Talk:Tyrell Robinson

Career v. Crime
GiantSnowman wrote: "respectfully disagree. Having one section after the other means we have a chronological biography. His career ended because of crime. The sections used to be merged"

At issue here is that the crime is not part of his career. Certainly it shortened the career. But crime with this much detail is probably appropriate for a new Personal Life section. People seeking to understand the subject's football contributions would sensibly look at his Career. Currently we have almost half of his career specifying details of his crime. How can that be a balanced presentation of 5 years of professional engagement? I also suspect the details of his removal, questioning, suspension, arrest, confirmation of suspension, releasing from employment, court adjournment, hearing status (remote), followup appearance request, and guilty plea can be condensed into about two sentences rather than eight. This is an encyclopedia, rather than a breathless account of twists and turns tangential to the noteworthy traits of this athlete's professional career. WP:UNDUE comes to my mind. I bet a lot of people follow such details (I myself like a podcast called Crime in Sports), but this coverage is far too specific. If you won't isolate it, perhaps you would condense it. Mcfnord (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If we stick with your version, then the career section comes to an abrupt end, and the criminal conviction section (which is significant) is well after the stats table etc. which are usually at the bottom of a footballer article. It makes no sense. GiantSnowman 08:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect the details of his removal, questioning, suspension, arrest, confirmation of suspension, releasing from employment, court adjournment, hearing status (remote), followup appearance request, and guilty plea can be condensed into about two sentences rather than eight. If you insist it's part of his career, then it's not half of it. Just because you reverted me doesn't mean I'm solely advocating for what I wrote then. But you won't discuss what you've written now? Mcfnord (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pray tell how you would condense that into 2 sentences without losing anything? GiantSnowman 09:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are minutae important here? I pray you tell me that. This is not a comprehensive account. It isn't Mr. Tyrell's unauthorized biography. This is the encyclopedia. So perhaps we say: On 15 April 2018, prior to a Carabao Cup game, Robinson was removed from the team and questioned by police about a sexual assault. The next day, he was suspended by the club. In February 2020, he was sacked by Bradford City due to gross misconduct, after police announced charges against him. On 16 June 2020, he pleaded guilty to sex offences involving a 14-year-old girl. Our goal here is to get past the twists and turns, and summarize what happened. I take that to mean (a) changes to his status as a professional athlete, and (b) legal outcomes and the most significant legal milestones, especially when they're connected to the sports career. I pray to the God of Encyclopedias that 4 sentences might meet with your approval. Mcfnord (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no minutae. You are simply trying to remove some details which were specifically covered by reliable sources. Why? GiantSnowman 10:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we include every detail covered by reliable sources? Not at all. I often throw out details leading up to a legal outcome, precisely because this isn't comprehensive coverage. It's encyclopedic coverage. The neutral press reports a lot of twists and turns, but the encyclopedia reports the ultimate outcome. Let's take the weakest detail you're defending: "On 28 September the club confirmed that Robinson remained suspended." True. But important? It's rather obvious he's suspended: he was suspended from August 16th 2018 until February 24th of 2020. Why report that, yep, the club confirmed he was still suspended on 28 September (2019)? The sentence adds zero to the understanding. We had to let events play out to see that, but now we can go back and ask ourselves which details presented here are key to understanding what happened. Is this an encyclopedia or a log? Do you never, ever remove details covered by reliable sources? Should every detail reported by a reliable source appear on Wikipedia? You don't think minutiae exists, so you probably do think every detail reported by a reliable source should appear on this website. Am I understanding your view? Mcfnord (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the club had provided no update and there were significant questions; enough to merit coverage in the media, coverage we should replicate. It is a short section, it is not overdetailed, it is fine. You're the only one raising concenrns, ask yourself why that is. GiantSnowman 06:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I examined your activities and learned you sometimes advocate for removing articles. That's interesting. So you'll delete a whole page, but won't delete a useless sentence on a page? I believe the single sentence that provides the update on the status is totally unhelpful since we know the subject was suspended until the subject was sacked. A paper covered the confirmation of the suspension and covering that made sense here until we got the start and end dates of the suspension, which is all we should cover here. What do you wish to show by including the confirmation? That confirmation of suspension occurs? Mentioning September 28th is totally unimportant now that we know he was sacked on February 24th. Including it just makes reader understanding harder. Why does including September 28th matter to you? Mcfnord (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given your bizarre "I examined your activities" comment there is clearly little point in engaging with you any further. GiantSnowman 08:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't want to collaborate? Mcfnord (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not when you're continuing to comment in bad faith / seeking to remove non-contentious content that has been in the article (unchallenged!) since September 2018. GiantSnowman 09:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I dispute both your characterization of my motives and your defense of this inclusion, but since you've withdrawn from collaboration, I will carry on. Much of the content is both accurate and extraneous. Removing details is a great way to improve clarity about what happened. I do hope we can collaborate in the future. Mcfnord (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not how it works. Reverted. GiantSnowman 09:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How does it work? I've requested a third opinion, and added a link in the Noticeboard. You said you won't collaborate, but you still want to revert. Are you going to violate 3RR? What do you suggest I do to bring our conflict to an appropriate resolution? You claim to have a monopoly on both good faith and procedural awareness, so I look to your leadership about the next steps. Mcfnord (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Why on earth did you think removing that content, when you knew I opposed removal, was sensible? GiantSnowman 09:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I elided that sentence because it's so clearly unhelpful. Great test case! How can I seek consensus when you see "little point in engaging with" me? BRD is an optional method. Are you saying you're practicing it now? I don't think you are. I think RfC is probably a more necessary next step. We disagree, and should seek outside opinions, as I've done twice so far. Mcfnord (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An RFC to seek consensus to remove 67 non-contentious characters from an article? Jeez. Why do they offend you so? Why is it "clearly unhelpful"? It's a short sentence that is directly cited. PS If I had continued to engage with you (which I have actually done) I would still not have changed my mind, so we would not have consensus for removal either way. I have sought outside help on this article numerous times, it has been reviewed by numerous editors, the only person who has an issue with this sentence is you. GiantSnowman 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Arriving here from WP:3O, just to make sure that I have the the issue totally clear, am I correct in supposing that one of you would like to include the sentence "On 28 September the club confirmed that Robinson remained suspended.". And that one of you wouldn't? May I further inquire of both of you whether one more opinion that disagrees with your personal view would persuade you to accept a minimal 2 vs 1 "consensus", and move on to more profitable endeavours? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If your view is that the sentence should remain, then of course ;) GiantSnowman 13:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. And if my view should be the opposite? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would respect the consensus, even if I disagreed. GiantSnowman 14:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I welcome a third opinion, but am seeking consensus. I have written technical content as my sole profession for 20 years, and am committed to learning why the sentence is or is not ideal here. Please educate me! Mcfnord (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? We are building an encyclopaedia, which has as much information as possible. We do that by using reliable sources. A reliable source obviously thought that the information in the sentence was worthy of an article, and so that is why I think we should include it. Why do you want to remove it? GiantSnowman 08:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that the sentence at immediate issue is sourced, is relevant, and can certainly be included if there is a consensus to do so. In my judgement, having never heard of the article's subject before, the sentence is at best redundant. The story flows better without it. I suggest removing it and have boldly done so. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, that does not help at all. The fact you have never heard of the subject means, respectfully, you cannot judge the situation accurately. Why is it redundant, given it is, as you state, "sourced [and] relevant"? GiantSnowman 09:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't progress the present story of Tyrell Robinson at all. Any reader of the present version would suppose that his suspension continued until his sacking. Ongoing suspension was relevant at the time of publication - it had been over a year since his suspension and people who follow these matters might have wanted to know how matters stood - but it doesn't help an encyclopedic article now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it was 6 weeks after suspension, and the point of the article was that the club changed manager in the interim and the manager hadn't spoken to the player. That is worth mentioning! GiantSnowman 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it isn't. You are right about the timing, sorry. But the point remains, it's no longer something that's useful in an encyclopedia article. You may wish to develop a consensus for your point of view. Or you might like to drop the stick. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not knowing a subject well can give us useful outsider appraisals, which are necessarily more neutral. If we're uninformed in some way, I trust you'll explain the nuances as we collaborate. I admire your commitment to football articles on Wikipedia. I intend to improve this entry pertaining to a legal matter, as is my gnome task. Legal matters that pertain to criminal offenses are often handled here with a different standard of inclusion, especially when the matter has been resolved. Arguably here, while the sequence of events represented here in factual statements made for dramatic theater at the time, I doubt many of those specifics rise to the level of noteworthy. And the structure seems all wrong: His career ended due to sex offenses with a child. The drama of when he was removed from the team, or how that led to a suspension... history will remember the athlete whose career ended due to a serious crime. I also think the length of this account violates WP:UNDUE. There are quite a few reasons why passages that are well-sourced don't quite merit coverage in the encyclopedia. Previously you claimed we are following WP:BRD. In the spirit of adherence to that collaboration method, I will perform a number of eliding improvements to this article as separate changes. You should be able to revert my most unnerving changes, in a good-faith attempt to represent events surrounding the end of this athlete's employment with this club. Should I strongly disagree, we can again enlist a third party again. Of course, WP:BRD can't replace collaboration toward seeking an actual consensus. Mcfnord (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Court minutae is not noteworthy, while pleadings and verdicts are
GiantSnowman has asserted that he and I are collaborating under WP:BRD, a voluntary process I agree to try.

Without providing thoughtful commentary (just saying 'rv - fine as it is'), GiantSnowman has reverted a number of changes I made to the article. Why such a terse and non-specific rationale? Why such sweeping reverts? Is that how WP:BRD works best? I know GiantSnowman holds the view that the content was fine (even perfect) before my changes appeared... but he also knows I disagree. How can collaboration under WP:BRD hinge on personal preference like this, with such sweeping reverts as this? Is GiantSnowman really focusing on his most pressing concerns?

WP:BRD kind of implies I zero in on the most valuable changes. Happy to proceed that way. Let's examine this revision. In this revision, we skip past the zigs and zags of a normal court process, which does involve appearing remotely, or adjourning and resuming, and we skip to the critical fact: The subject pled guilty. While the trivia about court process is true, it is also unhelpful and distracting. GiantSnowman has asserted that the encyclopedia should include all well-sourced facts, but I must disagree. Ultimately I think we all must persuade GiantSnowman that his unusual claim about encyclopedia inclusion is mistaken. A great many true and well-sourced facts don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. A third editor who weighted in on our last disagreement agreed not all well-sourced facts belong in the encyclopedia.

GiantSnowman knows what he likes, but he doesn't explain why. I am trying to explain why I think my changes yield more valuable encyclopedia prose than the content he calls "fine". Please examine, consider, and share your views with my thanks.
 * Trying some pings: GiantSnowman, Richard Keatinge Mcfnord (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed some wording and then simply moved the supporting references further down the article, making no sense. GiantSnowman 10:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have done a little research, not on the gentleman in question, but on the style of writing that seems to be accepted in Wikipedia on footballer etc. BLPs. Not something that I'd previously taken any interest in. I have the impression that what I'd regard as trivial details of no long-term interest are widely written into Wikipedia articles about spectator sports. I presume - indeed I have come across at least one definite comment - that people who watch, write about, read about, spectator sports enjoy that sort of writing. On that basis I wouldn't bother to argue against the inclusion of minimal details about football, and that would include the fact that he was removed from a game ten minutes before it started. But the administrative interim detail of court cases, I suggest, is not something that either a footy fan, or the general reader, would care about. I propose to revert to Mcfnord's version. Giant Snowman, can I ask you to take a step back and rethink this specific issue? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What purpose does removing the information but moving the sources into an awkward position serve? GiantSnowman 16:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that Mcfnord left them there as an olive branch to you, because you felt that they were important. I can't think of any other reason for keeping them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just did another revision where I saved the existing sources. Yes, I am respecting the article and your work when I retain sources. I think what we've done still kind of is BRD. (BTW I consider the passage perfect now, so my work here could be done!) Footballer Wikipedia might really love the crowdsourced minutae. I'm happy to amplify details like the ten-minute removal from the lockerroom! I am also committed to really clear presentation of legal details. In that arena, no, we don't cherish every true claim. Unclear prose about legal matters can easily become misleading and a violation of strict BLP rules. That hasn't been at issue with this article. It was just confusing and I think it's great now. Mcfnord (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the current change/version. GiantSnowman 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll take this page off my watchlist now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)