Talk:Wayne Carey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Initial comments
Hmmmm, whoever wrote this article likes Wayne Carey very much. I perceive him as a dishonest, cheating man and I'm sure many Australians do after his fall from grace.
- This article is kind of undersourced, and is written by a fan of his footballing abilities (I think it underrates the belief in some quarters that he was a dirty player). On his extracurricular activities, they are noted, as was the brouhaha surrounding them. Frankly, though, cheating on your wife rates by far the lesser moral failings attributed to sportspeople over the years. What did you expect - an article about Wayne Carey, a famous adulterer who just happens to have been a professional footballer? --Robert Merkel 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)this sucks
-
- Both points are well made - I guess that he is fair more famous for his extra-marital exploits than his footballing skills, particularly amongst Australians who aren't dedicated fans of the game. --Gil-Galad
-
- Do you guys really think he would be a famous adulterer had he not been a professional footballer ? He would probably have just been a yobbo from Wagga. --Rulesfan 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think merely "yobbo" is an overly kind description. What do you call a man who leaves his 8 month pregnant wife, to pursue an adulterous affair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.59.71 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Early career
There was a story on Mediawatch about a young Carey & his siblings being victims of child abuse and his mother seeking refuge in women's shelters in Adelaide. There's no mention in this article about growing up in Adelaide?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.164.227 (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
How did Carey get to Sydney? Anubis1975 08:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joining North Melb?
Born = 1971; Joined NM = 1984? 13 years old????? Anubis1975 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I checked the Kangaroos site, apparently he joined in 1989 [1]. The Kangaroos' website is pretty amateur-hour stuff, I have to say. --Robert Merkel 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two different sources
have indicated Carey has committed suicide. Timeshift (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not very useful unless we know what those sources are. -- Chuq (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not at liberty to say who the reliable source is, but I thought i'd give a heads up. There'll be news articles soon enough. Timeshift (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Until theres a verifiable source, it hasn't happened (so far as the article is concerned). -- Chuq (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- True enough. If true wikipedia is truly a new "information democracy", the people's news. If not true, then wikipedia is being evilly abused.ROxBo (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, i'm not at liberty to give my source, but it's true. Obviously as there are no news articles yet on it, a fact tag has been placed. Why remove it when it will be shortly re-written and expanded with news article citations? Timeshift (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:V. Would it be right for me to add "Unconfirmed reports state that Carey has had sex-change surgery {{fact}}" and expect it to stay there "until the news reports happen" ? -- Chuq (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Stubborn as a mule. Oh well, when it's all added with citations at least I can look back and smile. Timeshift (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are going to look back and smile over someone committing suicide?Crickettragic (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Stubborn as a mule. Oh well, when it's all added with citations at least I can look back and smile. Timeshift (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:V. Would it be right for me to add "Unconfirmed reports state that Carey has had sex-change surgery {{fact}}" and expect it to stay there "until the news reports happen" ? -- Chuq (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, i'm not at liberty to give my source, but it's true. Obviously as there are no news articles yet on it, a fact tag has been placed. Why remove it when it will be shortly re-written and expanded with news article citations? Timeshift (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- True enough. If true wikipedia is truly a new "information democracy", the people's news. If not true, then wikipedia is being evilly abused.ROxBo (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Until theres a verifiable source, it hasn't happened (so far as the article is concerned). -- Chuq (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not at liberty to say who the reliable source is, but I thought i'd give a heads up. There'll be news articles soon enough. Timeshift (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I heard this rumour too a few hours ago Cloudbusting (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was hearing it constantly on plenty of forums last night as well. Lots of people posted "It's now confirmed" followed by links to fake news articles. I'm not sure why Timeshift is so smug about what amounts to vandalism of the article - whether it is announced or not, it still shouldn't be added unsourced. People here seem to have a strange obsession with having to be the first at updating something, even if it might not be true. Does anyone remember last year when a wrestler was announced dead, and then it was found the fact had been on Wikipedia for about 12 hours before it hit the news? It just caused a huge media stir that wasn't needed, with implications that the Wikipedia editor was involved in the death. Anyway, it's been about 10 hours now and still no news... -- Chuq (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- yep, if it was true we would have confirmation by now. Can't keep something like this under wraps for this longCloudbusting (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-