Talk:Bob Woolmer

	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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Cricket Start‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Cricket To-do list:

Article assessment

Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details

Verifiability

Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards

Cleanup

There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)

Infoboxes

Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes

Cricket people

Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players
Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list
Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class.
Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket.
Create articles for redlinks present here and here

Cricket teams & countries

Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe;
Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams
Create articles about cricket in these missing countries
Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles
Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI

Images

Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people
Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here

On this day in cricket

Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries

Umpires

Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel

Women

Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours

Update

A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains
Regularly updating cricketers' career stats.

Other

Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

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]

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)

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]

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]