrath is going to sue us over a tiny, low resolution image of him when Google image search reveals for instance "Results 1 - 20 of about 2,230 for glenn mcgrath". Most blogs and sites out there would copy a image like this [1] without even thinking about it. Astrokey44 12:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I concur with everything Stephen has said. These templates are not just a few words strung together without anyone considering their contents. Have a read of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and the associated talk page to get an idea of the issue. There is a process of review and consensus before a image template is put into use, and some (in the case of {{Screenshot}}) get deprecated from time to time. Yes there are websites out there that no doubt use copyright photos, but they are breaking the law. We can only speculate that the owner of the copyright of such a photo may not bother chasing dozens of smallish websites up but may choose to go after Wikipedia because it is so well used. ---
ok fine then, but any screenshot appears to be able to be used with Template:Screenshot (instead of template film screenshot), which I have now added to the photo
No you can't. This is the reason that we (by "we" I mean WP:WPFU) are in the process of rewriting all of the fair use image tags. Screenshots from television programs can only be used for commentary on the television programme itself, regardless of what tag they're tagged with. We're in the process of rewriting the tags to indicate what uses are valid under fair use, but we just haven't gotten around to Template:Screenshot yet. I also agree with Stephen Turner's and Ianbrown's comments above. JYolkowski // talk 14:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
How was I supposed to know you havent hadnt got around to changing it? I notice that you have changed it now, so fair enough (now) I guess Astrokey44 15:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much text

Too much text in this article, should be more subheadings. another job for Vines or Turner. thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.65.6 (talk • contribs) .

I agree it could use a couple more subheadings Astrokey44 10:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McGrath and racism

Im curious, why isnt there anything on the incident(s) where McGrath called Jayasuriya a 'black monkey'. This kind of racist behaviour/attitude seems to come built in in every australian, nevermind the australian cricket team.

So add it, complete with references and noting that McGrath denied the claim. Please try and keep your comments relating to the article rather than irrelevant and insulting reflections on an entire nation. --Robert Merkel 06:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Making this type of sweeping generalisations ensures that the author of such statements cannot be taken seriously. Where are the references and citations? If you are going to try and bring these sort of comments up why don't you back them up with facts rather than supposition and hearsay?Jonesy 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't not say this. I'm disgusted that your comment has been left on the discussion page for this long despite making a sweeping racist claim about the entire population of Australia without even signing it. Whoever you are, whatever you think of Glenn McGrath, you are all that and then some. Ironic isn't it? And Jonesy, it doesn't matter if it happened or not. Why argue with him about references and citations when he is a blatant racist? Can we please get rid of this discussion? It doesn't deserve to be here. --Grinning Idiot 13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a racist whilst making a sweeping generalisation about an entire country yourself is incredibly hypocritical. Whatever you think of Glenn McGrath, or the Australian cricket team (the dislike of which is partly fuelled by jealousy, if we're honest) to slag off the Australian people because of it is not on. 87.74.28.177 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the incident complete with reference form an australian source 194.168.3.18 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Tazzcricket

From what I remember of all the Australians it was only ever Darren Leeman who called anyone a 'little black monkey', and he was punished for it. The Night Walker —Preceding comment was added at 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image, II

I have uploaded Image:GlennMcGrath.JPG, but the original looks fine. If anyone wants to swap/add them both somewhere, go ahead. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates

[edit] Sarwan controversy

I'm curious as to why there's not more coverage of what was said between McGrath and Sarwan in 2003. It was such a highly publicised event.

McGrath's remarks were confirmed by sources to have been lewd remarks involving Sarwan and Lara. They were thus homophobic in nature. By contrast Sarwan was confirmed to have simply made lewd remarks about McGrath's wife, a standard rebuttal which had nothing to do with Jane's battle with cancer at the time. McGrath's reaction, where he was caught on camera threatening to rip Sarwan's throat out, was heavily criticised at the time, and rightly so. Even Glenn apologised for it and said it was unacceptable.

And yet, despite all that, it's a sidenote in this page. No offence, but considering the page is moderated by Australians, it just seems a little biased to cover that controversy up. The least someone could do is add a footnote to the bit that mentions the Sarwan incident linking to this page: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/13/1052591796226.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.34.254 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I think to have a section of this article detailing his onfield controversies would be to categorize him as a controversial figure. There have been a couple of incidents. Maybe they should be mentioned in passing, but who among us would look squeaky clean on wikipedia if we all had a section detailing every ugly thing we had ever done? BTW, given what McGrath had been going through with his wife's illness, if I was Sarwan I would've had the brains to leave her out of it completely. I'm impressed that he apologised - Sarwan should've known better.--Grinning Idiot 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think noone would doubt McGrath has been a controversial figure. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; all great players have been controversial at one time or another. It's the passion to be the best that sometimes spills over.

Bringing "brains" into it or saying "Sarwan should've known better" misses the point. There's no thought behind sledging; it's mindless banter. If it had malicious forethought then few players would be able to remain friends off the field. Funnily enough Sarwan and Glenn remain good mates, by all accounts, and Glenn hasn't blamed Sarwan for his remarks, accepting that no matter what, making violent threats is wrong. Mentioning the wife has always been a traditional sledging tactic. If anything I would say considering what was going on with his wife, McGrath should've avoided sledging knowing full well that she might be brought into it by someone in the heat of the battle. He knew his mental state, and if he couldn't take it, he shouldn't dish it out. 84.9.33.200 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any bad blood off-field. But I have to disagree with the above comment. Sledging should be bound by some code of ethics. Just because you have a weakness doesn't mean you can't sledge - it's part of the game. The obligation works the other way. You need to be more clever. Talk about his mother or his sister. Talk about his brother if you're that way inclined. But like racism, some things should be left alone.--Grinning Idiot 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sarwan wasn't targeting that weakness though. I doubt he even considered it. Whatever Sarwan said, he certainly didn't mention Jane's condition, and Glenn clearly overreacted. Considering his own teammates seemed to agree he overreacted, and Glenn himself was said to be embarassed by his behaviour, I'm not sure why anyone would defend it. The behaviour was flagged by the ACB. There's no taking away from the fact he's been a fantastic player but he's also clearly a fiery character whose indiscretions should be part of his bio, just as Warne's controversies are. 87.74.28.177 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "Your momma's so fat that in her high school photo she was the whole front row!" if I knew your old lady died last week. Reference to her death is of no relevance. Sarwan was out of line. And Glenn probably did overreact. It's one of those emotional situations in which anything can happen. I don't think McGrath was anywhere near as controversial as Warne though. --Grinning Idiot 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, reference to her death isn't of any relevance, I didn't suggest it was. What is of relevance is whether you were even thinking about that at the time. In the heat of battle, as a professional sportsman where the pressure is on, you block out all off-field factors. You have to if you're to focus on the job at hand. Don't forget, Sarwan didn't intiate the conversation, he responded to a comment by McGrath. We're talking split-seconds of thinking time here. If Sarwan was so out of line why did not one of Glenn's teammates speak out about it publically? As for comparing Warne and McGrath in terms of controversy, it depends whether you mean on-field or off it. Off it Warne takes the prize, but on the field of play, McGrath definitely does. 87.74.28.36 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Possible difference of opinion, but that's that. As for Warne vs McGrath - fair call. Agreed.--Grinning Idiot 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair play, difference of opinion, it's what makes the game great. In fact I must admit that having read your argument, and thought about it, perhaps having a section dedicated to what have been maybe two or three notable controversial moments in a career like McGrath's would be a little unbalanced. That's why when the article went back to being unprotected, I just added a footnote to the Sarwan incident (for anyone who wasn't familiar with it) and left it at that. Best to allow people to form their own opinions on it.87.74.3.97 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded it every so slightly to show that it wasn't run-of-the-mill sledging, but I agree it should be left like that. Anyone interested can click on the news article that is ref'd to there, any more inclusion might be classed as unbalanced. SGGH speak! 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)