Talk:Mikel John Obi

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

Position In The Team[edit]

At the start of the article Mikel John Obi is described as an attacking midfielder. Recently for Chelsea he has played in a more defensive role sometimes in the place of Makelele so perhaps the start should be edited? 82.152.206.182 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Why does the picture currently up have mikel in a man u shirt? Surely one in a chelsea or nigeria shirt would be much more appropriate. --alexdeangelis86 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

removed

"The whole case is viewed by many to be an utter scandal and a disgrace to the english game with yet again "Chelski's" millions winning at the end of the day. I think we are all still looking forward to see the impact this much hyped 19 year old can have on the English Premier League and hope that a saga such as this does not re-occur in the future."

as this is not encylopedic Steve-Ho 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was added by an anon shortly before you removed it. This article has received numerous similar POV edits in the months since I created it, hopefully it will settle down a bit now the saga has been resolved. Rje 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved from EPL Contract Law's user page (to clarify all the recent changes)[edit]

MartinRe said: Hello. Do you have sources for the information that you just re-inserted into this article? Namely the unconfirmed reports, the settling of the two cases, and that the action was a violation of FIFA rules? Any information needs to be cited, or it can be removed. For example, I have re-inserted one of the claims you took out, with a reference to the BBC website, backing up the claim. Could you please do the same, and add appropiate references for the claims you have inserted. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EPL contract law 10:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - The article you have cited does not support the claim made in the WIKI article in any way what so ever. You should remove it again
There is a vague reference, made without any supporting evidence, of SAF not making a planned visit but that does not state he intended to discuss the situation with John Obi.
The statement in the article is baised as it is now written and even if it was not the comment serves no purpose.
As for reference to the FIFA violation I will look, but it will take time and this is exactly why the Wiki articles regarding sport are so poor and baised. It is common knowledge in the football world that all players have the right to have an agent present during a signing and denying that right invalidates a registration transfer - there simply is no real reason to cite the rule regarding it. But, for the sake of contention I will supply it
Anytime, someone tries to clean up an article that is baised, by adding facts, they are questioned but the original article in its baised form is not questioned
MartinRe said - I've modified the phrase to say "visit" as opposed to "discuss the sistuation", as per the reference given. The problem with quoting "common knowledge" is that it isn't common to those unfamiliar with the sporting rules. (what happens if a player doesn't have an agent, for example?) Also, the situation runs the risk of being original research, see the plagerism example in WP:NOR. And, for reference, I have also also questioned the original article for being lacking in sources, and as you are probably aware adding "facts" is not sufficent, what has to be added is "verifable facts". Regards, MartinRe 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EPL contract law 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) So you edit out the parts you do not like, add baised information that has no relevance, and basically dismiss the most basic of common knowledge? The average person does not need to know the exact rule, as this is an encyclopedia entry not a legal reference manual, but none-the-less the rule violation is covered under "The FA handbook" page 219, I General Rules, Article 1.1. Violation of that rule violates the "Code of Conduct" rules under FIFA guidelines of the game.

I am putting my entry back in, as it is relevant considering the slanderous charges made by Manchester United during the case.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EPL_contract_law"

Your comment above is bordering on incivil , and incivility is not helpful. Initially, I simply removed an uncited allegation of slander, and other unreferenced claims, which any editor is entitled to do - even required to do the former, as per WP:BLP. When some of these claims were re-inserted, (e.g. "Uncomfirmed reports") I didn't revert them again, perferring to discuss, as above, requesting sources. I am not "dismissing basic common knowledge", as football employment laws are hardly well known in detail. Also, as I pointed out, the plagerism example of WP:NOR has parallells here. You cannot combine quoting the rule (a reliable source) and what was reported to have happened (another reliable source) to categorically say that the rule was violated. All that can reliably be said is that that the rule was the basis of the complaint (which would obviously need a source, but shouldn't be hard), but that's very different to a straight addition of "this is a violation of the rules", which is the essence of the recent additon. Regards, MartinRe 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPL contract law 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) The example does not apply. I did not take two sources and combine them - it is a fact that John Obi cited that ruling and it was reported by FIFA themselves. That is one direct source covering both instances.[reply]

My comments may seem uncivil but that is because it appears to me you are intentionally maintaining the article in a baised copy despite making claims about the bais nature of the article. It is my view that your actions are incivil to the people contributing because you removed all changes blanket fashion instead of taking the time to properly edit that page.

Editors are not required to question every single aspect of an article nor are they required to demand sources for every single aspect of an article

And you definitely should not have removed mutliple additions to an article that only expanded upon already present unreferenced claims. If your intention was to clean the article of unreferrenced claims them you should have basically removed the entire article and re-written it. Instead you have removed additions by someone trying to improve the article.

The fact is you have not questioned the article and transfer itself - such as, if there ever was an issue with the transfer itself, yet you have ignored the grounds for which the transfer was questioned to begin with.

I have supplied those grounds and now you questioning the source despite the source being the only valid source available

I apologise if the removal of the edits seemed harsh, but as part of the edit in question was an uncited serious allegation, and the remainder was also uncited, I felt it justified. I still feel that the insertion of uncited information based on "uncomfirmed reports" is not correct, but as it has been re-inserted after I removed it, will leave it for the momement. Despite how it may appear, I am not trying to maintain this article in any particular state, I believe this article has problems with many claims lacking sources and am trying to find sources. However, adding more uncited claims is only going to make it worse, which is also why I reverted the edit in question. My objection on the rule violation issue is that as far as I understand, Mikel claimed that it took place, the FA confirmed that they received a complaint, but I haven't seen a source that said the complaint was upheald and the violation was actually found to have taken place, which is a significant difference. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Oh, and while editors aren't required to demand sources for every aspect, they are perfectly entitled to, and the onus is on the person inserting any claim to supply a verifable source, not the questioner to prove it incorrect. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is quite clear on that. Regards, MartinRe 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article seems a little too angeled towards a por-chelsea view. I think it should be written much more about john shittu's role in this affair, as he seems to be the classical "exploiting young african talent"-kind of manager. also it is not written how the agents claims kept getting more and more absurd. for example, started they up with claiming that FC Lyn had pressured him to sign", while later on claiming that the contract was a complete fabrication, with morgan andersen, not mikel signing the contract. I think mikels "strong wish" to play for chelsea, was pressured on him by shittu

References[edit]

The article, as it stands, is quite poorly referenced, having no sources listed for the controversy section, where it's most required. While the information may be correct and covered in news reports, it's important that the sources are listed here, as uncited claims may be removed. Serious claims without references will be removed immediately, as per WP:BLP. I will try and match some of the claims to specific news reports, but if anyone else can do the same and/or find more sources, that would be great. Regards, MartinRe 09:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've matched some claims to news reports, but the article still needs a lot more work, as what's written in the article doesn't also match 100% the news reports I've found. For example, The newsnight interview/transcript simply mentioned being pressured by "some people", so I removed the specific people mentioned in the article, but other than that the majority of my recent updates have been simply adding references. Regards, MartinRe 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Recently, he has requested to be called Mikel John Obi, so his article should probably reflect this choice. Granted, the media uses John Obi Mikel, so we would need a redirect.--mpbx 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just added a sentece (referenced) at the end of the article about his preferred name, if anyone wants to put in anywhere go ahead, there is a reference to Chelsea calling him Mikel Jon Obi there. There was an article on the Chelsea site saying that he specifically wants to be called "Mikel Jon Obi" but I couldn't find it, so I just put in one that refers to him as Mikel Jon Obi. - rusty8 (not signed in)

Found it, although it is a little hidden. I am going to move the article to reflect the change, it seems various media outlets are doing the same. It wouldn't surprise me though if this just becomes a rehash of the George Finidi/Finidi George thing. Rje 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved the page, it occurs to me that he will probably still be referred to as "Mikel" by commentators so I have not bothered changing anything to "Obi" in the article until he actually plays for Chelsea and we find out. Rje 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Games and Goals[edit]

Whoever keeps changing it to 2 goals, stop. It's only for the premiership which is 22 games and 0 goals, and in all competitions it'd be 35 games and 2 goals - but it specifically states for the DOMESTIC LEAGUE ONLY.

Master Chief(no account yet ;))

Yes, that's correct, and there is a question I have about his stats box - it says for 07-08 he played in 4 Other matches: apart from the Community Shield, what are these Other matches?? If no one provides an adequate answer I will change his stats back, because I am pretty sure that he did not play for Other matches and score one goal... ??? Rusty8 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive midfielder[edit]

why do people change this as his position when this is always where he plays? I believe this is better to describe him as he is a defensive midfield player. such in the same way Deco is listed as an Attacking midfielder. XTomScottx (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he can - and sometimes does - play in several different midfield positions, so it is more accurate to simply refer to him as a midfielder. – PeeJay 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bloody well there when he scored in a cup tie for Chelsea so that's wrong for a start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.119.173 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mikel John Obi[edit]

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 Mikel John Obi'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 "stats":

  • From Cesc Fàbregas: Francesc Fabregas history, ESPNsoccernet, accessed 18 December 2007.
  • From Chelsea F.C.: For the appearance and goalscoring records of all Chelsea players, see Glanvill (2006). Chelsea FC: The Official Biography. pp. 399–410.

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⚡ 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Stud?[edit]

Club Career: Already then Obi stud out to all the scouts - I'm guessing this should be "stood".109.155.249.27 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikel John Obi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 15:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, I have chosen to fail this article as I feel it doesn't meet the criteria. Although the article is written somewhat good in parts – particularly the bit on his transfer to England and his first season at Chelsea, it seems a lack of attention on this entry since then shows. Prose needs considerable work, as does referencing. My issues and suggestions are as followed:

  • First off, I would advise you to have a look at other football articles, which are of GA or FA standard. Compare the style and structure, look at its reviewing process and take some ideas on board. Bert Trautmann and Thierry Henry are two good examples of how a football player article should be structured.
  • The lead is very light. It should act summary for the entire article, but in this case it just states his nationality, club and national team he plays for, the other names he is called all in a single sentence. How did Mikel's interest in football start? How was his early life like; how did he go from Nigeria to Norway? The controversial transfer to Manchester United is a big event in his life, so naturally it would be mentioned in the lead also. There also needs to be a bit on his international career, and his developing career at Chelsea.
  • I cannot see a source for his full name, if located, you preferably cite it in the infobox.
  • "He had an excellent tournament until Nigeria reached the final", where's the source to back this up?
  • Although 'Controversial transfer to England' is fairly well written, I am having problems with the verifiablity of certain sentences. "Mikel told the British media that Chelsea were the club he genuinely wanted to sign for." is one, "Further substance was added to this claim after it was revealed that the player had impressed Chelsea manager José Mourinho while training with the club's first-team squad during the summer of 2004." is another. One sentence says "Mikel stated on Sky Sports News that he had been pressured into signing the contract with United without his agent present...", but the source says otherwise; it doesn't mention the interview took place on Sky Sports News.
  • "In the aftermath of the transfer, Morgan Andersen", the article already has mentioned Andersen by his full name, so surname should be used thereafter.
  • "On 12 September 2006, Mikel made his first start for Chelsea in the UEFA Champions League", no reference to support this.
  • "Mikel received many positive comments for his performance in the match.", by whom? A very generalised sentence.
  • Be careful with overlinking. Manchester United have twice been linked, as have Michael Essien and PSG. With regards to the latter, be consistent with how you use to stylise its name – Paris Saint-Germain or PSG?
  • "Mikel supplanted the French midfielder Claude Makélélé in the lineup following his departure to Paris Saint-Germain.", why does this warrent a mention in the 2006–07 season section? As far as I'm aware, Makelele left Chelsea in 2008.
  • The 2007–08 section is light. There is no source to support "Despite this, he came back strongly to round off what has been a good first two seasons for him at Chelsea.", or any incidents which are stated for that season. Chelsea reached two cup finals, pushed United all the way in the league so Mikel must have had a big part to play. Did Avram Grant utilise him as much as Mourinho did the previous season? If not, why?
  • "crushed Wigan Athletic 6–0...edged past", sports journalse! Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a football match report. Take care with describing events.
  • "Mikel featured in 28 Premier League campaigns", matches even.
  • There are a few dead links, which means information cannot be validated. The cretria also asks for references to be stylised consistently, which in this case they aren't.
  • Ref 36, 37 and 38 are BBC Sport articles, not BBC News. 47 and 48 need retrieval and publishing dates. 57 and 58 are examples of Bare URLs – the links are copied and pasted and inserted between the ref tags. The problem with this is they are susceptible to link rots and bots cannot archive them, in the event of domain closures.
  • What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
  • I believe a playing style or style of play section is a must for articles aiming for GA or FA standard. See Ashley_Cole#Style_of_play to get a flavour of what I mean.

That is as far as I went reviewing. I would advise you (should you wish to have another crack at GAN) to focus on expanding the lead and condense his time at Chelsea to make sure it goes chronologically and it includes the key events. Go over the sources and make sure the material in the article is covered by the sources. Have the article run by someone here preferably before sending it over here again. I think this entry on Mikel is good in parts, but it can be much more comprehensive and the prose needs fine tuning. Feel free to have this article reassessed if you think the review is wrong.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel John Obi → John Obi Mikel – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The subject is most commonly referred to as John Obi Mikel, and is rarely known as Mikel John Obi. A Google News search returns 2,530 results for John Obi Mikel, whereas Mikel John Obi garners only 23. Examples of some of the respected news sources that refer to him to as John Obi Mikel include The Independent, BBC Sport and Sky Sports. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source for him stating that he wants to be called Mikel John Obi? --MicroX (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to cite the source used in the article, but having looked at it, it seems to be merely a mirror of Wikipedia. I do, however, have this article from The Guardian, which refers to him as Mikel John Obi. Usually The Guardian is an irrefutable source on these things, but I recognise that more sources refer to him as John Obi Mikel, which is why my !vote was only a weak oppose. – PeeJay 11:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. Matty's research shows that John Obi Mikel is the most used name in reliable English sources. During his spell in Norway he was only known as "John Obi Mikel". Mentoz86 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - appears to be the COMMONNAME, and indeed is the one I hear his referred as on TV & radio. GiantSnowman 10:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - most common name for the subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2015[edit]

Mikel was part of the team that won the 2014-2015 Capitol one cup, so I need to add that to his honors. 68.13.116.120 (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added Thank you for your contribution. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016[edit]

Mikel scored a rare goal for Chelsea when he found the back of the net against PSG last Wednesday. Sripad13 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Obi Mikel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Obi Mikel. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019[edit]

"On January" = "In January" 2605:E000:9149:8300:2927:3271:8497:2E22 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done in the most recent revert. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel National Honor[edit]

Mikel John Obi upon winning the 2013 AFCON was conferred with the national honor as Member Order of Niger alongside other members of the team. Please kindly include that in the profile. Thanks Empowerment007 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The bulk of the article still needs updating, and maybe a small explanation of the name situation somewhere in the article is due as well. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Obi Mikel → Mikel John Obi – This article was moved from 'Mikel John Obi' to 'John Obi Mikel' in August 2013 following a discussion at #Requested move.

However I've just come across this and this from 2016 which confirm the player wants to be called 'Mikel John Obi' and that that is his legal name (it explains the reason why he was known by other variations of the name, which were/are a mistake). The media also uses this name, see e.g. this. Regarding Google, I get 2.36 million for 'John Obi Mikel' and 2.47 million for 'Mikel John Obi'.

In this situation I don't think some sources using the 'wrong' name is good enough, especially as they aren't even consistent - see this from yesterday which calls him 'John Mikel Obi'. Pretty sure historically I also saw variations like 'Obi John Mikel' etc.! So, I say we go with the OFFICIALNAME which the individual themselves has confirmed, which might also actually be the COMMONNAME. GiantSnowman 11:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the participants from the 2013 discussion in case they are interested: @Mattythewhite, PeeJay, MicroX, ChrisTheDude, and BDD: (not Mentoz86 who has vanished). GiantSnowman 11:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sounds as though the situation has changed since 2013, and a great deal of deference should be given to preferred names when it comes to BLPs. I do note that the article will need a fair amount of updating accordingly, but there's no reason the rename should be held up pending that. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mikel_John_Obi&oldid=1195366931"