Jump to content

Talk:Geoffrey Boycott/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Source

Alec Stewart is now England's leading Test scorer, not Graham Gooch as previously mentioned on the page. Have made the change.

No. Gooch is still the highest scorer. See [[1]]

Gooch has 8900, Stewart 8463 and Gower 8231

Tintin1107 13:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions

One question (please excuse me if this isn't the right place to post this) - In the introduction, the article states "In 1998, it was alleged that Boycott assaulted his former girlfriend Margaret Moore; he was cleared of the charges" yet in the section Court Case it states "in January where his conviction had been set, appeared before a French Magistrates court and was given a three-month suspended sentence,[135] and £5,300 fine were confirmed,[136] which he appealed against." It doesn't state what the result of the appeal was and also says that the conviction cost him his job (which suggests that his appeal was overturned). Please could you clarify the final judgement? Thanks, --Anthonysutcliffe (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly, it is best to put new talk page topics at the bottom. Secondly, I agree that the lead did not match up - have fixed it. SGGH ping! 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions

>> His average of 47.73 runs over 193 innings is a unique achievement amongst players playing since 1970.

What is unique about this ?

>> Boycott's ability to occupy the crease come what may is reflected by the fact that he is the only England player to bat in all five days of a Test match

Not the only one. Lamb did it against West Indies at Lord's 1984. Leaving the change to the author.

Tintin.

>> What is unique about this ?

Has anyone else averaged 47.73 runs over 193 innings amongst players playing since 1970 ? Doh

What about SM Gavaskar ? Among non-openers, there are about a dozen others with more runs and better average. Tintin 04:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

100+ Batting Average

I placed this stat without checking my facts/sources - it seems erroneous, so I'll place it here for now.

One of Boycotts more unusual records is that he was the first English batsman to have a batting average of over 100 in a county season in the post-World War II ear, which he acheived in 1971 and 1979. (Australian Bill Johnston acheived this in 1953, Graham Goochin 1990; Mark Ramprakash is looking on course to do this in 2006).

Mdcollins1984 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely true. This should be part of a new paragraph discussing his county career (maybe I'll work one up soon...)

Drwhapcaplet 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Refused to go?

Anybody know which game is being referred to in the comment about him once refusing to go when given out, and then continued playing? I followed his career pretty closely and have never heard this one before. Seems to me there needs to be more info (like which match, date) so the fact can be checked, or this comment should be removed...

Drwhapcaplet 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It happened in the second innings of the Golden Jubilee Test but I don't have a source at hand to quote from. Tintin (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the famous incident in that match when Bob Taylor was given out caught behind, and the Indian captain made the umpire reconsider, and Taylor continued his innings? I've read match reports of that game and there's no mention of the incident you describe, one that would surely have been a major incident... Drwhapcaplet 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a different incident. Give me time till Monday, I'll quote a reference. Tintin (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This is from The Director's Special Book of Cricketing Controversies (1992) by Ravikant Shukla, p.75. This section comes just after the discussion of the Taylor-Viswanath incident :
Incidentally, the same umpire (Hanumantha Rao) was involved in another controversial decision later in the match. In the "second innings, Boycott was the batsman also given out caught behind but the batsman just about chose to ignore the umpire's raised finger and incredibly, the game continued as if nothing has happened. Kapil Dev was the bowler and his appeal was strongly echoed by 'keeper Kirmani. Strangely, none of the fielders appeared unduly perturbed by this rare happening and the finger went down and behind the umpire's back.
The book is written for an Indian audience and hence has a pro-India tone. But I assume he would have got the facts right. Tintin (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the writer seems to show some doubt by saying "just about chose to", and I still find it very difficult to believe that such a serious incident could have occurred without (as far as I'm aware) receiving any mention in contemporary accounts. A batsman refusing to go in a Test match would be a massive incident. If you can corroborate the story from a contemporary newspaper account or from the Wisden account its fair game to recount it here, but it seems like this could well be a case of a writer exaggerating (or making up) an incident to fill out a book. At the very least you should include the source for the story, but in my opinion it should be deleted until it can be verified from an alternative, independent source (you might want to take a look at the wikipedia rules at the top of this page about negative material in biogaphies of living persons...).Drwhapcaplet 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


I wasn't the person who included it in the article. It was added by an IP editor here. I got involved only because I am familiar with the story. The book that I have quoted the text from reads like a collection of bits and pieces of information from various sources. So I wouldn't bother to defend it.

There is no standard procedure for handling this but my suggestion (since we have atleast a weak source) would be to add a {{Fact|date=March 2008}} tag to that line, leave it there for a couple of weeks, and then remove it if no one adds a better source. Or if you want more visibility, you can leave a comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Tintin (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I assumed you had put it in, the IP number makes it impossible to know. I'm new to Wikipedia, but it looks like it needs a {{Verify source|date=March 2008}} tag for for "doubtful but not too harmful" information, according to this document. I did that and we'll see if someone will back it up. I did have the relevant Wisden (1981), but threw it away a few years ago, if someone can check a copy or look at newspaper accounts from back then it would clear it up. Drwhapcaplet 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not in the Wisden match report. It would be difficult to check newspapers. The easier option would be to lookup Boycott's biographies. Tintin (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my tagging. However, given that its doubtful information it does seem that "verify source" should be used instead of "fact": quoting from the page I cited above "Do not use this tag in order to label text which appears doubtful or false, especially in the case of biographies of living people", but I guess it doesn't really matter. If its not mentioned in the Wisden account it sounds like its an unsubstantiated rumour, but maybe someone can back it up... Old newspapers are available in major libraries (maybe even online for a fee?). Drwhapcaplet 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the lines "On one occasion he stayed on the pitch after being given out by the umpire and played on. The umpire did not confront him about it.[citation needed] Boycott said "He was a very good lad" recently when he was commentating and was asked about this subject. " [2]. If anyone has a good reference for it, they can add it back. Tintin (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Captaincy

Could somebody add a sentence or two about his man-management style? I'm a cricket ignoramus (nothing to be proud of), so I can't do this. I heard GB himself making a rueful/jocular comment on this aspect of his England captaincy during his commentary on the third Ashes Test. Notreallydavid 03:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Famous Phrases

I am surprised there is no mention of 'The Corridor of uncertainty' here. Surely it is Geoffrey's most important contribution to Cricket Punditry. Perhaps there should be a famous Quotes section.


and the Prince of Calcutta moniker for Saurav Ganguly. he invented that Quork 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the "Corridor" quote is memorable, which it is, the "Prince" is not bigpad 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of queries

In "Early life", "He also played for the Leeds United under-18 team" - played football I assume? Then the opening of county career refers to him "playing for the club" - what club? David Underdown (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its all in a bit of upheaval at the moment, I need to add an under construction tag. I'll have a read of my new book and check :D SGGH speak! 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorted SGGH speak! 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

B class

I'm going to give up re-rating this as a start class because there are no images, images will be arriving (of sorts) soon anyway. SGGH speak! 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Hi and well done to the editors of this article. It appears to be coming along nicely. Onr thing that does appear to be missing is Yorkshire County Cricket Club not offering him a contract (in the early 80s I think) and his subsequent election to the commitee while still a player. Don Mosey's biography of Boycott, while not a sympathetic one, deals with this subject in some detail. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird, I remember adding something on that, I'll have a look. SGGH speak! 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"By January 21, 1984 the Yorkshire Club committee, in the face of this rising pressure, agreed to award Boycott a contract for 1984. Members of the committee, including Trueman, Billy Sutcliffe and Ronnie Burnet also resigned. Of the replacement members of the committee, 17 were from the Members 84 Group, and Boycott himself was elected, leaving him with both a position on the team and on the Yorkshire Club committee.[48] The 1984 season was, however, not the most prolific for Boycott. He scored slowly in several matches, "60 in 52 overs against Somerset; 53 in 51 overs against Derbyshire; 17 in 26 overs against Leicestershire; 77 in 67 overs against Sussex" records McKinstry, and this coupled with continued friction between himself and both players and club members.[49] In particular, Boycott's place on both the team and the committee lead to feelings of distrust from both. Critically, this led to the loss of support from long-term ally Sid Fielden.[50]" SGGH speak! 08:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologise! I must be going blind in my (not so) old age. That's exactly what I was looking for. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries SGGH speak! 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Geoffrey Boycott/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.

.
  1. Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS

I would have though that a run through of article to pick up WP:MOS problems should enable a GA nomination to be made.

Keith D (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Standing Ovation?

On 16 August 2003, he was given a standing ovation by the crowd at Trent Bridge as he and a number of other cricketers did a lap of the ground in vehicles to celebrate Trent Bridge's 50th Test match.

This was hardly a standing ovation for Boycs then, really, was it? Can we remove this? Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to remove good content, I'll simply reword it to "On August 16, 2003, Boycott and a number of other cricketers did a lap of Trent Bridge's cricket field to celebrate the ground's 50th Test match" SGGH speak! 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have just rechecked my source, and it was in fact an ovation for Boycott, as they lapped around individually. I have reworded it SGGH speak! 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Test Centuries

Would the author care for a new Test Century table like the one at Ken Barrington?--Philipjelley (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already a Test century table. If you feel you can improve it, please do. SGGH ping! 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a particular view on which looks better but if the intention is for this article to go to FA (and probably even if it isn't) then I would suggest reverting to the previous table. Embedded links and excessive flags are discouraged within the Manual of Style. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geoffrey Boycott/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

It looks like this should be an easy pass and GA has a massive backlog at the moment so you were probably better off going to FAC. Regards, Aaroncrick (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • In Early Years, it reads, "Boycott played in spectacles before later switching to contact lenses. He feared his career would have ended had he not done so, as his eyesight was poor." Why did he fear his career would have ended, as lots of people have batted in glasses.? Daniel Vettori still does. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I have checked with an Arlott source and the McKinstry one, it means to say that he felt he had to wear vision aids because his vision was poor, not the lenses or glasses in particular - though I'm sure contacts are easier. --SGGH ping! 02:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Later Years - "On 21 January 1984 the Yorkshire Club committee, in the face of this rising pressure, agreed after all to offer Boycott a contract for 1984." Is "after all" needed?
  • Debut - "Boycott was brought back into the team following the summer and toured Australia that winter with the Marylebone Cricket Club to compete the Ashes, however illness dogged his performance initially." Change to 'in the Ashes'?
  • Early Career - "He scored 173 in the first warm up match, followed it with 124 against Queensland." 'followed by'
  • Ashes series, West Indies and India - "England went on to win the six-Test series 5:1." Change the result to '5–1'

Well done! I'll be passing the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-PR comments

Carrying on from beginning of Test section...

Test match career
  • "England did not lose a Test match in which he scored a century and only 20 of his 108 Tests ended in defeat.": I'm not too sure of this. It is cited to a statsguru search and I'm not sure I've seen this sort of stat given too often. How meaningful is it? When you factor in his avoidance of the mid-1970s when England were routinely hammered by teams with fast bowlers, and his return against a fairly weak Australian team... Also, this fact does not discount the possibility that a high proportion of these games were drawn owing to his slow batting! I think I'd prefer this fact to be linked to a better source to show that it is considered important as it otherwise looks a touch like OR. At the very least, it needs some context such as a comparison with other players.
  • "John Arlott wrote in 1979 that "any expectation of an English win, except in freak bowling conditions, is based on a major innings from Boycott."": Not too sure of this either, as much as I love Arlott! Given that this was written when Botham was at his best, and Gooch and Gower were coming into their own... And he had only played in 1977 and 1978 at this point after his exile, and this was not against the greatest teams ever to play Tests.
Debut
  • It's quite nice to include the actual dates for things like debuts and maiden centuries.
  • "In the same year he topped the country's domestic averages with 59.45.": This would be better in the domestic section: looking back, it rather skips over 1964 there. I'm not sure I'd put it in the Test section, personally.
  • It's not quite accurate to include the SA tour in this section; it could be moved to early years, or this section could be renamed (something like "debut and first tour").
  • "In the winter of 1964...": Watch out for this, as it could refer to an English winter or South African winter, which are very different times of the year. Maybe a month would be better?
  • "He averaged 49.66 overall": Tests, or all games?
Early career
  • On a general note, the article is a little inconsistent in giving the results of series: sometimes they are given, sometimes not. I think it is worth giving results, but they should be given for all series if they are going to be used at all.
  • "hit a form of "brighter cricket" during the First and Second Tests": Not too sure what this means, or why quotes are needed. Also, the article needs to be consistent over whether to use "first Test and second Test" or "First Test and Second Test". (My personal preference is for the former, but that may just be me).
  • "Uncharacteristically" suggests editorial voice, which is best avoided.
  • "when the MCC went on to tour New Zealand": This is the first mention of the MCC, and the general reader will be a little lost here. It may be better to either refer to the team as MCC earlier and explain (or add a note) what this meant at the time, or just refer to the team as England. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "a disappointing year for Boycott both for England and Yorkshire, and his average for the former fell to 36.60. Furthermore, he had only passed 50 twice in his last 12 first-class innings.": Again, not sure why f-c details are in the Test section when they were left out of the domestic section.
  • "at a strike rate of 44.32": Most readers will not know what this is, or confuse it with bowling strike rate. Perhaps either link to it, or it may be better to give the number of balls faced.
  • "Their frustration was exacerbated when Boycott added 140 runs in four hours on the second day.": Why? Presumably because he continued slowly? This should be explained.
  • I'm not sure the Woolridge quote adds too much.
  • "He nevertheless again topped the domestic averages with 1260 at 48.46" As above...
  • "where Boycott hit a rich seam of form": Slightly purple prose?
  • "unspectacular" average is a little POVish.
  • "Domestically, his injury also limited his contribution, however he did hit five centuries before he was forced to stop playing in June 1968" And once more. I can understand the temptation to do this, but if the two "strands" of his career are being told separately, the information should be kept separate. (This is why I always combine it as I'm too lazy to do this!)
  • Did he miss the Pakistan tour of 68 with health problems, or did the problems surface after he was left out for reasons of form? Not quite clear, but I've reworded it slightly (make sure I didn't mess it up!).--Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "first three Tests against the World XI": Should be made clear that these were regarded as Tests at the time, but no longer. And possibly make it clear why these games were being played as the general reader may not know.
  • The ref given for the Walter Lawrence trophy (and I can't believe he ever won this!) does not support the match cited, just that he won it. Also, it may be good to say how long the century took (I imagine it was when the fastest ones were quite slow really) and maybe even add a comment "the Walter Lawrence Trophy, awarded for the fastest first-class century each season...".
  • "In the third Test match, having hit good partnerships in the first two..." Maybe some numbers would be nice, or it is a bit vague and opinion-y. And it does rather brush these matches under the carpet.
  • I would also move the Gleeson comment before the third Test scores. And is the comment and the ""used as evidence" cited to McKinstry p. 105? I think some more refs are needed either way as this part looks to be uncited.
  • Not sure why his average should be referenced to Peter Wynne-Thomas, rather than a stats page... Never mind.
  • The "best batsman in the world" part does not really link to his ODI debut, but should be included somewhere else, I think.
  • "In the summer of 1971 he enjoyed an average of over 100 in domestic cricket": Another domestic one.
  • "but rejoined the team in the West Indies under Denness' captaincy": A little messy: which team, and link Denness?
  • "over Boycott's preference for a one day match over a three day game against Bermuda": Not quite clear over what they were clashing? The scheduling of a match, or Boycott's preferences over which games to play? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

More to follow... --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Exile
  • Any contemporary stuff? It mentions Boyc's views in 2006 and McKinstry's interpretation, but my understanding was that it was an open secret he took his bat home when Denness was appointed. Perhaps something from nearer the time to reflect this?
  • "His weak immune system was a recurring motivation for not touring the Indian subcontinent.": Doesn't really fit with what is around it, as he wouldn't have played there at this time no matter what the state of his immune system. Probably belongs somewhere, but perhaps not here.
  • Horrible citation needed tag in this section, for a pretty controversial statement.
  • This section does rather feel like it is trying to make a point in one or two places. And I'm not sure about the "Boycott responds" paragraph as it feels like we are in a debate rather than an encyclopaedia, and I'm not too clear what point is being made by Boycott.
  • Relevance of "When an old cricketer..."? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Comeback Tests
  • Maybe we need some background to the comeback. Why did he choose to come back? Was he picked immediately? What was the team/public reaction? Anything in the sources about the relative weakness of the Australian side?
  • Following on from this, the start of the section is very abrupt, and could maybe be softened slightly so that it is not straight into the run out.
  • Do we need to know about Botham's debut?
  • Result of 77 series?
  • Against whom was he captain?
  • "and brought with him his successful summer form..." Not too sure what this means. As captain? As batsman? And if the latter, we have no indication if the form was good or bad.
  • Chronology is confusing in this section. Did he organise the practise game while captain, or after Brearley returned, which is how it appears in the article. And it suggests that two matches (the warm ups and Boycott's practice game) were taking place simultaneously. Why not keep the mention of Boycott being captain until after saying Brearley broke his arm? Did Brearley resume command during the tour or the following summer?
  • "increasing his statistics": not sure how statistics can be increased. Maybe "runs"?
  • "England were defeated in the opening Test for the first time in 48 years": Precision needed. They hadn't lost an opening Test for 48 years? They hadn't lost to NZ for 48 years? They hadn't lost an opening Test against NZ?
  • "The tale does nevertheless remain a renowned story." Not sure we need this.
  • "Boycott then delayed his declaration, much to the frustration of England bowler Bob Willis.": Why is Willis's reaction important, and why is he singled out? If there is a connection with his bowling success, this should be made explicit. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geoffrey Boycott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Leading run-scorer

From the lead: "When dropped from the Yorkshire team in 1986 he was the leading run scorer in first-class cricket". Exactly what does this statement mean, as seven other players have scored more first-class runs than Boycott? Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoffrey Boycott. 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) 11:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoffrey Boycott. 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) 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoffrey Boycott. 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) 05:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Domestic violence

Some IPs keep removing information about how conviction for assault from the lead. That information will stay. It is very widely covered in media, a vast amount of reliable and highly notable sources (virtually every British newspaper). This is not a fan page, we don't remove well-source and well-covered information because someone doesn't like it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It was added by an IP a few days ago. It was then reverted.The IP who added the info to a stable version was reverted and therefore as per BRD consensus should have been sought for inclusion, not deletion. You shouldn't have reverted the revert without discussion. The information shall not stay until consensus is reached to alter the stable version. I certainly oppose its inclusion and agree with the editor who wrote on your talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It is weird that it's in the lead though - normally those issues are in the personal life paragraph. If you look for example at Stan Collymore's page, the introduction paragraph doesn't cover the fact he punched his famous girlfriend despite it being a much - on another scale much - bigger news story that Boycott's case. A similar pattern can be observed across multipe articles. So it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the way the article is currently written is designed to try to attack Boycott especially as in the introduction it only covers the negative angle and doesn't include either Boycott's defence or the fact that reputable sources (Yorkshire Post) are now reporting, at least as a possiblity, that the woman made the story up - in other words it is complex and none of that nuance is given in the main introduction.
A good contrast is Bill Clinton - a man about whome it is a serious, on-going question as to how he behaved with women and who has faced multiple accusations of rape and indeed paid off one woman who claimed sexual harassment... yet such issues, despite again being far more famous than Boycott's case, don't make the introduction to Clinton's wikipedia entry.
To most of the public and most sources Boycott's conviction is a footnote, putting it in his introduction is certainly provocative and without question bucks the trend for wikipedia so you might as well expect it to be consistently edited. The alternative I suppose is to amend all the otehr articles such as those for Collymore and Clinton to make them match the Boycott page.
Agreed, furthermore there's now plenty of evidence suggesting his accuser was lying and that Boycott was in fact a victim of false allegations and multiple blackmail attempts.[3]--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Geoffrey Boycott

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Geoffrey Boycott's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Test high score":

  • From List of international cricket centuries by Ian Bell: "India tour of England, 4th Test: England v India at The Oval, 18–22 August 2011". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 23 January 2015.
  • From List of international cricket centuries by Ross Taylor: "New Zealand tour of Australia, 2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Perth". ESPNcricinfo. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
  • From Martin Crowe: "1st Test, Sri Lanka tour of New Zealand at Wellington, Jan 31 - Feb 4 1991". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 4 April 2019.

Reference named "1st Test 100":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I addressed this for you! @AnomieBOT: will you marry me? Horsesizedduck (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Boycott/Archive_1&oldid=1253905813"