Jump to content

Talk:Adam Selwood

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

Untitled

[edit]

Should AFL players who are "hosted" by a state league club be considered for the player category of that club?

Chris Judd for example played one game for East Perth before his stellar career took off. Does this put him in the East Perth Players category?

Well I'd say why not... He has pulled on the jumper and represented the club. Selwood has been a pretty handy player in his games with East Perth. With Judd it is perhaps more questionable as to whether he is an East Perth player but if we include someone like Selwood we should include Judd too. Then there are AFL players under this "host" arrangement who have become premiership players for their WAFL club, and surely they'd have to be categorised under their WAFL club? Willo kenobi 04:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 language charge

[edit]

Reference number 1 clearly states: "He (Selwood) also said the comments he made were: “What’s that shit on your arm? I was with a girl like that the other night," to which Headland replied, “No one talks about my family like that”. Hence, both players agreed that the comments were in relation to Headlands six year old daughter, whether Selwood knew the tattoo was of Headland's daughter or not. 124.178.141.71 (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true - it was a he said, she said incident. Selwood said a "girl like that" (reportedly), which is not the same as saying he was talking about Hedland's daughter. It is not a factual or encyclopedic interpretation of the event. To say they agreed on the incident is patently not correct.


To quote the article you referred to:

Headland claimed Selwood said “I f….. her last night”, prompting Headland to reply “That’s my six-year-old daughter”.

Headland claimed Selwood then said “She’s a slut and I f….. her last night”. Headland then physically responded by wrestling Selwood to the ground.

Selwood, who was in attendance at the tribunal hearing in Melbourne, denied swearing at Headland and said he didn’t know the tattoo was of his daughter Madisan.

He also said the comments he made were: “What’s that shit on your arm? I was with a girl like that the other night," to which Headland replied, “No one talks about my family like that”.


They obviously did not agree.

BartBart (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly did agree that the comments were in relation to the daughter, or at least the tattoo of the daughter. Hence the 'What's that shit on your arm? I was with a girl like that the other night," which you yourself have quoted. For example, if I say I have a car like yours, then I am referring to both your car and my car, not just my car. Selwood was talking about Headlands daughter as much as he was referring to the girl he was with. I also didn't say that they agreed on the incident, rather that they both agreed it was in relation to Headlands daughter.

Look BartBart, you are obviously a fan and want to defend your team, but wikipedia isn't about ensuring there isn't anything negative displayed about them. Try to be objective about this. 124.178.141.71 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with being a fan. Headland reckons Selwood said something and Selwood reckons he said something else. In no way are they in agreement. It is possible that Headland misunderstood what Selwood said? If it was about not wanting to see anything negative, then I would be deleting a lot from WCE related pages. Conversely, trying to make something sound like what it clearly is not is showing a lack of objectivity. BartBart (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see that they both stated that the comments were in relation to Headlands daughter, then there really isn't any more we can discuss. I note that you have not made any attempt to respond to my previous example, so I shall repeat it: If I say I have a car like yours, then I am referring to both cars, not just mine. Please justify your blanket refusal to accept the fact that both players statements were in relation to Headlands daughter. Certainly, Headland and Selwood had different stories to tell in regards to this, but the central point of both stories is in relation to Headlands daughter.

I reiterate that I did not state they agreed about the comments overall, other than the fact that they were in relation to Headlands daughter, which both players themselves stated in the referenced articles. The article at the moment does not give any sort of detail over the controversy, which I feel is important. Could you perhaps suggest an alternative that would provide some level of detail without offending your sensibilities or causing you to feel that the article is misleading? I suggest this only because at the moment the section in the article regarding the controversy doesn't sound like anything other than a simple scuffle between players which led to an unusual tribunal result, which it clearly wasn't. The case was an at times divisive media-driven furor, which deserves more detail in this article given Selwood's central role in the incident. 124.178.141.71 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - didn't see the first of your paragraphs that you used an example, but you patently said they agreed that both players that they were talking about Headland's daughter.

"The comments were agreed by both players to have been in relation to Headland's six year old daughter."

Firstly, the tattoo isn't in itself Headland's daughter - only a likeness. Secondly, the only thing that Selwood agreed to was that his comments were about someone who is like the tattoo depicting someone. Thirdly, for you to state that both players agreed I would think that there has to be implicit agreement, which there clearly was not. And lastly, I am being rational - so don't presume to say something is "offending your sensibilities". Emotion is playing no part in being accurate.

Your example does show the nux of the problem. In it the disagreement comes if you say the photo is of your car when as far as I am concerned it may or may not be. It could be a photo of the same colour and model of your car, particularly if the photo may not be a very good likeness (as most tattoos are). All I would be agreeing to would be that my car looks like the car in the photo.

If anything really needs to be added to what is already there, then it would be more accurate to say something like (possibly replacing part of what is there already by effectively expanding it):

"Selwood was cleared by the tribunal of abusive language towards Headland's daughter. The tribunal elected not to impose a sentence on Headland because they believed he was provoked after reasonably believing Selwood had verbally abused his daughter."

or even if you want to modify your sentence to something like:

"The comments were agreed by both players to have been in relation to Headland's tattoo that depicted his then six year old daughter. It could be argued that Selwood wouldn't have known who was depicted by the tattoo at the time."

(The second sentence was basically what the tribunal agreed to (or at least gave him the benefit of the doubt) in clearing Selwood on his charge). Either version dispassionately says what happened in the tribunal.

Does either of the above sound reasonable to you? BartBart (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I again repeat that Selwood's comments "I was with a girl like that the other night" isn't an example of Selwood being with a girl who is a 2D image printed on someone's arm, rather Selwood being with a girl who resembles the one in the image, which is therefore in relation to both girls. We've already been through this a couple of times so lets leave the pedantry aside, we clearly won't agree on that.

Well, the first one is incorrect - the charge Selwood was facing was abusive language towards Headland. The second one is much better but the second sentence would be more factual if changed to this: 'Selwood argued that he didn't know who was depicted by the tattoo at the time.' This is what his version of events supports. After all, 'it could be argued' a lot of things. 124.178.141.71 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Again you intentionally miss the point that the players didn't agree that the comments were in relation to Headland's daughter, which is what you were arguing originally. If you consider pendantry an insistance that what is entered is correct, then I am guilty. You accuse me of pendantry and yet totally write off the first suggestion when you could have taken one word (daughter) out.

"Selwood was cleared by the tribunal of abusive language towards Headland. The tribunal elected not to impose a sentence on Headland because they believed he was provoked after reasonably believing Selwood had verbally abused his daughter."

or the second modified slightly:

"The comments were agreed by both players to have been in relation to Headland's tattoo that depicted his then six year old daughter. Selwood argued that he didn't who was depicted by the tattoo at the time. The tribunal gave him the benefit of the doubt on this issue. The tribunal elected not to impose a sentence on Headland because they believed he was provoked after reasonably believing Selwood had verbally abused his daughter."

I will leave it up to you what you think more accurately depcits what happened since you are the one that wanted to make the change originally. As long as it doesn't try and rewrite history I don't mind.

BartBart (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Selwood. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adam Selwood. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Selwood&oldid=1202484995"