Jump to content

Talk:Ian Botham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories

[edit]

Does this article really need 13 categories? For example:

(No objections to Category:Wisden Cricketers of the Year or Category:Cricket writers and broadcasters, though). --ALoan (Talk) 13:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Desribing Botham as one of 'Englands best-ever cricketers' (whilst this may be true) is surely only the opinion of the author and hence should not be stipulated as fact. Paulo Fontaine 04:05, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

many great authorities on the game rate him as the greatest player of his generation, and one of the greatest English players of all-time. That should count for something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.45.71 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An all-rounder is both a batsman and a bowler; I don't see the terms being mutually exclusive. Though I do admit that (although I have retained these categorisations - along with the categorisation of "wicket-keeper", I'd be happy to remove them). Personally I find it interesting which major first-class sides a player played for. True, people are unlikely to search for Ian Botham under Queensland cricketers, but those looking for Queensland cricketers may find it interesting that Ian Botham played a (somewhat ill-fated) season for them. I think it's interesting to have an English cricketer captains category - it would be strange to have an English test cricketers other than test captains category, and so any test captain appears in both. Currently "English cricket captains" only includes those who have captained at least one test - though I take your point that a separate ODI captains category may be interesting, jguk 21:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the categories should stay. You couldn't leave 300-and-odd-wicket Botham off a list of English Bowlers becasue he batted too well. Categories are a way into an article as much as a way out of them, and part of the appeal of wiki is meandering where you didn't intend to go. Epeeist smudge 13:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Pic

[edit]

Why's there no mention of the time he accidentally tweeted a pic of his own cock?

penis picture

[edit]

Why's there no mention of the time he accidentally tweeted a pic of his own cock?

Family history

[edit]

Shouldn't this statement quote a source? Should it be deleted without one?

From an early age, he always wanted his own way in a devoutly, almost religious, single-minded fashion. When informed that Ian wanted to be a sportsman, the careers master at his school said to him 'Fine, everyone wants to play sport, but what are you really going to do?

MichaelMaggs 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Michael[reply]

That is a fairly famous quote and one I've heard before (or at least words to that effect) on television. I'll find a source on it as i'm sure it will have found its way to print somehwere. --LiamE 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a good look around and not tracked it down yet. Has any got Ian's autobiography to hand to see if its in there? --LiamE 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't the second introductory paragraph a little bit over the top? I respect this person as one of the best cricketers of his time, but the tone of the language there does not really strike me as something I would expect from an encyclopedia. --Kinetek

I believe the almost legendary effect that Geoffrey Hallett had on Botham's early life should be in this section. I know it's been in before, but it as quickly deleted. It should be in permanentely.

Additional nickname

[edit]

Another nickname - in the England team - for Ian Botham was "Guy the Gorilla". It came, apparently, from a Christmas Party down under, when he dressed up in a gorilla suit.

It gave rise to Geoffrey Boycott's notorious "order" to skipper Mike Brearley in 1981: "Put the gorilla on at the other end!" - which worked: 3 wickets for 1 run ... and another win.

81.102.133.198 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments on opposition in 1981

[edit]

I've removed/rewritten to sentences downplaying Botham's achievements in 1981. "the 1981 Australian team had been weakened by the effects of the Packer affair" -- No, Packer (WSC) cricket had ended 2 years before and all players (except Greg Chappell) were available. If the team was weak, it wasn't due to WSC cricket. "The 1981 Australian team was not highly rated and many regard it as the worst team Australia has ever produced" - who are those "many"? I don't believe them. Australia in the early 80s was pretty strong and even drew a series with the Windies the next summer. The team was much weaker in the mid 80s. Rocksong 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be mentioned that Beefy is a role model and inspiration to David Brent ?Plutonium27 13:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is of sufficiently high importance in the broader context of Botham's life ROxBo 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should have been made clear that Imran Khan's accusation of racism was made in the context of a heated quarrel about ball tampering and was never substantiated.

- Meltingpot

62.137.152.247 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother in law remark: is this not in the article anywhere ? It was also used as a sledge against him in the 1992 world cup final ? worth metioning ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.18 (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This made no sense, and had nothing to do with IT Botham.


Test Centuries and 5 Wicket Hauls

[edit]

I have added a table and a few comments in regards to his records in this area--Philipjelley (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All-time rankings

[edit]

"[I]n the top 5 in the history of the game" - is that the top 5 all-rounders? Apologies for clueless query - but might be good to clarify. Regards,Notreallydavid (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wine and dogs trivia

[edit]

User:‎Nbagigafreak added some content about Botham naming his dogs after grape varieties, and having a range of wines named after him. The sources are a YouTube video and an ad for the wine. To me, this is undue trivia. I reverted with just such a comment. User:‎Nbagigafreak has just restored the words, with no Edit summary or other communication. I don't want an edit war, and won't revert, but let it be recorded that I don't think this content improves the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you discuss it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section rewrite

[edit]

I changed this section around. In some respects linking the two events separated by 10 years to the word "courted" was never going to stand. Also we are talking about libel actions which is more civil law (not an expert so don't quote me on that) or if at all falling into criminal law at least is only concerned with the "civil" behavior of those involved.

The particular court cases should have dates, duration, judgement, judge's name, etc. This needs to be in full. In the sole libel action for ball tampering - the balls were presented to the jury and this needs to be included to show that justice is about detail no matter how small. I'm being serious.

If you disagree with my edits then revert to previous edit.

Sluffs (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help others find counter-claims for the controversy section.

I just did the Viv Richards early career section using his mid-career bio written with David Foot published in 1979. Richards mentions visiting Ian Botham's parents a few times while they shared a flat and the night they got ejected from a nightclub as well as other social and playing memories - all of which occurred around 1974 onwards. I think its important to mention this since the controversy section may give a one sided impression of Botham without any history especially in relationship to the Khan vs Botham and Lamb court case. Root articles in details drawn from the widest sources to get a balanced view IMO.

Sluffs (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've removed some duplicated blue links. I can see why previous editors may have thought that the length of the article meant that it may be better to have multiple blue links for readers to look up words. However it is already quite a colorful article with a large number of blue links. If you really think its necessary to link to Imran Khan and the England Cricket Team multiple times then restore the links but I think its better to encourage readers to stay and finish the article from top to bottom - which brings me onto the personal section which is below a big table of matches played. If you are reading a paper book cricket biography the statistics tables are normally at the back in an appendix. This is a biography with stats so I would like to suggest that the table be moved to the end of the text.

I think bios need to have the "life" bits - I know a lot of people who do the hero bit like to think their heroes descended from some higher plane fully formed with their heroic talents already completely "in the bag" but I think the struggle and battles of an early career and the disappointments and victories makes for an interesting biography.

Take for example the Viv Richards early career section that I've just done. I mention his job as assistant groundsmen at Lansdown C.C. in Bath and gave the impression it was to help support him financially (which it was) but I left out the fact that Richards actually had to do the work - he really did work - Viv Richards took the roller out and prepared the field all for £1 a week (a year later he was earning big money) - so hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. Keith Richards from the Rolling Stones mentions the first time he met Muddy Waters at Chess Studio - he looked up at a man painting a wall in overalls and lo and behold saw Muddy (I got this from an interview with Keith Richards in the book Blues Guitar published by Guitar Player Magazine). I hope I haven't overstepped the mark by pointing this out. Cheers.

Sluffs (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ian Botham/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citations... plange 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Botham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

[edit]

I see the article has been tagged for multiple issues. Would anyone like to try and improve the article objectively and introduce some additional citations? Jack | talk page 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made a start myself but this remains a very poor article indeed. Whoever did the main "work" was focused on the 1981 series and there have been several inputs by people who are fascinated by all the trivia about Ian Botham. Appalling. Someone needs to concentrate on his full career and get things into perspective as I've tried to do with all the POV crap that was there re the 1981 series. Jack | talk page 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started on this a while back, User:Harrias/Ian Botham, but it's not the sort of project I can really get back into fully at the moment, though I still hope to complete it. Harrias talk 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Harrias. Even though it's unfinished, your draft is infinitely better than the mess I found in the published article yesterday. One thing you need to watch out for, though, is the dead or spurious citation links. I won't use your content for anything I do here, other than for checking and correction of minor errors where applicable, because it's your work and you must take the credit. My main concern for the moment is the sourcing but the biggest issue the article has is the lack of overall career coverage. I'll do what I can to remove any dubious content and/or citations and I'll try to put some kind of career detail in, even if only in summary form. Thanks for letting me see your draft and good luck with it when you have time to complete it. Jack | talk page 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Harrias, I've had a go at this and I've removed all the dead and dubious citation links. I'd advise you in your version to limit yourself to the ones now in the article as they are all valid. What would be good, given that you obviously have the Doust and Murphy books, would be if you could fill in the early life and career development sections up to 1974. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 16:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking of Twitter Account

[edit]

The hacking of the subjects twitter account was covered by many reliable sources. What are the reasons this shouldn't be on the page? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a tabloid. What you've been adding is also not supported by the sources. Neither is the claim that his account was compromised. Even if it were, this is tabloid fodder. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting opinion. Which part is not supported by the sources and what's the accepted wikipedia definition of "tabloid fodder"? See WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." 80.47.137.128 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the wikilawyering going on here. But this is not noteworthy or relevant, i.e., it's tabloid fodder. Your sourcess are of generally very low quality. You've also misrepresented them. See also WP:VNOTSUFF: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOTSUFF also states " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And on Wikipedia consensus is built on the strength of arguments in order to prevent Stonewalling. What are your arguments that it shouldn't be included other than the appeal to the nebulous and undefined term of "tabloid fodder"? You say the sources are of "very low quality" but they appear in the list of perennial sources so I reject that argument. Your claim that I'm misrepresenting the sources similarly makes no sense as the first line of the Telegraph article used as a source is "Sir Ian Botham says his Twitter account was hacked by 'idiots' today after a picture of a penis was published on his timeline."
Regarding accusations of wikilawyering, please see the "Use and misuse" section of the page which states "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good-faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term." Thank you 80.47.137.128 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you feel differently, WP:RFC is thataway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would query whether this is simply tabloid fodder. There are references to the incident in The Guardian (source - from 2016, two years after the "hacking"), Sydney Morning Herald (source), Fox Sports Australia (source) and Canberra Times (source), for example. As well as Wisden online (source) and at least one book.
On balance, I'd argue this is substantial coverage. Given his fame and wider societal role, I'd argue that there's a case for the inclusion of a short paragraph dealing with the incident. I'd be interested in what others have to add. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blue Square Thing. Regarding your use of the term "tabloid fodder" is this an official Wikipedia term? I've had a look at the guidelines and I can't find anything regarding tabloids that fits this situation, and despite my requests no other editor will point me towards the guidelines I assume they're referencing when they use this term.80.47.137.128 (talk)
No, it's not official at all. Barely anything is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloid garbage. And it's not about Botham. It's about a hacker. I submit that if it hadn't involved a penis (Whose penis?), nobody would be interested. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources I've found are tabloid though. And it was, so it is. Having looked back in the article history, this incident was in the article in 2017. Along with reports of his, well reported, extra-marital affair and other examples of Botham's behaviour. It looks awfully like it's been sanitised at some point - which seems, well, wrong. Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...this incident was in the article in 2017." Which simply tells that on an earlier occasion wise editors decided it didn't belong. Even major, respected news sources post stories about rescued kittens and puppies. It doesn't make those stories notable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'd argue that a now banned serial sock master someone sanitised Botham's reputation by removing a number of controversies from the article - not just this. Things which allow readers to form a balanced judgement wrt Botham's long-term reputation. But there you go. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Don't mix up notable with noteworthy. This is neither of those anyway. Imagine someone a century from now reading this article. Would they really give a shit about this? (hint: no, they wouldn't). I had never heard of this guy a week ago, and I can tell you that if I wanted to learn about him, this wouldn't help. It gives no insight into Botham as a person or as an athlete (etc). It's merely tabloid fodder. Just because some random opinion piece from a couple years later managed to shoehorn one sentence in about this in a piece about something else doesn't make this enduring coverage. There's also no evidence about what exactly happened, so all we can say is something like "Botham claimed his account was 'hacked'", making this even less worthy of inclusion. Imagine if it were a cake recipe that got sent out instead, still being covered in the press. Do you think there'd be such a desire to include it? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See, the thing is that I had heard of this guy. In fact, he's one of the most significant cricketers of his generation in the world and has been influential in a number of ways in the UK. And we have an article that doesn't provide a particularly rounded view of his character. It's almost like someone from his office came along and decided that they'd remove anything critical about him - anything which suggests that his character is in any way flawed: so we have a rather one-sided account of his encounter with Chris Packham (significant media coverage of the nastiness of that and the way that it displays aspects of his character, as well), no mention of his affair etc...; but we do know that his daughter owns a wine bar. How fluffy.
We're not going to get anywhere with this. I concede - Wisden and the Telegraph, those bastions of tabloidism, were wrong; this isn't notable and Ian Botham is a saint. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did Wisden publish a picture of Botham's penis? Look. The heading here is Hacking of Twitter Account. You have digressed massively. HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally can't say whether Wisden is a reliable source or not as I'm not familiar with it, but Blue Square Thing did link to an article by them titled "The Ten: Indecent exposures" which contains the paragraph "Ian Botham has never been known to shy away from the limelight, but a little bit too much was on show in August when a tweet from his Twitter account displayed a photo of a penis with an accompanying message asking recipients to tell him what they were thinking. Botham had precedent for showing off his ‘old man’, writing in his autobiography how he unzipped his trousers when bowling to David Boon to try and put him off . Like his playing days, Botham went on the offensive after this snap, disputing the assertion that he posted the image, and putting it down to his account having been hacked." so clearly it did cover the incident we're discussing 80.47.137.128 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't complicated. The incident in question isn't about Botham and says absolutely nothing about Botham. Your complaints about sanitizing of the article are irrelevant here. This isn't worthy of inclusion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not applicable here as that is for determining whether something warrants it's own article. Before I put in a request for comment can I just confirm that nobody has any objections to the addition that are based on existing wikipedia guidelines? If anyone does has objections that are based on existing guidelines can they say which guidelines they are and quote the relevant parts. Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can I just confirm that nobody has any objections to the addition that are based on existing wikipedia guidelines?

No you cannot.

If anyone does has objections that are based on existing guidelines can they say which guidelines they are and quote the relevant parts.

No, read the discussion. I'm tired of making the same points over and over. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Deacon Vorbis. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So neither of you have an actual argument. Reverting 80.47.139.54 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, the argument for it being included is numerous sources and the argument against is 2 editors going "nuh uh" and "I disagree"? Good to see the spirit of Wikipedia lives on 80.47.129.8 (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting what those you disagree with have written is never going to be helpful HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an accurate representation of what you believe their arguments were. 81.179.67.22 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: Should we add a line about the subject of the article's twitter account being hacked?

[edit]

Should the "Personal Life" section contain a mention of the subject's twitter account being hacked? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background (twitter)

[edit]

I am filing an RfC for this dispute as the discussion has clearly reached an impasse. My position is that this was widely covered by numerous reliable sources so it should be included:

  • Huffington Post (source)
  • The Telegraph (source)
  • Buzzfeed (source)
  • The Guardian (source)
  • Sydney Morning Herald (source)
  • Fox Sports Australia (source)
  • Canberra Times (source)
  • Wisden online (source)
  • Cricketing Allsorts: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (and The Downright Weird) (book) (source)

The objections to this are that it's "tabloid fodder", the person proposing the addition is "wikilawyering", that the addition "wouldn't help people learn about the subject" and that the sources "[say] absolutely nothing about Botham", are of "generally low quality" and are being "misrepresented". 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, see the previous section for more background information, including what I actually said, rather than this mischaracterization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (twitter)

[edit]
  • No. For one thing, none of the sources confirm any compromise of his account, merely that this is what he claimed. Furthermore, the text that was being added claimed the picture was of Botham's...erm...bits, which is a gross BLP violation given that none of the sources said this. And even assuming for the sake of argument that his account actually was compromised, so what? Why is a compromise of one's Twitter account and subsequent sending of a single pic of some naughty bits worthy of inclusion in a BLP? That it was picked up and made the rounds on news sites says more about how society consumes "news" and about clicks driving reporting than it does about Botham himself. And make no mistake, it says nothing about Botham himself (except maybe that he should use better passwords...if that's even what happened, which we don't even know). As I said above, as someone who had never even heard of Botham a week (or so) ago, this would not offer any insight into Botham as a person or an athlete, etc. Even worse, imagine someone reading this a century from now wondering why this is here. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It is completely irrelevant to the article, did not receive lasting coverage, was mostly picked up by tabloids (and when not was just commentated on socially - the Guardian article was written by Victoria Coren Mitchell, who is great, but did not treat this like a serious matter), and had absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes WP:BLP states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". The numerous reliable sources documenting the incident show it is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented and therefore it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Additionally WP:NNC states "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." and WP:DUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". I think all of these guidelines should be taken into account here. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to mention of the dick pic, though I'd not object to mention of other, earlier incidents in his personal life per NPOV. I don't think either his account being hacked or him posting the picture is a major event in his life. Spike 'em (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) No 80.47... is missing the point of the quote ... noteworthy, relevant, and well documented.... It may be well documented, it's hardly noteworthy, and it's certainly not relevant. As i think Deacon Vorbis mentioned, we're writing an encyclopaedia for the ages, not a red-top for today. Does this picture, self-posted or hacked, help the reader to understand Botham? Nope, not at all; happy days, LindsayHello 19:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The hacking of his Twitter account is about an action by somebody else. It's not about Botham. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per the "No votes" above rejecting its inclusion. Idealigic (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Idealigic I agree with Snrub 80.47.129.8 (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Address of Lord Botham

[edit]

On this site it says that Lord Botham and his family live in Almeria, Spain. This is incorrect, we live in North Yorkshire, England. ````request edit[1]

Done (copied refs from Ravensworth). The mention of Almeria / golf is unsourced, so is this still valid? Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sarah Shield - Daughter of Lord Botham

Media career

[edit]

The section on Botham's media career is written in an extremely one-sided tone. Just take this as an example: "he imparts information and opinion objectively, giving praise where it is due and constructive criticism where that is due". This reads like something a PR person was paid to write.

I would suggest this section is rewritten by someone who has access to primary sources on the subject, or the biased parts are simply removed. Secondus2 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDIARY

[edit]

Are a couple of media engagements really worthy of mention in a biography? All that is being added is that they happened with no context as to why they are in important, or if anything major was revealed in them. Spike 'em (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, imdb is not seen as a reliable source... Spike 'em (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few points which might help explain why I reverted:
i/ IMDB is irrelevant. Wikipolicy, if you check, is that tv programmes are their own source (the analogy is with books: the content of Wuthering Heights is established by the book itself, not what someone writes about it)
ii/ Despite my obvious WP:COI (see my Talk page for why and how I deal with this) perhaps I might be allowed to comment on the nature, if not the quality, of this particular tv show. Then maybe other Wiki-editors can contribute observations if necessary. Unlike nearly every Botham - or indeed sports - interview, this was neither short, nor simply adulatory, nor restricted only to the interviewees thoughts on sport etc. Although this is not much of this interview to be found online at present, the style of the series, showing the testing experience of being interviewed by leading current affairs journalist Andrew Neil (and within the challenging nature of this particular format), is shown in a different episode which is online in total: see here.
iii/ Don't take this comment the wrong way but it was well-known at the time this interview was transmitted that Ian Botham was "not happy" with it. It is hard to tell from your edits whether you are someone who is encouraging it to disappear from here for reasons unrelated to the needs of this encyclopaedia. Suffice it to say, the programme was seen by very many people and is unlike any other Botham media experience, which would seem to make it notable, although it would be helpful to have the views of other editors.
Hope we can agree to keep the (very brief) mention in the article, which has been stable for over two years. AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there really is lasting significance to the interview then I'd happily include it, but all it says at the moment is that it happened. If you have any sources that say that the interview is significant then please add them, but at the moment I can't see a reason to include it, and given your connection to the company I think someone uninvolved should agree with its inclusion. I'm mainly concerned with WP:NOTDIARY whereby trivial mentions of unremarkable occurrences fill up biogs of sportspeople. I have the same view on his Today editorial: it tells us nothing new about him. Spike 'em (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see your point although I don't agree, at least with regard to Andrew Neil's interview. To move our conversation on I have just opened a RFC on a relevant page, see here.
I will certainly try and access our press file on this programme so as to try and add information in relation to notability, but this will probably take a few weeks (the files on this old programme are held in our out-of-town storage facility - which basically takes a day to get there and back - and my bosses will not authorise me to take a day off to go there unless we have another, professional ie nonWiki, reason to go).
Also, to correct one point I made earlier, here are two online links which between them provide just about the whole programme in question (a viewing might help editors, as might the comments after one of the YouTube posts):-
--- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqRP4VuFZo (a ten-minute extract)
--- https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2av3cEsqk8A (a longer but poor quality extract)
Hope this is helpful. AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A better link to the RFC is here. AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the interview is to be mentioned, then it should include (briefly) some of the following information: what questions Neil asked; what answers Botham gave; how the public attitude towards Botham changed after the interview; the ways in which Botham acted differently in the interview to his previously presented public persona. You might find such analysis in biographies of Botham, newspaper or magazine articles or so on, but any material created by Channel 4 would pose neutrality issues. I'm not too sure what a press file is, AnOpenMedium—is it snippings of media that reported on the programme? — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my comment about him guest editing the Radio 4 Topday programme. List of Today programme guest editors details those who have set the agenda for the programmes between Christmas and New Year for the last 20+ years. Few sports people have been invited, hence I think it is noteable. Ancienterracht (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reporting of this outside of the Today programme itself? All the text stated was that he did it, with nothing saying why it was significant or what he did in the role. Spike 'em (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Botham&oldid=1264593676"