Jump to content

Talk:Duncan Edwards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleDuncan Edwards is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 1, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Dubious Information

[edit]

Caps and goal figures in the article likely contain European cup/Domestic cup data in addition to Domestic League data (this is very certain based on this user's previous edits containing similar information [1]. Please correct this issue and leave a note here, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Alfmaster#Footballers.27_European_goals, to warn this person about putting improper information on Wikipedia. --Palffy 21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bedders seems to have changed it to only league appearances. Thaurisil 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



What does "pipped" mean? 66.214.187.229 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Just beaten". -- Arwel (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article

[edit]

Why was this article not nominated as today's featured article? It would have been perfect to have Duncan's article on the main page on what would have been his 72nd birthday :( – PeeJay 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of it. Maybe next year..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Not to worry. I just wish I'd thought of it a few days ago. – PeeJay 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be nice too if this article featured in the day of the disaster. --Qadsawi (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually planning on getting Munich air disaster to FA status in the hope of making it the Featured Article of the Day for 6 February. – PeeJay 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that article need a lot of work. I don't know if you can make it on time. The article need a lot of work. --Qadsawi (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have three months ;) – PeeJay 20:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so biased. It completely overates him. Saying he is world class at everything at that he could of been the better than maradona and pele. He was never even close to that level. I dont care if they come from quotes, dont put biased quotes in – —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.90.128 (talk)

Sounds like the perfect player

[edit]

Is it because he died young? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.82.80 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. If you look at the other 21 and 22 year old players that died in the disaster, you will see that they don't have so much written about their playing style. If it was just because of age then they would all be over-hyped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.100.233 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest League Player

[edit]

According to the article "On 4 April 1953, he played in a Football League First Division match against Cardiff City, which United lost 4–1, aged just 16 years and 185 days, making him the youngest player ever to play in the top division"; however, the article on Jeff Whitefoot states that he "made his debut against Portsmouth in April 1950 he was at the time the youngest player to start in a League match for United at 16 years and 105 days", so one of them is incorrect - should the Duncan Edwards article be edited to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mundellan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the claim re Edwards is reliably sourced, so I'm not sure which to believe....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duncan Edwards. 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) 12:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duncan Edwards. 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) 06:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buffing the lead....

[edit]

Okay, who wants to buff the lead and give this a once-over to get it mainpaged in February 21? @Eric Corbett, Dweller, and The Rambling Man: - slightly out of my area but we need this mainpaged.... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in, assuming I'm not indefinitely blocked for telling the truth in a way a miniscule fraction of individuals dislike. February is long way away... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did the bulk of the work getting it to FA, so happy to help out if you think it now needs a bit of sprucing up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris, I'd suggest that the lead needs to be about three times longer than it currently is given the size of the article, so three paras of about twice the length of those currently there. I haven't had a chance to look at the rest of it yet; I know you're completely able to fix this all up yourself, but feel free to give me a ping if you'd like some help. Sorry you weren't pinged initially. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, TRM, I'll have a go at it when I fancy a break from my current splurge editing lists on a style of music I don't even like :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duncan Edwards. 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) 05:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute

[edit]

An IP suggested that "Duncan Edwards is the grandson of Hannah Edwards née Harrington. Her sister is Beatrice Stevens née Harrington. Dennis Stevens is the son of Beatrice. You have a generation gap back to common ancestor. Dennis Stevens is Duncan Edwards first cousin once removed." The section they added to the article is unsourced which makes it WP:OR and not admissible as it is not verifiable. We must adhere to WP:V. I have tried searching for a source to confirm what the IP is stating but can not find any information in this regard. If we can not find a source then the information needs to be reverted to the previous more stable position of the article with a proper source to back up that Dennis is Duncan's cousin but does not delve deeper into their connection as family. The IP was instructed to bring this to the Talk Page but I thought it might be better to assist them in opening dialogue. --ARoseWolf 18:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I JamesHadleyTM changed it again with a suitable source, I hope... @ ARoseWolf The source I used was the Black Country Bugle Article by Dan Shaw, someone might want to make a more suitable edit given I do not do this stuff... In this Duncan Edwards scenario, you could have changed it to "Duncan Edwards relation, Dennis Stevens 3 years his elder..." This is not a wrong statement, it is just not very accurate, but more accurate than the original source. We could dispute the 3 years his elder statement if you like, are you going to find a source that supports 2 years 304 days his elder?. WP:OR & WP:V seem to support the use of source materials that wasn't verified prior to publish as a way of verification on WP If a source for verification is in dispute surely that source should not be used until the dispute is dealt with, not reverted back too. it is in the interest of accuracy after all.

You can't dispute a published reliable source unless you can provide published reliable sources that state something different and consensus is gained to alter the wording. --ARoseWolf 18:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a source for verification is in dispute surely that source should not be used until the dispute is dealt with - I'm sure you can appreciate that we aren't going to completely disallow a source simply because a single unidentified member of the public says they don't agree with it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude the wording could be amended to address the dispute. The dispute is the family relationship between Dennis and Duncan in this scenario. Yes the source said cousins and I amended it to first cousin once removed unsourced, but the original source was still used because it pinged on other facts still present in the article. I didn't dismiss the source only corrected a small issue with it, you could have reverted it back to "his relative, Dennis Stevens" it would still be more accurate than the source and then pinged the dispute with that source here. I do not know the inner workings of WP and like I said previous haven't read any of the WP:V or WP:OR in fact I still have no idea what the heck I'm doing writing these edits and playing around with this code, but hey all fun any games until the seat sets fire to my pants... JamesHadleyTM (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely a true statement. The dispute is adding additional descriptors to describe the relationship between Dennis and Duncan that is not supported by reliable independent secondary sources. I don't understand how calling someone a "cousin" as opposed to calling him a "first cousin, once removed" is less accurate than just calling them relatives. My first cousin, once removed is still my cousin. We have an independent source calling Dennis and Duncan cousins. If an independent and secondary verifiable source further details their relationship then its possible it may be included but what we had is still accurate. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A cousin and a first cousin once removed is not the same. Cousins share a common ancester, brother, or sister to the parents. First cousin's once removed share the common ancester, brother, sister of grand parents. A clear defined deference. You say the source is a verifiable source, I say show me the civil records that shows that Duncan Edwards is the cousin of the Dennis Stevens. You can't because they are not related in that way. I did not dismiss the source, due to the additional information within it I only amended the relationship. A relative is more accurate than cousin, because cousin is clearly wrong based on the facts I just layed out and the above statement is entirely true. JamesHadleyTM (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the word "cousin" automatically refers to first cousins. A first cousin once removed is indeed still a cousin. Referring to Dennis Stevens as Duncan Edwards' cousin is not wrong, even if they are a generation removed. – PeeJay 11:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cousin" is a child of a uncle, or aunt. "Distant cousin" is a family member with whom you share a common ancestor. No misapprehension here. Relative is not wrong and cousin is not accurate. Seriously, move on the dispute is over JamesHadleyTM (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, "cousin" can refer to a first cousin, second cousin or anyone with whom you share a common ancestor not in your direct patrilineal or matrilineal line. My second cousin once removed is still my cousin. You've made a mountain out of a molehill and I find it quite hilarious. – PeeJay 17:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JamesHadleyTM, The dispute is not over and your additions should be rolled back until accurate sources can be presented or consensus is met. You added a source to your statements which is wholly unreliable as their source is not independent of you or the Edwards family. You should produce the records that say what you claim. The onus is not us because we did not change the article. You did. You seem to be an aggressive SPA and I question your motives for these changes based upon your attitude and blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies on COI editing. You seem to be tied a little too close to the Edwards family. You have already changed your story multiple times which I welcome anyone to check for themselves (See User talk:JamesHadleyTM). You were informed about the WP article by a family member, then you changed it to a family friend. You stated you would look into it. That implies that you came here with the intent to alter the article because the family wanted you to. You make the changes to the article, initially, with no source. After it is reverted and brought to your attention you then use a source that is not independent or secondary to assert your claims. This is a clear example of WP:OWN. You defied Wikipedia rules for adding information to an article when you have a clear COI, paid or unpaid. You are not independent of the Edwards family and you said as much on your Talk Page after I questioned you. My question was a legitimate one and done in good faith but you are not acting in good faith with your edit or the explanation. You have not attempted to follow the guidelines that every good editor here is bound to because this was your single purpose and you don't feel you have to follow the rules. You should not be adding anything to this article until you have formally declared your COI which you seem bent on not doing. --ARoseWolf 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ARoseWolf Those sources are completely independent from the person you claiming they are from, you for whatever reason just can not accept that. Who's article is this "yours" or Wikipedia's? The person who highlighted that source is not mentioned in the sources, neither are they connected to that newspaper in anyway. How can it be a unreliable source? The newspaper "Black Country Bugle" would have used government and general registrar authority sourced materials to verify that story after the fact a dispute was brought to their attention. That newspaper operated out of Dudley Archives at the time of that article in 2018, so there was no reason that journalist did not verify those government sources himself. You are talking about a newspaper and a journalist for it, who is operating within a National Archive Environment. So, how can that be an unreliable source. That newspaper would have done it's own independent research into that story after an error was highlighted to them by one of it's readers. Generally, how that newspapers operates is. A.) reader will put a story to them. B.) The paper will then print that story. C.) Other readers can then dispute that story. D.) At which point paper will look to verify and source the information for a corrected article... So, What you will find is. Some weeks prior to that Duncan Edwards article in 2018 there will be another article that likely states the information that's been disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.64.4 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PeeJay It seems that ARoseWolf is the one making the mountain out of the molehill and clearly acting out of COI, given the talkpage discussion with other user. Maybe this is a dispute where WP:DR should be sourced to resolve. Why are ARoseWolf going to that trouble of constantly discrediting that source article, what is their motivation? We can discuss the generalization of "cousins" until we are blue in the face and I totally agree with you, but accuracy wise we would both be wrong. A first Cousin once removed is only your cousin in generalization. But, yea this discussion is now hilarious and silly based on ARoseWolf COI with the previous users edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.64.4 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duncan_Edwards&oldid=1207083933"