Talk:Bob Woolmer/Archive 1

Removed passage

I removed the following contribution because I felt it was unsourced and a bit non-NPOV:

Woolmer currently enjoys success with the Pakistan team as the team is very close to be placed 2nd on ICC's ranking.

Woolmer is appreciated by the Pakistani team especially for introducing new techniques.

Under is coaching, Pakistan team enjoys unity, confidence and ultimately better results.

However, it would be useful to acknowledge the success Pakistan have had recently in a factual way. For example, a comparison of Pakistan's results under Woolmer and in the immediately preceding years would be useful, if anyone can make one. But it has to be based on verifiable fact, not just opinions!

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death

umm--who updated his deth? i mean at was pretty fast--i found out on Saturday--3:00.--its sad he died. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.145.13 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an obituary at BBC for reference: [1] Shenme 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learned about Bob's passing from Wiki - well before it appeared on any news wires I think! PaddyBriggs 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who first included his death on wikipedia. I was reading his article after hearing on Sky Sports he'd been found unconscious... as soon as Sky broke the news I clicked edit and changed the first line to include DOB and DOD. I'm not a wikipedian but I experienced first hand there how quickly people flock to it whenever there is a major development. 22nd March 2007 19:34 UTC

This is my first time here - so be gentle with me.

The article pertaining to Bob Woolmer's death has a line in it about what the teams and the ICC are doing for the matches in the World Cup to mark his passing. It has a reference to what the Pakistan cricket team have or will do in the Zimbabwe match. When you consider that at best the Pak/Zim match is 2 days away, depending on time differences, how can this information be foretold!

Please change it - it reads like it has been done, and yet the game hasn't even been played.

Yasmin Khan `01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Links

In the section " Early Career" there reads a passage "He was a Felatio man of the year in 1976," and the link goes to a site on the sexual activity of 'felatio' is that intended?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.110.226 (talk • contribs) 14:09, March 19, 2007 (UTC)

Well... the Jamaican police has declared that the death of Bob is suspecious. There is no restriction on Pakistan team to fly out of West-Indies. But everyone is under suspition. Looks like he was murdered by "someone".

it been announced im was murdered.

Page protection

This page has been protected with no explanation given in the discussion page. That's bad WP etiquette at best, and breach of protocol at worst. I'm not surprised it's been done - pages of recently deceased persons are often locked for a period while the initial 'frenzy' passes - but editors should leave a note/comment in the discussion page re: protection, rather than appear to arbitrarily swoop in and lock pages. - 82.153.142.82 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The note in the page history was:

22:22, 18 March 2007 Derek Ross (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Bob Woolmer: recently deceased person [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)))

I believe someone brought a mention of unsubstantiated assertions being added to the article one of the WP:AN pages... ah, here it is WP:AN#Bob_Woolmer. If it was done hurriedly, I think you can imagine why. Maybe you could make your concerns known there? Shenme 07:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several unsourced statements added that had the potential of seriously upsetting Bob's friends and family and bringing wikipedia into disrepute. Semiprotection is a reasonable step that will probably be removed once all the facts are out and there is no more room for speculation. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is little merit and a lot of demerit in reporting speculation - even if that speculation is in the public domain in some media. PaddyBriggs 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Statements in articles must be verifiable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of humour in this time

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the vandals Wikipedia:May the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Be With You#From Bob Woolmer Nil Einne 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manner of Death

I took out reference to the blood and vomit. I think its a bit tasteless and not encyclopedic - even if sourced. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is tastlessness really a determining factor in whether a fact is encyclopedic? The presence or absence of blood and vomit at eh scene of a so-far unexplained death can be newsworthy. They at least point to a medical issue (as opposed to, say, a violent assault).

Yes. IMO. The relevant facts are that he died, that he was ill and we still don't know what he died of but that once its reliably reported we will include it. I just think we should avoid sensationalising the death until/unless more detail is released. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, leave it out. Newsworthy ≠ Encyclopaedic. —Moondyne 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally still feel it is encyclopaedic and not sensationalising it. It's no different IMHO from reporting that he was diabetic or that his family thought it was a heart attack due to stress. But I'm not going to fight over it Nil Einne 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jamaican police are treating the death as suspicious after the autopsy but the reported statement on the BBC doesn't mentio murder ot marks on the neck. The BBC news report swimply said that they are awaiting toxicology reports before announcing the cause. I'm inclined to keep the article at this until there is a formal announcement of the cause of death. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to ball-tampering section

I have condensed the section on ball tampering. I have removed the quotes, which aren't really necessary or desired in an encyclopedic article, and tried to distill the meaning into a couple of phrases. Much of the first two paragraphs was repetative, and the long paragraph with quotes was mostly related to the then-upcoming 20twenty match. Here's the diff. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the changes. Good work. PaddyBriggs 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armbands etc

I added the thing on armbands etc based on the reference. But it appears that a minutes silence and black armbands are being worn in the NZ-Kenya game today as well. Don't have a reference unfortunately Nil Einne 14:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informative article

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/19/sports/cricket.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.76.8 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC). By his own addmission he is one of few to have seen Hanif Mohammed score 499 for Karachi and Brian Lara scores 501* to break Hanif's record.[reply]

Factual Error

In the last paragraph talking about the death, it is said:

On Wednesday 21 March 2007, following an inconclusive autopsy, the Jamaican Police

It should be 20 March, because, the news of suspicion came hours before Jamaica went into 21st March, but Asia was already in 21st March.

Done. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the editors

At the moment the section Death during 2007 World Cup (or any others) do not contain any reference to Pakistan's defeat against Ireland. Tintin 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Woolmer death speculation

This:

After the death, ex-Pakistan cricketer Sarfaraz Nawaz speculated that Woolmer had been murdered by a betting syndicate, that betting controlled the game, and that Woolmer was preparing to divulge the details in a book being prepared for publication before his death.[2]

should be in the article - a reputable source (namely The TImes of India) has reported speculation by a ex-Pakistan cricketer that Woolmer was murdered, so that speculation is notable and is anything but "idle". The wording is entirely clear that the suggestion was made by a cricketer, and does not represent an endorsement of the viewpoint. Nssdfdsfds 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who said it, its still speculation and we should stick to confirmed facts. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip sheet. Sorry. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second with Spartaz. I have read on timeofindia that his wife has denied such conspiracy theories about bookies. We can now add her wife statement (again from timeofindia) at the end of sentence but why to write this thing on the first place. --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk} 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. "WP:NPOV Reliable source? Yes. Signficant point of view? Yes. There are A LOT of newspapers and people that have published and discussed the theory that he was murdered for reasons connected to betting. And an ex-player said it. You are right that it is a speculation and a conspiracy theory, but the fact that it's a well-reported one being covered in a number of reputable newspapers means that it's highly enyclopedic to include it in the article. So it has to go in the article. It's quite clearly just reporting, Wikipedia isn't endorsing the theory. Nssdfdsfds 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lesson in policy. If its speculation its a) not encyclopedic and b) not a fact. There is no consensus to include this information. Its information about Sarfaraz Nawaz not Bob Woolmer. Go and include it on Nawaz's article if you like but it has no home here until there are some confirmed facts to back it up. I'm reverting. Please do not put it back without gaining consensus on the talk page to include it.Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome for the lesson. However, I'm not sure you've understood it. Wikipedia does not deal only in facts. The whole concept of neutral point of views is to discuss POINTS OF VIEW. I.e. OPINIONS. This is a significant opinion. It needs to be represented. Obviously opinions cannot be proven, by their nature - but if they are significant, they need to be reported.

The opinion has nothing to do with Sarfaraz Nawaz's article, it is about Bob Woolmer - Mr. Nawaz views are on-the-record, widely reported, and moreover this is a very good representation of a point of view that is being very widely discussed. The Nawaz suggestion should be reported here, as the 'murdered for match-fixing' is a widely held view, and AFAIK, there's nobody else that we can attribute this to. Nssdfdsfds 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nssdfdsfds (silly name, though). Upsetting though such speculation may be, it is being widely reported. I saw it as a UK newspaper headline this evening. A simple Google News search confirms the widespread reporting. Having said that, we should keep the wilder speculations out of the article,and concentrate on what the official statements say. How about removing the Nawaz comment, and,after the police "treating it as suspicious" statement, saying that there is speculation that Woolmer might have been murdered,and giving one or two links,and leaving it at that? Carcharoth 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wild speculation is an essential part of this story - it's absurd not report it. It's been repeated in numerous newspapers - Nawaz's comments were in the Evening Standard today. Nssdfdsfds 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to include it, I'm with Carcharoth that we keep it short and simple. Its totally distorting to report to the wildest speculation because its so far one bloke shooting his mouth off and not being picked up by other comments elsewhere. Someone said earlier that newsworthy did not equal encyclopedic and this is the perfect example of that. How about, after the police treating it as suspicious, we simply say that following this statement there was widespread speculation as to the cause of death and then follow to a couple of reasonable non-sensationalist links? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it distorting? There are hundreds of stories along the lines of "Was Woolmer murdered". We make clear that there have been a number of sensational claims, and we give one widely reported example, and follow up by saying that his wife disagrees with the claims. Saying 'widespread speculation as to the cause of death' is an absurd bowdlerisation of what's actually being said - if the speculation is murder by illegal gamblers, then report that. Nssdfdsfds 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to tone down the stark language. There was no call for a phrase like absurd bowlderisation. If you want to have a discussion try and do it without charactering my suggestions with extreme analogies. Its inflamatory. And that's exactly why I object to making Nawaz the centre of the reference. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear, why are you objecting? The Nawaz claims are fairly mild in the wider context of allegations of the widely discussed 'murder by bookies'. They also have a formal response from his wife. They seem like an excellent reference for this significant viewpoint. Nssdfdsfds 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Item 3 under WP:CRYSTAL: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." That means that even when a speculative statement is referenced, if the reference is itself speculation (and not based upon fact) then it is not for Wikipedia. Look at WP:5 for what Wikipedia is. Why the rush to put it in? Is it not better for the article to be factually correct than for it to be the first to report something? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. That policy refers to speculation about what might happen in the future - e.g., an article about a 2008 UK General Election (it might not happen in 2008, it might happen in 2009, 2010, or indeed 2007). This is nothing to do with what might happen in the future. This is a notable OPINION about what has ALREADY HAPPENED. You are arguing that because it has not been proven that Narwaz's claims are true, they should not be reported. This is incorrect. The fact is that the investigation could prove that he died of natural causes, but if reporting continues in the current vein, not withstanding the conclusion, it would still be notable that many sources report a belief he had been murdered. If WP:CRYSTAL were applicable, there would be no such article as holocaust denial (because it's a speculation about a event that happened in the past (the death of Bob Woolmer is an also an event in the past), and is crystal ball gazing in the sense that it hasn't yet been proven that the holocaust didn't happen (indeed, contrary to the current case, there is ample evidence that the holocaust *did* happen, in a sense the in inquest has been held, and the findings come out against the conspiracy theory angle, but still it gets an article here, because it's a notable viewpoint)) or Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005. Woolmer is dead. If this we were having this discussion a month ago, before he died, and Nawaz had said that Bob Woolmer would be killed then WP:CRYSTAL might apply. As it is, it clearly doesn't. Nssdfdsfds 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on it I now agree that we need to mention the speculation but I still firmly believe that the fact of the speculation is relevant, not individual lurid and sensational claims. We need input from other users because there is still no clear consensus on what should be included here. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I have now updated the article to reflect this discussion. Extra eyes on this much appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the entry is now well balanced. I was very unhappy with the version originally posted by Nssdfdsfds which was unhelpful, but the latest version seems acceptable to me - but it needs contunued vigilence to ensure that it remains encyclopaedic. PaddyBriggs 08:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper article links

Some examples:

That last one has the reports of his widow dismissing the claims. Carcharoth 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The denial is useful. I had it in before Spartaz reverted (albeit a shorter version). It seems wholly appropriate to discuss the widely-reported conspiracy theories along with her denial of them. The fact that newspapers are reporting and questioning her on the match-fixing murder theories suggests to me that it's a highly notable point of view that should be included in the article. I don't understand the opposition to this. Whitewashing the story by not mentioning the MASSIVE buzz about betting (for which Nawaz's comments are the only good source) is absurd and doesn't accurately reflect reality. Nssdfdsfds 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keeping discussion in one place, see my comments in previous section. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To: Nssdfdsfds Wikipedia is an encyclopaeda not a source of speculative media hype. Leave it be please. PaddyBriggs 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaz claims

They are in every British national newspaper, without a single exception (Times [3], Telegraph [4], Daily Mail [5], Guardian [6], The Sun [7], The Daily Mirror [8], The Independent [9], The Daily Express [10]). Accordingly, it's odd not to explicitly mention them in the article. Nssdfdsfds 09:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is offensive tittle-tattle unworthy of Wikipedia, an affront to the memory of Mr Woolmer and distressing to his family. I have removed it. PaddyBriggs 12:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'offensive tittle-tattle' is in every newspaper in the country. Mrs. Woolmer has been explicitly asked about and has responded to the reports - she chose to comment at some length, and that's something the article documented before you deleted it. I don't see how you can argue that it's distressing to his family when it's something his wife responded to herself. Nssdfdsfds 14:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that those conspiracy theories should NOT be included. However, if Nssdfdsfds and some other user strongly think to include them then we should make a separate section (as there were before) named "Media speculations". I do not think it worth fighting and is a big deal. Peace. --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk} 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nssdfdsfds Please add material from this reference Woolmer may have been strangled - Jamaican papers. Once again I am against giving conspiracy theories here place but .... --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk} 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add it, add it. I personally don't think it adds much, and it hasn't been as generally reported as the Narwaz claims. Nssdfdsfds 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it appears the reports were from a rogue policeman [11]. So not true.

Well, I hardly think any of them are true do you? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you're going to say 'x says' (in this case 'the police say'), it's rather critical that that's what x actually did say. In this case, they have not. However, Mr. Narwaz's claims are clearly attributable to him. Deciding what is 'true' is original research, and isn't appropriate. Reporting what reliable sources have said *is* appropriate. Nssdfdsfds 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred the article with a separate section for speculation reports. I also think that this is a little controversial and rather than constantly have to revert the article, I'd like to see the talk page used to get consensus for new information. Up to now, its worked well. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's downplay the speculation rather than highlighting it. Let's await the proper police report. Let's also treat the matter with more dignity. PaddyBriggs 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His wife has appeared on several interviews discussing the speculation of murder. She doesn't have to do that, but the fact she has, suggests to me that it's quite appropriate, and not at all insensitive, to mention the specific allegations made by Narwaz. Nssdfdsfds 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to add it but if someone cares Police fingerprint Pakistan players. --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk} 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]