Talk:Gareth Thomas (rugby)

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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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]

Neutrality[edit]

This article reads like fanboy tripe, and needs to stick to the facts. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed POV because article seems pretty neutral now and it has been a year since the POV was placed. Article lists facts, shows his achievements and his negative side. Ponty Pirate (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

I have edited the section on this as I don't feel it's appropriate to have it listed under the controversy section.Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Thomas' sexuality is of note to mention in the lede. Firstly he is the first professional rugby player to out themselves, secondly I think in future many people will view the article due to this fact, and also there is past precedent in other sport articles such as Justin Fashanu, Donal Og Cusack and John Amaechi; all articles stating the players' sexuality in the lede. Thomas also outed himself in a major national paper, who placed the article on their front page. I don't therefore think it is overly intrusive in this case. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the field of rugby sexuality which is another article, this personS sexuality as an individual is not worthy of inclusion in his lede, if you look around I don't think you will find other articles, even if you do imo it would be wrong...there should be no way an individuals sexuality is notable for insertion in the lede. You are looking at the importance in another way and then attaching it to this living person..It is fine as it is in the body of the article..imo. As for the other articles you mention...as in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't make it correct.. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then again just because other things exist doesn't make them wrong. But saying that I have taken your advice and inspected other more notable and more complete articles and I concur with your argument. It should not be placed in the lede. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for that, it is perhaps a big thing in the field of rugby but a single living persons sexuality is whatever he chooses, and should imo not on a personal issue be a big thing, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with FruitMonkey –– ljhenshall (talk page) 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this revision was fine http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gareth_Thomas_(rugby_player)&oldid=332704287 –– ljhenshall (talk page) 20:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article; read the lead and you should have a good understanding about the subject of the article. Consequently, not mentioning his sexuality in the lead is a mistake. See WP:LEAD. GedUK  15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His sexuality is not a big deal. Choosing Whether you like men or women or both is not something we need to mention in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ignoring the 'choosing' comment; If it's notable enough for the article, and there's clear consensus that it is, it should be mentioned in the lead. That's what the lead is supposed to be; a distillation of the article. I know where you're coming from, and I wouldn't generally say that every BLP article should mention their sexuality where known, but his coming out is notable for a variety of reasons already mentioned in the article. The lead is incomplete without it. GedUK  15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting discussion. I took Off2riorob's advice and checked out other famous people who are openly gay. Elton John is a good case in point as his lede does not mention his sexuality, even though he is one of the most notable gay men in the UK. On the other hand I disagree with his view that no articles should ever mention someones sexuality. Now I understand that no article would state someone was a hetrosexual, but articles such as Ellen DeGeneres, Harvey Milk and Justin Fashanu, all three articles mention the individuals sexuality in the lede, and I believe rightly so. To be honest if you did not mention Fashanu's sexuality in the lede it would be like ignoring the elephant in the room; as if you mention to someone "Do you remember Justin Fashanu?"; the majority who know of him will use the words gay and footballer in their answer. A similar situation I think would arise from both Milk and DeGeneres.FruitMonkey (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had much of a look around, there are of course perhaps a few exceptions to my comment that sexuality should not be in the lede, but imo this case is not one of them, it is not and will not be something the defines who he is as a person, as a blp issue..I added this comment from him and he seems to agree with me... Thomas..."I don't want to be known as a gay rugby player. I am a rugby player, first and foremost I am a man." .. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a look at Fashinu's article, that clearly is a defining issue in his life. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think it should say "Gareth Thomas is a Welsh gay (or gay Welsh) rugby player"; I agree, his sexuality doesn't define him. However, his coming out, especially while still playing, is notable (which is one of the reasons it's in the article). As I said, the lead should be a summary of the contents of the article; if it's in the article, it should be in the lead. I would suggest that the lead mentions that he was married, and divorced, and then (separate sentence to make sure we don't imply the two things are necessarily linked) that he came out as gay in December 2009. That's it, nothing more complicated than that. The article itself can go into any relevant sourced commentary. GedUK  17:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How I see that is that it would be coatracking the notability of the fact that they say he is the first rugby player onto his individual sexuality, also the facts that he was married and divorced do not belong in the lede either. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are they, and what are they saying? He IS the only professional rugby union player in the world to openly admit he is gay. There is a referee who came out two years ago, but that's it. More will come out in future, but Thomas is the first to do so, you can't change or mask that. Also I can't see any evidence of coatracking, his sexuality gets one paragraph, and so far his rugby career is 90% of the article. There is no divergence into talking about sexuality in rugby, and in the example of Harvey Milk, that article states in the lede that he was the first political office holder in the US to run as openly gay; is that therefore not caotracking too? There is definite interest in Thomas as a gay rugby player, otherwise he wouldn't have clocked up 40,000 hits on the day the story broke. I feel that by pushing the fact out of the lede feels more like shamefully hiding the fact.FruitMonkey (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no hiding the fact, the content sits in the body of the article very well, just that it is imo not worthy of highlighting in the lede. The coatracking I mentioned would be if you used the claim that as he is the first rugby player to come out to add weight to the reason that his sexuality is especially notable enough to warrant inserting in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't think it is relative to compare articles like Milk, but without looking his sexuality is more relevant to his career as you say he ran a whole campaign about it and there is a movie, in this case the subject is already defined and it is not his sexuality that defines him. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Milk article, there is no comparison at all, the word gay appears in the lede five times and over one hundred and thirty times throughout the article and in every section. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think we're making too much of this. The lead is a summary of the article; if it's in the article, it should be summarised in the lead. The article proper then fleshes out the detail. There shouldn't be anything of major note that's in the article that's not in the lead. GedUK  20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that everything that is in the article needs to be summarized in the lede, I think I have clearly stated my position, his sexuality is not a notable event as regards him and his biography and does not belong in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:LEAD (emphasis mine): The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.
Now, I realise that the sexuality issue isn't a controversy as we cleared up at the start of this section, but I think that section is still relevant (and for many, his coming out is controversial). Additionally, I don't believe that this lead can give an accurate overview of the article (rather than the subject) without the sexuality issue being raised. GedUK  22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dislike excessive bolding on talkpages, Discussion here has strengthed my opinion on this, I suggest perhaps a thread at the BLP noticeboard? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. GedUK  08:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested advice on the project's talkpage. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come here from WT:BLP, from reading the article, I think that he is notable for being a rugby player first. He is not notable for being gay, and so it does not really belong in the lead. If in the future he makes a point about being gay, e.g. promoting gay rights, then it should be put in the lead. As he says, "I don't want to be known as a gay rugby player. I am a rugby player, first and foremost I am a man." Martin451 (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that he is notable for being gay, that's why it's in the article, in the press (where he came out), on sports websites etc etc. And again, the lead should be a summary of the article; we shouldn't be picking and choosing what does and doesn't go in the lead. GedUK  09:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he is notable for being gay (and coming out), but that is not what he is known for. It should be included in the main article. It should only be included in the lead if he, or the press, makes a big issue of it (more than has been reported so far). If it is still being talked about a lot in say six months then maybe include it in the lead. At the moment this seems to be WP:RECENTISM. We should be picking and choosing what is in the lead, summarising the main points, and at the moment this is not one of the main points. Martin451 (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's only notably for declaring his homosexuality because he is a record-breaking rugbyman. His recent divorce seems to have a lot to do with his declaration: all this belongs in the "Private life" section. Here's a simple test: would anyone mention the fact that he were married in the lead? After all, he used to be… If not, then we shouldn't mention his homosexuality in the lead: it is a fact about his private life which has no bearing on what he is best known for. Physchim62 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would mention the fact that he was (or is if someone else) married in the lead, it's a summation of key facts from the article. GedUK  12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the parts that mentioned his coach and two of his team mates. I see no value this added in the section. Cablespy (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so he's just done an interview with the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8425191.stm) where he talks about the importance of breaking stereotypes in sport. He says that hopefully another stereotype has been broken and that he can encourage young people to start playing rugby if they'd given up earlier just because they were gay. So now he's keen to help break down barriers; is this notable enough for the lead? GedUK  12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a biography, no. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It likely will be if it becomes a bit of a thread in his life and if he becomes known for championing this position, then something could be added to the lede like..Thomas revealed he was gay and is an active supporter of (whatever it would be) and encourages...(whatever it would be) .. For now if it has value imo I would add a comment to the section. If he continues to be active in supporting this position and the section was to grow and continue to strengthen then after some time it would be clear that a comment was warranted in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a short bit on the interview to the article. I still think the lead should summarise the article (rather than the person) as per the WP:LEAD guidelines, thus rmoving the need for editorialising it, but I appear to be against consensus, so I'll step away for now. I'll review some FA bios and see if there's any precedents either way. GedUK  12:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you, a good discussion, nothing is fixed on the wiki and all can change. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise I am following this up a while after the initial discussion. In terms of notability in the lead section, Gareth's sporting career is of course the biggest reason for his notability. His sexuality will not be significant or relevant to the majority. However, his coming out makes him the first to do something which is significant. This fact will be the reason why he is notable to some people instead of the particular facets of his rugby career. The opening paragraph of the lead for Barack Obama says "He is the first African American to hold the office." I hear people say that fact is irrelevant, but of course it is relevant. In just the same way I think Gareth Thomas being the first openly gay professional rugby player is relevant enough to be included at the end of the lead section. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is comparable, the first rugby player to come out, the first black president of the usa is much much more relevant for inclusion in the lede, there has for example been no black presdents pretending not to be black, so it is totally different, comparrisons like that are a bit lightweight, it is better to deal with thing on an individual basis, in this case, his sexuallity is not a big issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the comparison with Barack Obama because some people believe his racial heritage is irrelevant, it's how he does his job that matters, however dominant opinion treats it as relevant. Just because the fact in question about Gareth Thomas, perhaps, doesn't hold much relevance to you, it is relevant to LGBT people. It is a milestone in the history of the social equality of LGBT people, as with Justin Fashanu. Rugby fans are not the only audience of the article about Gareth Thomas, so his notability needs to be balanced in the lead section. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be a milestone for LGBT people but this article is not specifically written for them is it? We don't write biographies just because some point or other is notable to a minority group. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fashanu, there is also no comparison at all with this article, Here Gay is totally relevant in the lede there, and Gay is in the lede and throughout the article in every section. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is for all people, facts notable to a minority are notable to an article with a neutral point of view. Of course there is a comparison with Justin Fashanu, he was the first openly out prominent footballer. Both Fashanu and Thomas are firsts. If Thomas were the nth openly out, prominent rugby player, it would not be relevant for the lead. However, he is the first. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparrison at all with fashanu, he killed himself about it all, as I said the Gay story is in every section of fash's biography, this persons sexual position is not a big issue, it has also been well discussed, please take the time to read the lengthy discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through the WP:LGBT's FA and GA list looking for bios, preferably who have come out recently, plus a few others:

Mentions sexuality in lead:


Doesn't:

  • Drew Barrymore, but she didn't really come out in anything like the same way.
  • A. Scott Berg, but as far as I know, he's not come out in a comparable way
  • Brian Epstein but his sexuality wasn't made public till after his death, so not really comparable
  • Mark Feehily, but that article's in a poor state, the lead runs virtually straight into the personal life section

This list is not complete, and fairly selective in that it's people I recognise by name. I'll add some more later/tomorrow. GedUK  20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that Gareth's sexuality should be referred to in the lead section. Donal Óg Cusack came out in October and his article says he "is a well known Irish hurler and Ireland's first openly gay elite sportsman" in the lede. Gareth even put himself on the cover of issue 188 of Attitude. I do not see why the relevance of Gareth Thomas being the first openly out international rugby player should need so much debate. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is making it a fairly big deal, in the sense of promoting gay rights/acceptance. Turning up in Attitude is a big indicator. And once again, I have to make my point that the lead is supposed to summarise the article. GedUK  21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname[edit]

Usually nicknames are not added unless they are well known and notable, some people say they should not be added at all but am unsure where the actual info is about it, usually as long as they are not derogatory they do seem to be added, I think that this nickname is not particular notable and it should not really need so much prominence at the top of the article like that, any comments. Is this nickname well known and notable? Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have moved it down the article which is better, but is it a notable widely known and reported nickname? Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it's is not derogatory and was in a strong citation and is a bit better further down the article so thats ok too, regards and thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the section down before I saw your comment but I agree the nickname was given too much prominence near the top of the article. It seems a bit awkward in a separate 'nickname' section but I'm unsure where else in the article it could be merged into. Barret (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we had a good look at it and it is more or less harmless, might as well leave it as it is. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname is well known, especially in Wales, and notable, and is actually the name of his autobiography. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The local newspapers, the public, TV pundits all refer to him as Alfie. He gets called alfie more than Gareth Thomas. His autobiography is even called Alfie ISBN 9781845961916 Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ayatola[edit]

Thomas performs his 'Ayatollah' try celebration... is all that is in the citation .. and although you have removed some of the comment you still have this left ..His way of celebrating tries by slapping his head comes from a popular celebration among Cardiff City supporters known as "the Ayatollah". ..So as I said, the content is not covered by the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary says captions. You may have missed the second image in the BBC article further down the page with the caption "Thomas' head-slapping try celebration routine comes from a Cardiff City fan favourite known as the 'Ayatollah'". Barret (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, blooming heck, that is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Thomas is a big Cardiff City fan and does the 'Ayatollah' when he scores a try. I typed "Gareth Thomas Try" into YOUTUBE and without searching the 1st video that comes up you can see him do the 'Ayatollah' at 25 seconds into the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UROtk0pBuc Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC, dispute over the insertion of transfer speculation story.[edit]

Three is a dispute between two editors, one of them thinks that this transfer speculation is worthy of inclusion and the other editor thinks it is speculation that may never happen and that the content is unworthy of inclusion unless it actually happens.I think the header says it all, potentail of a swithch and some other club is interested in signing him, imo this is unworthy of inclusion uness of course it should actually happen, I have edited football articles and transfer speculation is kept out of those articles and I am sure it is the same with other sports, we never add such speculation. It says in the citation this...Thomas is understood to have held talks with the Crusaders, the Welsh Super League club who relocated from Bridgend to Wrexham last autumn, with a possibility his move could be confirmed this week. ..if it happens then we can happily wait a few days to see if it does. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the desired addition....

Potential switch of codes[edit]

Welsh rugby league club Crusaders who play in the Super League are interested in signing Thomas who will become the clubs highest profile signing as they look to build their squad for the 2010 season. His contract with Cardiff expires in May.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/feb/16/gareth-thomas-crusaders-rugby-league .

Related RFC[edit]

The same editor is adding the transfer speculation the the Gavin Henderson rugby player biography here , please also consider leaving a comment at that RFC, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please post comments please here[edit]

I've already argued this point on Gavin Henson's article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; it's not that I don't believe the BBC and their sources, but if it hasn't happened, it's not news-worthy. Wait for the event and then report on it, otherwise Ronaldo's article would be fifty percent speculation in the press. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing apples and pears by throwing the round ball into the equation. There is a definite and concrete link between Thomas and the Crusaders, though no contract. With Henson the fact that he is not playing for the Ospreys and watched a vast number of the 2009 Crusaders home fixtures does make it newsworthy, with the article reflecting the fact that Henson has never come out and stated that he is looking to move to the summer game.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's about football or rugby league is irrelevent. Neither WP:FOOTY nor WP:RL has any guideline suggesting that rife speculation is permitted in articles under their scopes. Until he has either publically declined the offer (which as far as I know from this story, is yet to actually exist anyway), or signed for Crusaders RL, this remains a heavily reported rumour, but a rumour nonetheless. Therefore, WP:CRYSTAL - no mention of this should currently exist in the article. GW(talk) 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude If it has not happened it is not newsworthy and certainly not encyclopedia-worthy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gareth Thomas (rugby). 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gareth Thomas (rugby). 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) 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gareth Thomas (rugby). 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) 08:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd highest try scorer[edit]

according to the wikipedia page for highest try scorers, george north (as well as shane williams) are ahead of gareth thomas in tries scored for wales, putting him 3rd not 2nd. might be because this hasn't been updated in a while and north is an active player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.182.104 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal Life" and Relationships[edit]

I do not understand why this article goes to the trouble of mentioning Thomas's former wife Jemma, their divorce, and even her miscarriages while simultaneously remaining dead silent on Thomas's subsequent relationships (notably with men rather than women) and subsequent marriage. Worse, the vast majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia *do* include the names of spouses, yet here there is zero mention of the fact that Gareth Thomas is currently married ... to a man. Perhaps it is not mentioned because he is married to a man? Is there any possibility that this omission is covert homophobia? This is especially concerning given the acrimonious discussion regarding whether or not to mention Thomas's sexuality in the lead of the article (it should be mentioned there). Or is it perhaps because Thomas's husband seems to be known in the media by two totally different names? Some name Thomas's husband as "Ian Baum," while others name him as "Stephen Williams Thomas." It is perhaps noteworthy that the name "Ian Baum" was used in older articles, whereas more recent articles use "Stephen Williams" or "Stephen Williams Thomas." The husband is always described as a very private person, so is it possible that "Ian Baum" was a pseudonym used prior to the marriage? I searched the internet for hours without being able to resolve this discrepancy. But "Ian Baum" and "Stephen Williams" do appear nearly identical in photographs. Because of the shift in name usage by the media, the "Baum" photographs are all older, so maybe any slight physical variation in Baum/Williams' appearance is due to aging? In any event, some intrepid contributor with access to better and accurate information needs to sort this out and edit the "Personal Life" section to include Gareth Thomas's current marriage. Shame on every previous editor of this article for not including the current marriage. DesertSkies120 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gareth_Thomas_(rugby)&oldid=1210408620"