Talk:Gareth Barry

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Football: England B‑class Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Sussex C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In 2001...

In 2001, Barry was selected to play for Aston Villa against Derby County but refused to play as Aston Villa had refused to pay for his travel expenses when Barry was sent to play for the Villa reserve team away at Newcastle at the last minute. Barry later apologised.[citation needed]

I can't find a citation for this, although I'll admit I'm not the biggest Villa fan. Did it really happen? Gretnagod 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested photo

(Everlast1910 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move from Brighton

I seem to recall that there was a bit of bother at the time that Barry moved from Brighton to Villa. Wasn't there a claim against Villa for "poaching"?. Can anyone find a reliable reference? Soccernet [1] says that he was "somewhat controversially plucked from the clutches of Brighton & Hove Albion", but with no further explanation. Daemonic Kangaroo 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that we paid for Barry and another player and think around 3m compo for the two. And the reason we picked up Barry was he was good mates with the other player who at the time had much more promise than Barry. The other guy never settled and Barry progressed. Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 10:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last matches at Wembley

Does the stuff about Barry and Southgate playing in the final matches at Wembley really belong in the intro? Sure it's significant enough to have in the article but it doesn't belong in the introduction in my opinion.Pegster (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate peacock?

Could someone who knows a bit about Gareth Barry but isn't, I would suggest, an Aston Villa fan rewrite this so it doesn't read as though his mother ~~read~~ wrote it? George The Dragon (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it matter if his mother has read it?Londo06 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that should have been "wrote" and not "read". As things stand, it is written almost as if he is a candidate for World Player of the Year! George The Dragon (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I have started cutting it back. Woody (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation regarding possible transfer

Please do not add rumours or speculation regarding transfer as is not considered fact and has no place in an encyclopedia. Once a formal announcement has been made from the clubs concerned it may be added to Wikipedia. Any other conjecture is considered not notable by consensus and will be promptly removed.--ClubOranje^Talk 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that there is negotiation that has verified on both sides, re-wording is fine but do remove cited material from the likes of the BBC seems silly at best. Alexsanderson83 06:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re consensus - looked through and that was only a nine to six vote, hardly a trouncing. In this instance there is something concrete in terms of quotations from both sides, a lesser 'rumour' I would be inclined to remove as a link, this however involves bidding and a war of words between two managers, and as such has a place in the article. Alexsanderson83 06:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still speculation, hasn't actually happened, therefore WP:CRYSTAL. Interest in professional footballers from professional football clubs is core business and not noteworthy. Regardless of how many duplicate citations are applied.--ClubOranje^Talk 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cited material states that a bid has been made, you can rework the words, but it does not state a transfer is imminent. I would disagree about the notability issue.Londo 06 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bigger deal if a non professional footballer was bid for by a Prem club, yet that does not qualify for notability. For a pro footballer transfer negotiations are nothing more than a job offer / job interview at the end of the day. Thousands of bids are made every year. Some result in transfers, most don't. I don't agree with cluttering wiki articles with non-events as there is already too much smokescreening in cyberspace - I prefer a concise data source with the relevant information. If Barry every becomes truly notable, the fact that LFC made a bid for him one year will be of absolutely no consequence.--ClubOranje^Talk 07:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the sources

I have read the sources. Have you? The thing is, source 1 is exactly the same as source 2. They are the same article. Same title, same text, same web address. Could you please explain why it needs to be in there twice. Similarly, source 3 is exactly the same as source 4. They are the same article. Same title, same text, same web address. Could you please explain why it needs to be in there twice. The paragraph has little enough notability as it is without repeating citations trying to make it appear important. I have removed them multiple times already, clearly stating why the were removed. Please take the time to click though the links before you reinstate them tomorrow.--ClubOranje^Talk 13:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC updates stories as they develop, rather than assigning them with individual pages.Londo 06 18:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop telling people to read the sources, it is extremely patronising, I for one know exactly what is in them, and they do not alter the fact this is a news event still at the he said/she said stage, wikipedia does not document every statement and bid for every player, there is nothing concrete happening, therefore it is not appropriate information for a biography, as you have been told repeatedly. Read the policies I directed you to in the last revert. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mick, I have read those policies quite a few times and you have misinterpreted at least one of them. Notability says "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." (emphasis partly mine). So on that point, you are wrong. In terms of what Wikipedia is not, I know it is not a news service, but this is not news. We are not adding every statement made, we are simply stating that a bid has been made and rejected; that is fact. As it is, the statement is heavily sourced and very relevant. To be scouted by Liverpool is a very big deal for a professional footballer and this is a key point in his career that will be noted if we take a longer-term view of it. Woody (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you could name the last ten players to have been bid for but not signed to liverpool? Are they recorded in the Liverpool article? Are they recorded in each players bio? Patent nonsense, pure ephemera and bordering on vanity. And on the liverpool fact, he is already an international, are you seriously suggesting this is massive news for him? Would say C Ronaldo be as excited to be scouted by Liverpool? Again just another way to show the non-notability of the event regarding Barry's entire career, by planting it firmly in the fancruft basket. He has not signed for Liverpool, end of. I can recall several clubs at one point or another bidding for Barry, I don't need to see it recorded in his bio as essential information without which you would be left feeling wanting. The fact is, wikipedia is not a news service, and any attempt to paint this information as anything more than news is just wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion that is. I see you have given up quoting WP:EIEIO as no policy supports your cause. Everything is relative to each individual article, given the distinct ill-feeling between Liverpool and Manchester, I doubt you will be seeing any transfer speculation. Put simply, it is not fancruft, it is well-sourced information that is neutral, does not go into excessive detail and is well within the policies of Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the habit of repeatedly stating the same policies again and again, I merely assume that others can remember what I said in the last post. Hence why I was distinctly annoyed at you continualy stating 'read the sources' when that wasn't even the issue. Simply, what you've written above is just wrong, in my opinion, and per the policies stated already. I think we're done here anyway, for future reverts just come back here and re-read. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Mick, I am not Londo06, you have never said anything to me except on this talkpage. If you re-add it, that is called edit-warring, something you know perfectly well. With regards to notability, there is no interpretation of policy here, you are simply wrong. With NOT, there is interpretation there, I seem to interpret it differently to you. That is why we need to come to a consensus, not edit-war. Woody (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, I did not intend to patronise you, merely requesting you to read the sources that state that their has between Liverpool and Aston Villa.Londo 06 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look around wikipedia, does it look like each bid for each player is noted in their biography article? This is a ridiculous addition, and simply in terms of wordcount of the club career section is noticeably out of place. Complete fancruft. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming laughable.7 references now about a maybe possible speculated move to another club. The whole article starts to smell of POV bias. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm. The entire paragraph should not exist until someone signs a contract. And no doubt it will be gone next year.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated this now, and stripped out all the out of date. An offer has been made and rejected. Liverpool is a major club. It is notable. Ged UK (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the removal of the cited material. Some of them to go, however the different sources do contain various bits of different information. I'd be fine with a few going, but a cull is a bit extreme.Londo 06 11:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should probably agree here which should go/stay, and then act. Personally, I can't see why we need any of the old ones. All they basically say is that Liverpool are interested, and that Villa don't think Liverpool will match their valuation. That is exactly what has happened with a bid being made and rejected: Liverpool are interested, but haven't met the valuation. Why keep anything else? Ged UK (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't any one going to mention his injunction http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Giles_Coren#Super_Injunctions_and_Contempt_of_Court —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.251.230 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

appearances for England are 29, not 27!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exorcist90 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text also says he made 441 appearances for Villa with 52 goals, while the info box says he appeared 365 times with 41 goals. Since he's in the Euro 2012 squad, can someone fix this? --bodnotbod (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup

Barry has stated that he will not be playing in the England-USA match-- http://twitter.com/OliverKayTimes/status/15648160572 "Gareth Barry confirms he'll miss ENG-USA on Sat: "I've been told I'm not playing against USA to give me more time" (from @NeilAshton_NOTW)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.64.238 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==The Sweden

the goal has been accredited to him in the match report, its definitely his goal, as well as on the FA site.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gareth Barry. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203055217/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6319849.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6319849.stm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gareth Barry. 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) 00:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gareth Barry. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217193154/http://www.avfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/PlayerProfiles/0%2C%2C10265~5502%2C00.html to http://www.avfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/PlayerProfiles/0%2C%2C10265~5502%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition%3D4395/preliminaries/preliminary%3D3835/matches/match%3D19734/report.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition%3D4395/preliminaries/preliminary%3D3835/matches/match%3D19734/report.html

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) 01:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool

Let them down 2A02:8084:101:7600:59FD:A70E:7868:3C62 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]