Talk:Ben Stokes

Role

Is ben Stokes a Batting All-rounder or a Bowling All-rounder???? Chieficon (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As per Talk:Moeen Ali, I don't see the need to qualify it, but for Stokes, I would leave out a batting / bowling qualifier completely: he is as close to a true all-rounder as you are likely to get at moment. Spike 'em (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

But as with anything, we go by what our sources tell us, not our personal opinion. Spike 'em (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

Change this: Benjamin Andrew Stokes (born 4 June 1991) is an English international cricketer and To this: Benjamin Andrew Stokes (born 4 June 1991) is an England international cricketer and

(Born in New Zealand he is a New Zealander, not English. (I do not have a problem whit him playing for England, his chosen country.) 165.225.81.44 (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have a source to show he is still a New Zealander? To play for England he needs a British passport and has lived in England long enough to be naturalised. Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

He is certainly still a New Zealander, as being born in NZ to an NZ parent automatically makes him an NZ citizen. It's probably more relevant to ask if there's a source for him being a British citizen? Do you have a source for your claim he needs an English passport?Newzild (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The ECB player regulations.Spike 'em (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

a Cricketer will only become qualified to play for England in a Test Match, One Day International Match or International T20 Match if: (a) they are a British citizen; and ... Spike 'em (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding this article to which editors may wish to contribute. The thread is Ben Stokes. Thank you. MIDI (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow a 2 hour discussion on this issue and 4 comments and a decision had been made. Seeing that the story about this is in a lot of mainstream press and no mention about it seems a strange choice to omit. Personally I think some mention of what happened to his half siblings should be mentioned and the obvious press surrounding the controversy of the article. There are press at the time of the incident so 30 years ago and that in itself was noteworthy at the time. Rovastar (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow a 2 hour discussion on this issue and 4 comments and a decision had been made. Seeing that the story about this is in a lot of mainstream press and no mention about it seems a strange choice to omit. Personally I think some mention of what happened to his half siblings should be mentioned and the obvious press surrounding the controversy of the article. There are press at the time of the incident so 30 years ago and that in itself was noteworthy at the time. Rovastar (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a biography of Ben Stokes and a family tragedy that happened several years before he was born has no place in this biography. I agree with the consensus at BLPN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Setting all controversy aside, I don't think this story is terribly relevant to Stokes' biography (nor that of his father). As the comment above said, it's about something that happened before he was born to people he never knew. While a line could be added, it would look jarringly out of place here.

Now, 'Stokes gets into high-profile dispute with The Sun over story about his family' is more of a story, and could be added if it develops into anything bigger like a legal case; but right now, it doesn't seem significant enough to note in a biography. Robofish (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I suppose my point is that this is currently a major-ish news story. IMHO borderline noteworthy for inclusion and for that it really we have to mention all the past issues.

I would expect that this would be included if he himself had talked about it. The sun were horrible for bringing it up (now) and Ben doesn't want to talk about it but I'm not sure that should be a reason not to include it.

I'm sure other pages here had things from others past (before they are born) that are included.

But lets see how it goes. Rovastar (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My edit was reverted by The Mirror Cracked on the basis that "there has been an RfC and a discussion on the talk page". Could someone please point me in the direction of the RFC please. I do not see any RFC of this page or indeed much of a consensus either way. I am obviously looking in the wrong place so could somebody please link to the RFC. This is only going to escalate over the upcoming days so editors need to see the arguments why this information is being excluded from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I mis-spoke. It was not an RfC, but rather this discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ben_Stokes. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

While I am more than happy to keep this information out of the article per WP:STATUSQUO, I do think it warrants a more substantial discussion than the one at the noticeboard. The discussion was closed three hours after it started by the OP. I would recommend re-opening it and letting it run for a couple of days. I think a lot more editors will want to have their say. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's correct to remove the information, as others said, the event reported is not about him, therefore it's irrelevant here, prolonging the discussion would not make it relevant. It's just sensationalist tabloid fodder out of place in this article. However, as mentioned by Robosfish, if the dispute with The Sun turns into something bigger, then it might be worth mentioning in his personal life section, otherwise keep it out. Hzh (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If we were including things that had only been dug up because of his fame then I would agree. However, this was a case that was widely reported at the time and the coverage preceded his fame, so I don't regard it as "sensationalist". It made the news because it was newsworthy. Regardless of the fact it happened before he was born, the death of somebody's siblings is an integral part of their life. We cover far more trivial and mundane things in these "early life" sections. Shutting down discussion is unhelpful. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the death of people he didn't know, essentially strangers. Siblings are often mentioned in biographical articles because they are people close to the subject and have some significance to them. The ones who died were not. However if you can show that their deaths are indeed integral to his life, then by all means show that this is true, but just note that simply being related to that person does not mean their death would be integral to the person in any way, no more than the death of any uncle, aunt or grandparent he never knew. If you think there are trivial and mundane things in other articles, feel free to delete them, that they are present in other articles is of no relevance to this one. Hzh (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Year range in infobox

@Andrewgprout and Blue Square Thing: Let's discuss this on here and aim to gain a community consensus rather than any more edit-warring. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. My position is clear: this is a franchise team and there is no expectation at all that he will play for the side in 2021. Given the turnover of players in the league, the potential for international call ups to block Stokes playing in the next IPL, the lack of clarity about when the next IPL will take place and Stokes' history, it seems silly indeed to say - present. I don't know quite how many -present's I've removed where the information has been years out of date - I do know that I've changed several this year, at least on of whom last played a match in 2010/11...

Unless a long-term contract exists, for franchise league we're much less likely to introduce long-term errors if we use an actual date range. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary "so lets make the assumption he'll play today. We have no idea about next year" frankly sums up that there is nothing other than original research and your desire to be tidy behind your edit. On Wikipedia evrything needs to be verifiable and citations do this - please provide one and all will be well. Personally I would just leave it as it is until a new team is anounced and he is not in it. This is Wikipedia it is an Encyclopaedia not a directory - there is no hurry. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, so we're at total cross purposes.

I have a lot of articles about cricketers on my watchlist. We continually get fans of teams adding in that someone has played for the team even when they haven't - this year's IPL being a case in point (for example, this edit of Stokes' page on 2020-07-26). Before Ab207's edit at 07:34 GMT on 2020-10-11, Stokes' infobox said 2018-2019 for this team. Ab207 changed it to say 2018-present. I've been caught out a number of times this year when someone is *actually* playing a match at the time I revert these edits - on Eoin Morgan, for example. So I checked CricInfo - not just the player profile but the main page of the website. This made it very clear he would play that day, so my edit at 07:37 wasn't a revert - as it would usually be - but a change instead.

Was the OR - yes. Was it a pragmatic change based on the fact that 3 other editors would probably come along over the course of the day and add the same thing, yes. Next time I'll simply revert something like this so as not to cause confusion.

Perhaps if you're edit summary of 07:43 had been a little more helpful I might have realised what you were upset about. But never mind.

The long term version of the article here previously had 2018-2019. It should now say 2018-2020 for the reasons I've noted.

Next time I'll just revert and wait for someone else to add it again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

His brother and sister were murdered

Not sure if it is worthy of mention in the story, but his brother and sister died in a murder-suicide three years before he was born:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/128185601/the-tragedy-a-cricketing-greats-mum-uses-to-help-grief-stricken-families

It mentions in the main article that the Sun paid damages for a story about a 'family tragedy', without mentioning what the tragedy was. The link above goes to a story in which his mother publicly discusses the murders at some length with a more reputable news outlet, so it should be fine to use this source for the article.

Parents' ethnicity

There seems to be a slow-moving edit-war over Stokes's parents' ethnicity. Given this is a BLP this needs to be sourced. Are there any reliable sources saying that Ged is of Maori descent, as that would put an end to it? It is not mentioned at all on Gerard Stokes. Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise I'd raised this before, but I can find no evidence that Stokes's mother was English. Since the "fact" was added Special:Diff/1020285363, she has received some semi-independent coverage due to the tragedy alluded to above. None of it mentions where she was born or her nationality and I could not find any supporting evidence via a google search. A broader "English heritage" was added here, again without any support, though the ref in the article in the Early life section does mention Maori heritage, but no further details. I have therefore removed English and restored Maori. Spike 'em (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Usage of Batter over Batsmen

I think at least for active cricketers the term Batter must be used over Batsmen even if the cricketer is male as this promotes inclusivity and cricket regulatory authorities like the MCC have also recommended using batter instead of Batsman. Parzival22 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Parzival22 Do you have a Wikipedia policy, or consensus established in another discussion, to support this proposal? If not, do you have reliable sources that refer to Stokes as "batter"? This sounds like it would require changing a great many articles about cricket players, so you might want to give a heads up to the Cricket Wikiproject. They might also know if there is a consensus or policy related to this. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict):See your talk page for the consensus which was arrived at over this. tl:dr for others: we stick with batsman for anyone playing in men's cricket pre-the introduction of the term batter; after that we don't have a strong opinion either way and should leave things as they are in general. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)