User talk:Evertonian Toffee

Discussion about usage

Hello, I'm ComplexRational. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to History of Fulham F.C. seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See what I reverted. The other editor reverted me without reason and tried to describe my edits as "puerile" which is also an attack. And why are ou saying my edits violate policy? Evertonian Toffee (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edits so far, you're introducing terms such as "mighty Everton", which is puffery and not neutral. Unless you can provide reliable sources – rather than perhaps your views as a passionate fan – that describe the team as such, the result is opinionated text that is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Consider this the reason for my reverts – and the other editor is free to share their opinion if they desire.

If you insist on edit warring or using derogatory terms, however, I can assure you that you will be blocked. It would be a shame to lose some of your edits which do have potential, though a combative attitude is beneficial to nobody. Please take this into consideration. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational Oh is that your problem? You and everyone else's. WFT did nobody say so until now? So what about "mighty Liverpool" then? Andy Walker (footballer, born 1965) (The day Bolton Wanderers humbled the mighty Liverpool in FA Cup replay at Anfield). Evertonian Toffee (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my problem, but rather established policy; rather, your edits thus far have been going against it. I cannot speak on the behalf of other editors, but it's clear that your edits are considered to go against policy, and I'll happily give you more pointers if you'd like.

You are correct regarding terms such as "mighty Liverpool". If they are similarly uncited and non-neutral, the same logic applies and they can be removed uncontroversially. In other words, your edits being about Everton is unrelated to their removal – I would handle puffery about any team, even my own, in the same manner. Unfortunately, many editors don't actively search through articles for terms such as these, so they can go unnoticed for long periods of time.

And please, please tone down your language – other editors' removal was absolutely not blatant vandalism and personal attacks are not permissible under any circumstances. ComplexRational (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah I agree with you now that it's not vandalism what you've done, only it took a few back and forth edit warring before I could get any of you to explain the issue. Liverpool seem to have it everywhere but I bet if an editor with my name goes near it, a pack of Jurgen Klopp's online loyalists will be screaming blue murder!!! I've seen history of pages. I apologise for calling it vandalism what you did. --Evertonian Toffee (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for hearing me out. I sympathize as a fan of a less-supported team – in my experience, while Italian football is less represented on English Wikipedia for obvious reasons, I've seen this kind of bias on other websites and even to some degree in the mainstream media. Indeed, there are probably many more Liverpool fans than Everton fans on Wikipedia, but it is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan page. You'd also get an idea of this by noticing how many times protection has been applied to sports biographies, mostly during transfer market season.

I'll give you one more example to keep in mind while editing, as sometimes language that appears biased at first glance is in fact well-documented. The Grande Torino or Magical Magyars earned their nicknames and have a lasting legacy, so plenty of sources will use these nicknames. Therefore, a statement such as In 2016 the BBC listed the team as the best international football team ever in football history. (actually in the article) doesn't contravene NPOV because it attributes an opinion (and one that would not strictly be held by Hungarians) to a reliable source. Conversely, an unsourced "In 2020, the mighty Liverpool won their first league title in 30 years." (not quoted from any article) would be ripe for removal.

However, the one you describe above is in the title of the news article (reproduced verbatim), so there's not much to do – that's just bias inherent to the media, which is unfortunate, but outside the scope of Wikipedia policy. I hope this helps clear things up. ComplexRational (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the synopsis. I see your point and I'll avoid mention of own-team promotion. In the example I gave you, yes "mighty" is fine because it is only within the context of a quote from a used source. However, on History of Wycombe Wanderers F.C. the citation on the article is along the same lines as my earlier contribs. Do you feel we can remove that one? Evertonian Toffee (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, yes, both "mighty Altrincham" and "mighty Liverpool" are instances of puffery and can safely be removed – feel free to do so. (Admittedly, that article is in pretty bad shape overall, regarding both prose and sourcing.) ComplexRational (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everton FC

Good luck for next season. Let’s hope that both you and the Mighty Saints do better than last year! Best wishes Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]