Talk:Graham Spiers

Inclusion
The inclusion has been removed on the grounds; this article is about Spiers, not about Rangers or Celtic. There is no reason to highlight one of the subjects spiers writes about in his column over another. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As with the material you are trying to censor from various other articles, you might find a better reason for its exclusion than naked POV. Again this material meets WP:V and, given it receives significant coverage in the WP:RSs, WP:N.


 * If you have genuine concerns about WP:UNDUE, might I suggest you break with usual practice, conduct some research and insert sources of your own. Since any fair and encylcopaedic account of Spiers' career will make reference to 1) his lifelong support for Rangers 2) his criticism of Rangers' current leadership 3) his criticism of recidivist elements of the club's supporter base. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What usual practice are you talking about? I object to your inclusion, just as another user objected to a very similar inclusion in the past.  By all means go through the relevant dispute resolution process, per BRD. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand by now from all your edit warring that you "object" to certain material. My point is that - in order to reach consensus - it would be helpful to know precisely on what grounds you object. Or, why you think that your objection should override WP:V, WP:N etc. thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That cherry picked inclusion is being used to further claims about third parties from a self published source. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What, his chapter in It's Rangers For Me? As far as I'm aware Graham doesn't publish The Times either. WP:N means it is likely to be his work on Celtic and Rangers which comes under consideration here, rather than, say, Forfar Athletic. The article won't remain a two-para stub forever so if I were you I'd get used to the idea. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you go through the relevant dispute resolution procedure. I am still in disagreement with this inclusion, mainly from what an admin has said about it in the past.  So if you want to take it further then do so.  Monkeymanman (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are being disingenuous (again) trying to claim consensus from the previous removal. Obviously that removal took no account of the chapter in It's Rangers for me? which is clearly notable in and of itself. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat bemused as to the reason why this material is in dispute. As this article concerns a journalist and columnist it would seem appropriate to make mention of his writings and opinions. As Spiers is a sports journalist who is a fan of Rangers and has written two books about or related to the club, it would seem pertinent to include mention of how he feels about the club. Mention of the writings in question does not mean the highlighting of one issue over another, it is simply including something which is notable. Expand the article to cover other issues he has covered by all means but don't exclude one because the others haven't been covered, yet.


 * The mention of "cherry picked inclusion...about third parties from a self published source" has me at a loss as none of the references in that paragraph are from self published sources and inclusions from them would appear to be accurately reflected the article.


 * The disputed section is about the writings and attitudes of the subject of the article, in relation to Rangers (and to a lesser extent Celtic), but about Spiers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ...though I think that saying "Spiers characterised his career" with the quote that has jsut been added is not warranted. The quote is worthy of inclusion but it only characterises his attitude to this issue, not his whole career. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable enough analysis. I might argue that as a Scottish football writer his career effectively is Celtic and Rangers issues. That's with due respect to the Hibernians and Cowdenbeaths etc. As ever I'm happy to go with consensus but - like you - I don't understand the objection in this particular case. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags
What exactly is under dispute here? That he is a Rangers supporter; or that he wrote the chapter in the book? I don't even see this as contentious - is the article supposed to ignore his writings on the subject? 90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * does the citation say what you have said, and does this merit a place in his biography.Monkeymanman (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and yes. What makes you think otherwise? 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have an edit history of taking sources out of context and misquoting sources. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether this is true or not, each edit edit must be judged on it's own merits. Do you have specific grounds for objecting to the edits from today, or indeed to the disputed ones from a few days ago? I think they are balanced and worthy of inclusion, apart form the one proviso above which I have already tackled.

I'm sure it's not your intention but you can't just object to a user's edits on principle because you regard them as having "form". It'd be alright to check them out on principle but you must have good grounds for making objections. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The more you say it doesn't make it true. Please try to focus on the content at issue, thanks. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mutt, the dispute was not with what has been added today, it was with selective quotes from the past being dragged up to degrade a third party. I am quite happy the way the article is with the latest additions and think they sit well. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's good if we're all happy with the article in its current state. Can all 3 tags go from the top of the article now or are there any further objections? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i think there was one already there for some time, but i will remove the tags if the article is stable? Monkeymanman (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * seeing as the same contested material is now being re-added, i have replaced one of the tags. A quote from the man himself about him being a rangers supporter is different to selective quotes from his column to further the position of a third party. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're back where we were before. I thought this material was no longer contested. Ditto everything I've said about it above about why it would appear kosher to me and ditto can you clarify specifically what your objections to it are? What is selective about it? Can you spell out what you mean by the cryptic phrase to further the position of a third party? Who is this third party? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * cherry picking negative statements from this reporters column does not seem entirely appropriate. He must have made thousands of statements over the years about football, some negative, some not.    A statement from spiers himself regarding his background to being a supporter of Rangers is different, and thats why i agreed to that inclusion and felt that sat well.  These selective quotes are only trying to degrade one set of supporters or club. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How can this be cherry-picking unless he has also made positive statements on this matter, i.e. applauding Rangers fans behaviour and attitiudes in regard to racism, sectarianism etc.. Has he? This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.

If he said the things which you object to, particularly as they are quoted in reputable publications, they are surely appropriate in the article.

Once again, please explain your references to furthering the position of a third party - who are they and what do you mean? Can you spell it out plainly or I won't know what you are driving at and can't take it on board or respond.

To attribute motives to the inclusion of these quotes and citations will only stand up if you can demonstrate that they are being misrepresented. Spiers is citably criticising an element of the supporters of a club, which furthermore he continues to support. Whether he is justified in this criticism or not he is demonstrably making it, so it is worthy of inclusion. If you feel there is insufficient weight of coverage of his writings on other topics in relation to this one, add them to the article, don't remove existing valid content. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've raised this at WikiProject Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotation
I am hesitant over the main quotation and the content regarding Rangers. He is clearly critical of the club; however the quote seems pure OR in that the source for it is his own writing. Ideally it would be nice to have a source that said Spiers has been critical (and pointing to some examples). The same issue applies to the remainder of the section. ''piers has been a prominent critic of the club's leadership and supporters. He has highlighted many incidents of racism and sectarianism.'' (for example) is completely unsourced and possibly OR. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking quotations of Spiers' to further a position (i.e. attack Rangers) is lacking neutrality. I think, if one took a neutral overview of his writing, one would rightly conclude he is critical of a element in the Rangers support. But the point certainly doesn't need to be laboured. The way the article is currently written, that aspect of his writing is given undue weight. In fact, in an article that is essentially a stub and is likely to remain that way, we probably shouldn't be quoting him at all. 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually most of that section is OR, because none of it seems to be citations from third parties to show that this is his position. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)