Talk:Karl Duguid

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]

[edit] Rumors / personal life

Mr. Anonymous IP,

Perhaps you could explain why you "will be as many times as necessary" re-adding what I and others consider simple rumor-mongering? Perhaps you could find a second, more reliable source for the information in that section? Otherwise it really should be removed. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The information is provided as a media report and clearly referred to as such. This is common practice in biographical articles, with the reader able to believe as much or as little as they please based upon their own judgement. "Some people" who you refer to, have an interest in providing an unbalanced and hagiographical article which goes against everything that Wikipedia is about. This page isn't a tribute, and if some fans get upset over a balanced article then that just too bad, my heart bleeds for them. I fully intend to continue reverting, as many times as necessary. 86.143.98.249 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverting "as many times as necessary" is considered an "edit war" and is not allowed.
Adding a paragraph of material that has a single source and that hasn't been confirmed anywhere else is a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living people, which states above all "do no harm". Since the report you are adding could indeed harm Duguid, it's not allowed without impeccable references.
Furthermore, a full paragraph regarding one possible incident, when the man had 42 appearances and 5 goals last year alone and has an eleven-year history - that's what we call undue weight.
If you would like to contribute to this article, please do - but blindly reverting to add this information is not acceptable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So why is it that the bio of David Beckham, presumably one of the most closely scrutinised sportsmen on Wikipedia, contains reference to just such a report from a single source - a tabloid newspaper, no less? The answer, of course, is that in both cases the information is offered merely as a reference to the existence of a press report rather than as confirmed fact.
I believe that it takes two to have an edit war, so I'm not sure exactly what your basis is for talking down to me on this issue. Do you consider yourself to be some sort of authority figure here? Rather than try to suggest how this information might be included you continue to delete altogether a section which I have demonstrated has parallels in the articles of some of the most notable sportsmen in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.98.249 (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider myself an authority here. I'm merely trying to make the article better.
Regarding Beckham, please see our guideline on "other stuff exists".
In order for this information to be included, you would have to provide a reliably sourced statement. I've just done a fairly good search for info on the web about Duguid and can only barely find even a reference to Tanie Marshall, his "partner" he calls her - see [1] from back on 16 Feb 06. I find nothing else about her or their relationship except the tabloid article and copies of Wikipedia. Find something else about her and/or their relationship and I'd be glad to work with you to put it in. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The otherstuff guideline, as you are doubtless already aware, relates to arguments over deletion. By applying it here you are building a strawman, which comes as no surprise to me whatsoever. I also note your reference to "our guideline", which only serves to back up my view that you are trying to act as if you have some kind of seniority over me here. I have stated why I believe that this information belongs here, and those exact same standards have very clearly been applied in far more notable articles, but you have decided that you are going to have your way without compromise.
I see that you have a history of doing this kind of thing. Am I going to stoop so low as to fight you over it or am I going to walk away and continue to be better than you? Bye bye. :) 86.145.205.123 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside the comments that relate to me and not the content, can you explain why you want to include rumors about Duguid's leaving his wife/partner? Because all I've seen so far is the statement "other articles have info like this". If you have other reasons, I'm willing to work towards consensus. And perhaps others will chime in here and make their thoughts known? As I mentioned above, if there are any other references about the situation that are reliable, let's talk about how to add the information that satisfies both of us. I've put in some work to find the one reference above - let's see something from you. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I still doubt your willingness to compromise, and fully intend to simply let you "win" your little edit war if it comes to it, but I'll answer you. If you have actually read the article, you will have noticed that Duguid's own representative acknowledges that he has left his wife. My interest is to provide as complete an article as I can by adding what I view to be relevant biographical information in line with Wikipedia's standards for sportsmen and women. I have consulted many such articles and come to the conclusion that a national newspaper, even if it does appear to be the sole cited source, appears to be considered an appropriate source for inclusion provided that the information is clearly marked as being the content of that publication (as it is in this instance). All that I have heard you do is to quote in irrelevant guideline and try to discount the importance of applying the same standards to this article as others of a similar nature. What is your vested interest in omitting this information?
As far as compromise goes, what if the section were to simply state that the paper reported that Duguid had left his partner and kids (as acknowledged by his representative), without including references to any implied wrongdoing and allowed any interested readers to follow the link to the article and make their own minds up if they wish? 86.145.205.123 (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
See, my major reason for not wanting the information in there is WP:BLP, which is fully relevant policy to this situation - not guideline. One newspaper quotes one person about him leaving his wife. That's a potentially libelous situation, the information has already been copied to various other website, and it could be very harmful to the man and his career. So, per guidelines, I must ask that we "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Plural - references.
I don't have a problem with the wording or anything - my biggest concern is having it in here at all. And I am certainly applying the same standards here as to other articles - show me another article about someone leaving their wife and I'll show you better than average references.
Just for the record, this isn't about winning. This is about not printing something mean just because it shows up in a tabloid. We're an encyclopedia, for goodness sake - let's live up to that name :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh man - OK, I'm done. You know full well that the irrelevant guideline I'm referring to is your attempt to relate this to "otherstuff". Since when is it potentially libellous to state the FACT that a newspaper printed something? I've already given other examples, but since you ask, I refer you again to David Beckham's bio. There is a reference to an allegation made in a TABLOID newspaper that he had an affair, with only that SINGLE source cited. Why is it that you have no interest in removing that? The answer, of course, is that if you started behaving this way with high profile articles you'd soon be put back in your place by the people who actually DO have power and importance on this site. Easier to pick on me over an article that will fly under the radar, right?
Watching someone go on a power trip just because they've reached the almighty position of Wikipedia administrator is always good for a giggle - thanks for the laugh. 86.140.32.178 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh yeah, I really get off on this power trip of removing information from an encyclopedia! It just makes my day. Really. Cuz I have nothing better to do, no life, and no other way to show my superiority. Really.

Sarcasm aside, I've commented on Beckham's article. You'll note that there is a discussion in the archive for that same issue. I don't believe that you're right on the irrelevance of the otherstuff guideline, but that's not my major argument, so I've given up on that. Though it seems to me you're relying on exactly the same argument - "this is printed in another article, so why not here?"

If we leave aside otherstuff, why do you want to include this info in this article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time edit warring with some jumped up admin who thinks it's his place to delete other peoples' contributions BEFORE discussion (something he has a whole history of doing on low profile topics, but funnily enough NOT on the Beckham article where I challenged him to behave the same way), but for the benefit of anybody who wishes to read the story and make up their own mind, here it is. 86.141.223.106 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)