Talk:Mikel John Obi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Position In The Team

At the start of the article Mikel John Obi is described as an attacking midfielder. Recently for Chelsea he has played in a more defensive role sometimes in the place of Makelele so perhaps the start should be edited? 82.152.206.182 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Why does the picture currently up have mikel in a man u shirt? Surely one in a chelsea or nigeria shirt would be much more appropriate. --alexdeangelis86 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

removed

"The whole case is viewed by many to be an utter scandal and a disgrace to the english game with yet again "Chelski's" millions winning at the end of the day. I think we are all still looking forward to see the impact this much hyped 19 year old can have on the English Premier League and hope that a saga such as this does not re-occur in the future."

as this is not encylopedic Steve-Ho 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That was added by an anon shortly before you removed it. This article has received numerous similar POV edits in the months since I created it, hopefully it will settle down a bit now the saga has been resolved. Rje 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from EPL Contract Law's user page (to clarify all the recent changes)

MartinRe said: Hello. Do you have sources for the information that you just re-inserted into this article? Namely the unconfirmed reports, the settling of the two cases, and that the action was a violation of FIFA rules? Any information needs to be cited, or it can be removed. For example, I have re-inserted one of the claims you took out, with a reference to the BBC website, backing up the claim. Could you please do the same, and add appropiate references for the claims you have inserted. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EPL contract law 10:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - The article you have cited does not support the claim made in the WIKI article in any way what so ever. You should remove it again
There is a vague reference, made without any supporting evidence, of SAF not making a planned visit but that does not state he intended to discuss the situation with John Obi.
The statement in the article is baised as it is now written and even if it was not the comment serves no purpose.
As for reference to the FIFA violation I will look, but it will take time and this is exactly why the Wiki articles regarding sport are so poor and baised. It is common knowledge in the football world that all players have the right to have an agent present during a signing and denying that right invalidates a registration transfer - there simply is no real reason to cite the rule regarding it. But, for the sake of contention I will supply it
Anytime, someone tries to clean up an article that is baised, by adding facts, they are questioned but the original article in its baised form is not questioned
MartinRe said - I've modified the phrase to say "visit" as opposed to "discuss the sistuation", as per the reference given. The problem with quoting "common knowledge" is that it isn't common to those unfamiliar with the sporting rules. (what happens if a player doesn't have an agent, for example?) Also, the situation runs the risk of being original research, see the plagerism example in WP:NOR. And, for reference, I have also also questioned the original article for being lacking in sources, and as you are probably aware adding "facts" is not sufficent, what has to be added is "verifable facts". Regards, MartinRe 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EPL contract law 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) So you edit out the parts you do not like, add baised information that has no relevance, and basically dismiss the most basic of common knowledge? The average person does not need to know the exact rule, as this is an encyclopedia entry not a legal reference manual, but none-the-less the rule violation is covered under "The FA handbook" page 219, I General Rules, Article 1.1. Violation of that rule violates the "Code of Conduct" rules under FIFA guidelines of the game.

I am putting my entry back in, as it is relevant considering the slanderous charges made by Manchester United during the case.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EPL_contract_law"

Your comment above is bordering on incivil , and incivility is not helpful. Initially, I simply removed an uncited allegation of slander, and other unreferenced claims, which any editor is entitled to do - even required to do the former, as per WP:BLP. When some of these claims were re-inserted, (e.g. "Uncomfirmed reports") I didn't revert them again, perferring to discuss, as above, requesting sources. I am not "dismissing basic common knowledge", as football employment laws are hardly well known in detail. Also, as I pointed out, the plagerism example of WP:NOR has parallells here. You cannot combine quoting the rule (a reliable source) and what was reported to have happened (another reliable source) to categorically say that the rule was violated. All that can reliably be said is that that the rule was the basis of the complaint (which would obviously need a source, but shouldn't be hard), but that's very different to a straight addition of "this is a violation of the rules", which is the essence of the recent additon. Regards, MartinRe 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EPL contract law 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) The example does not apply. I did not take two sources and combine them - it is a fact that John Obi cited that ruling and it was reported by FIFA themselves. That is one direct source covering both instances.

My comments may seem uncivil but that is because it appears to me you are intentionally maintaining the article in a baised copy despite making claims about the bais nature of the article. It is my view that your actions are incivil to the people contributing because you removed all changes blanket fashion instead of taking the time to properly edit that page.

Editors are not required to question every single aspect of an article nor are they required to demand sources for every single aspect of an article

And you definitely should not have removed mutliple additions to an article that only expanded upon already present unreferenced claims. If your intention was to clean the article of unreferrenced claims them you should have basically removed the entire article and re-written it. Instead you have removed additions by someone trying to improve the article.

The fact is you have not questioned the article and transfer itself - such as, if there ever was an issue with the transfer itself, yet you have ignored the grounds for which the transfer was questioned to begin with.

I have supplied those grounds and now you questioning the source despite the source being the only valid source available

I apologise if the removal of the edits seemed harsh, but as part of the edit in question was an uncited serious allegation, and the remainder was also uncited, I felt it justified. I still feel that the insertion of uncited information based on "uncomfirmed reports" is not correct, but as it has been re-inserted after I removed it, will leave it for the momement. Despite how it may appear, I am not trying to maintain this article in any particular state, I believe this article has problems with many claims lacking sources and am trying to find sources. However, adding more uncited claims is only going to make it worse, which is also why I reverted the edit in question. My objection on the rule violation issue is that as far as I understand, Mikel claimed that it took place, the FA confirmed that they received a complaint, but I haven't seen a source that said the complaint was upheald and the violation was actually found to have taken place, which is a significant difference. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Oh, and while editors aren't required to demand sources for every aspect, they are perfectly entitled to, and the onus is on the person inserting any claim to supply a verifable source, not the questioner to prove it incorrect. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is quite clear on that. Regards, MartinRe 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


This article seems a little too angeled towards a por-chelsea view. I think it should be written much more about john shittu's role in this affair, as he seems to be the classical "exploiting young african talent"-kind of manager. also it is not written how the agents claims kept getting more and more absurd. for example, started they up with claiming that FC Lyn had pressured him to sign", while later on claiming that the contract was a complete fabrication, with morgan andersen, not mikel signing the contract. I think mikels "strong wish" to play for chelsea, was pressured on him by shittu

[edit] References

The article, as it stands, is quite poorly referenced, having no sources listed for the controversy section, where it's most required. While the information may be correct and covered in news reports, it's important that the sources are listed here, as uncited claims may be removed. Serious claims without references will be removed immediately, as per WP:BLP. I will try and match some of the claims to specific news reports, but if anyone else can do the same and/or find more sources, that would be great. Regards, MartinRe 09:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've matched some claims to news reports, but the article still needs a lot more work, as what's written in the article doesn't also match 100% the news reports I've found. For example, The newsnight interview/transcript simply mentioned being pressured by "some people", so I removed the specific people mentioned in the article, but other than that the majority of my recent updates have been simply adding references. Regards, MartinRe 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Recently, he has requested to be called Mikel John Obi, so his article should probably reflect this choice. Granted, the media uses John Obi Mikel, so we would need a redirect.--mpbx 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I just added a sentece (referenced) at the end of the article about his preferred name, if anyone wants to put in anywhere go ahead, there is a reference to Chelsea calling him Mikel Jon Obi there. There was an article on the Chelsea site saying that he specifically wants to be called "Mikel Jon Obi" but I couldn't find it, so I just put in one that refers to him as Mikel Jon Obi. - rusty8 (not signed in)

Found it, although it is a little hidden. I am going to move the article to reflect the change, it seems various media outlets are doing the same. It wouldn't surprise me though if this just becomes a rehash of the George Finidi/Finidi George thing. Rje 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now moved the page, it occurs to me that he will probably still be referred to as "Mikel" by commentators so I have not bothered changing anything to "Obi" in the article until he actually plays for Chelsea and we find out. Rje 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Games and Goals

Whoever keeps changing it to 2 goals, stop. It's only for the premiership which is 22 games and 0 goals, and in all competitions it'd be 35 games and 2 goals - but it specifically states for the DOMESTIC LEAGUE ONLY.

Master Chief(no account yet ;))