Talk:Joe Jordan

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

Untitled[edit]

Hmm, I thought that Joe was from Cleland, about 10 miles from Carluke.

I recall the day he returned from the 1974 world cup, all the kids from Cleland Primary school, including me, spent the whole afternoon in Mennock Street waiting for him to come home (I think his parents lived there).

Dalglish: Goals in 3 World Cups incorrect?[edit]

The article twice mentions that Jordan joined Kenny Dalglish as the only Scottish player ever to score in 3 World Cup finals competitions. However this information on Dalglish appears neither in the list of players to score in three WCFs, nor on Dalglish's own page. As one who is just about old enough to remember, I am fairly certain that Dalglish did not score in the 1974 tournament (Scotland's 3 goals being scored by Jordan (2) and Lorimer). Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time at AC Milan[edit]

It doesn't actually say anything whatsoever about his time at Milan - was it really that un-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.72.18 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should also mention the anti-Italian remarks by Jordan that sparked off Gattuso's attack on him after the AC Milan-Spurs game in February 2011.

It already does. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOT#NEWS and UNDUE[edit]

There seem to be some misconceptions about these policies on this article. First, material that is repeatedly referred to later in biographical materials as important to the subject's life, important enough to be used as examples to support other claims in the article, are by definition, not NEWS. Second, UNDUE does not mandate removing large well sourced and relevant parts of an article just because other parts don't have enough content. That's a frankly absurd way to approach article development. Those gaps exist simply due to lack of easily obtainable coverage to expand them to the size they should be if this were a Featured Article. I should know, I spent much of last week looking for them. MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to see why there should be over 200 words on the Gattuso incident. It is well sourced, but is it really that relevant? It is a small incident in Jordan's career. In the same section, is it worth of anything more than a passing mention that he had angry confrontations with Roy Hodgson and Paul Ince? And is it genuine notable that he had a glass of wine with Ince?
This Gattuso spat was not a small incident, and it is covered in as much detail as is necessary to present the NPOV, properly attributed. Do you honestly think this will not be covered in detail in any proper biography of Jordan? I will repeat, if this biography was raised to FA standards, where all significant aspects were covered in appropriate detail, it would not look so out of place. But removing it because it is not currently an FA is not how Wikipedia works. And no, the others were not small incidents either. They are notable aspects of his career, because reliable sources have chosen to reference them long after they took place. You might think they are insignificant, but that's simply your own personal opinion, which is not how we judge what is and is not significant. MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That all these incidents warrant this much detail is your own personal opinion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. How do you think I even knew these incidents had even happened, if it wasn't for their ongoing coverage in reliable sources? The detail is standard, and the attribution appropriate, as called for in WP:NPOV. This is not my view, it's the consensus view of the entire site. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a myriad of reliable sources on this incident because football coverage sells newspapers. Is it genuine notable in the career of Joe Jordan that he shouted at Paul Ince and later had a glass of wine with him? For the Gattuso incident, yes it happened, but not all the stuff in there is necessary. Could you accept that this is perhaps more concise:

On 15 February, 2011, during Tottenham's 1-0 victory over AC Milan in Italy, in last 16 UEFA Champions League, Jordan was involved in two heated exchanges with Milan player Gennaro Gattuso. During the game Gattuso had a touchline confrontation with Jordan, and after the game, Gattuso grabbed Jordan by the neck and attempted to head butt him, to which Jordan neither reacted or retaliated to physically. Gattuso later apologised, and was banned by UEFA for four European matches for assaulting Jordan.

Bit more to the point, maybe? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point according to who? Who are you to decided that this is the extent of detail the reader should know? Who are you to decide which viewpoints are includable and which aren't? This is the exact sort of POV I'm talking about. If you have an offical print biography of Jordan to hand, please present it so we can discuss this on a factual basis. If not, I'm more than happy to use newspapers to inform what is and isn't notable about the guy. Or are you now going to start paring down other details too, like the Man U jaw breaking incident? That is after all still only sourced to a newspaper. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, who are you to decide the extent of detail that the reader should know? I am concerned that, by your rationale, every single piece of attributable information about a subject should be included in an article. Also, an 'official' biography is quite likely not to adhere to NPOV. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this argument isn't getting either party anywhere! I've invited members of WP:Footy to have a look, and hopefully through that a consensus can be found. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant official as in reliable, not official as in authorised. I decide based on policy and good practice, as followed by articles of superior quality to this one is in, even now. Your version is a very basic and very obvious violation of NPOV for a start, completely ignoring as it does Gattuso's explanations, and in terms of attribution, it's not a question of scale at all, yours contains not a single bit of attribution at all. And the idea I have included every single bit of attributable information is ludicrous, as anyone reading the actual newspapers where this material comes from would realise. I have included the minumum necessary, and nothing more. You really shouldn't be asking FOOTY for advice on what NPOV, UNDUE and NOT#NEWS mean, you need to be asking FA reviewers. MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is covered in twice as much detail as it needs to be. Talking about Featured Article status, Thierry Henry covers the handball incident in as much detail as this. Obviously that is absurd, seen as Jordan/Gattuso resulted in a backpage headline and a short suspension, whereas the handball resulted in one nation heading to the World Cup instead of another and months of headlines, with a diplomatic spat to boot. This is all fluff: [Gattuso later apologised and took full responsibility for having lost his head and doing what he did to "an older person", and with a UEFA investigation having begun immediately, stated he would accept any forthcoming ban. In explaining the head-butt he said "Jordan busted my balls for the whole second half" and "I was annoyed about the words I'd exchanged with Jordan earlier. We were both speaking Scottish given that I played in his country in Glasgow but I'm not going to say what was said". According to Gattuso's agent, the head butt was triggered by Jordan calling him an “Italian bastard”, a claim which Jordan rejected emphatically, stating "He clearly doesn't realise I consider playing for Milan the proudest time of my career, that my daughter lives and works in Italy and that I love the country and the people. It's just a nonsense, it really is.”] Remove it. Cheers.--EchetusXe 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to fall in the middle somewhere. Certainly, the present coverage of the Gattuso incident is overblown and needs condensing. As the above user says, most of it is just fluff. Mick MacNee should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a selection of biographies. The Ince and Hodgson incidents seem to be far too trivial to warrant more than a passing mention. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you basing that judgement of what is and is not 'trivial' on your personal opinion, or what actual reliable sources have deemed historically noteworthy? To describe the act of giving proper attribution and context as 'fluff' is simply unsupportable. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not use the Henry article as an example of anything. It was passed as an FA well before the handball incident, and all efforts by multiple editors to give that incident proportionate coverage have been blocked by one editor who has one of the worst cases of OWNership I've seen in my life. The coverage it has in main text had to be fought tooth and nail over against the exact same objections here - NOT#NEWS, not notable etc etc, and yet even after the full impact was seen, it still omits half of the relevant facts of that months long dispute and its full consequences. It doesn't even get a mention in the lede, that's how shit that article is. Go over there and try and add it if you disbelieve me, I give it an hour before blind reversion. As far as the Gattuso incident is concerned, to claim that it only generated one story is provable false. It generated massive and in depth coverage, much of which now provides biographical detail that his article didn't even have before. That's not a run of the mill trivial incident. Infact, as of yesterday it was still being talked about in the media, being used as a comparison in a row about FIFA punishments. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Henry handball coverage is a bit light. Anyway, there is no need for all these quotes. They could be summarised as follows:

[On 15 February 2011, during Tottenham's 1-0 victory over AC Milan at the San Siro, in the last 16 of the UEFA Champions League, Jordan was involved in two heated exchanges with Milan player Gennaro Gattuso. During the game Gattuso had a touchline confrontation with Jordan, and after the game, Gattuso grabbed Jordan by the neck and attempted to head butt him, to which Jordan neither reacted or retaliated to physically. Gattuso apologized, but received a four match ban from UEFA. His agent claimed Jordan used a racial slur to provoke Gattuso, an accusation Jordan claimed to be 'nonsense'.]

In England what Gattuso and Jordan said hasn't been examined much, and if anything the most widely reported quote was from Redknapp, who said that 'Gattuso picked on the wrong bloke because Jordan is the original hard man'. There is no need for four lines of quotes from Gattuso as it doesn't add any information, as he said 'I'm not going to say what was said' - his comments do not give the reader any information.--EchetusXe 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't give them information? And what does your version do? What does the reader find out from that as regards Gattuso's motives or explanations? Absolutely nothing. Worse, with your weasely use of words like 'claimed', they could come away with any number of completely innacurate perceptions of what everybody's positions were. With your version, they can presume pretty much anything they want, or more likely, go looking for a better source of information than Wikipedia. It would hardly be the first time. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing "information", which includes all news, with "encyclopaedic information", which should give the user enough dots in the right places to get an accurate picture of what happened. I don't think the cutting should go as far as Waffles' edit did, but the balance isn't right. Even accepting that it's not your fault that other sections are too short, you have portrayed Jordan as someone who has spent 90% of his time at Spurs fighting with players and staff from other clubs. At the very least, the Spurs section itself should paint a balanced picture. As the present situation is misleading to the point of being a clear breach of BLP policy, I have reverted. I accept that it goes too far the other way, but when it comes to negative content in a BLP, you always start with too little and work your way upwards, never the other way around. —WFC— 08:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee it gives exactly the same information in half the space. I am baffled to see how a reader would crave more information than my paragraph gives, search elsewhere for information and then be satisfied when they find a source listing Gattuso's explanation that "I was annoyed". Your definition of 'weasel words' is also quite bizarre. Unless Gattusso's agent witnessed the events first hand and also has a genetic condition that prevents him from lying then it is a claim and not a divine truth that a racial slur was used. Not that the word 'Italian' was a racial slur the last time I checked.--EchetusXe 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:UNDUE and exactly the sort of thing which lowers the quality of existing articles. Real-world consequences were minimal and applied entirely to Gattuso. WFC has it precisely right about how we apply BLP to situations like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're all completely wrong. There is a clear difference between BLP issues (misrepresentation of information) and simple quality concerns (patchy coverage). You simply cannot apply UNDUE to an article to so blatantly hack parts out of it, when it is so clearly and obviously nowhere near, i.e. not even 10%, what it would be, if it were complete, if it were at the version where anyone could reasonably ask, is the coverage now here in proper proportion? It's really sad that the only justification any of you seem to have for cutting this back to this vague and pretty pointless summary, is that the article is so shit it doesn't contain enough information right now elsewhere to make it 'look' in proportion (rather than actually being in proportion if the article was complete), and so you are going to degrade the quality of all parts of it, even the properly sourced, properly attributed, parts. While the suggestions above were fatally flawed with their dodgy summarisation and unbalanced ommissions and assumptions, the reverted to one line for all incidents version is frankly a joke, and is itself a 'begging the question' type BLP violation, considering at least one of those incidents, probably more, Jordan was completely blameless. Given your explanations above, is the jaw breaking incident now also 'out of balance' for the Man U section? Because it's beyond doubt considered historically notable, per the sources, and is of a size hat would be perfectly acceptable if this article was an FA. You won't be able to answer that question without proving you logic behind these changes to be utterly wrong, imho. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jordan's argument and subsequent glass of wine with Ince "historically notable"? If we compare with Thierry Henry there is more on the Jordan-Gattuso incident than Henry's entire 2003-04 season, where Arsenal won the league without losing a game and he won the Golden Boot. Anyway, Wikipedia works by consenus, which seems to be against MickMacNee. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there is far more content in that article about his advertising deals than about that season aswell. Like I said, don't use that article as a comparison for anything, it's not credible. And like I said, if it's not notable, how did I know about it? Do you think I went searching for every mention of his name each year? Of course I didn't. I've got no idea why you've fixated on the glass of wine line, but to apply the logic used above, assuming the information on the whole incident even existed anymore, that one line could apparently be removed as fluff, yet doing so would clearly change the entire reader take-home view of the whole incident. MickMacNee (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that it isn't undue weight because eventually the article will be significantly improved and thus relatively less of it will be devoted to an incidental aspect of the subject simply misses the point of the BLP policy, which is that we can do harm by giving an undue negative perception of the subject. The perception of the revision you keep restoring is that this is a more important aspect of the subject than his playing years at Man U and Milan combined. That's inappropriate. What with your (sadly inevitable) edit warring and scaling up of invective, I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We were done here the moment people started claiming that BLP lets you actively trim articles to the lowest quality overall, on some flawed understanding of the magical powers of having too much neutral, sourced, and above all accurate, content in an article can have to allow people to reinforce whatever POV they brought with them to the article in the first place, but which isn't actually reflected in the text. Notwithstanding the fact I was the idiot who wasted his time adding to several parts of this BLP to drag this sorry POS article from E-class to D-class recently, meaning that in some parts where there was previously nothing at all, or crappily sourced POV raddled scribblings, you actually now have enough reliably sourced properly worded information to be able to make these flawed observations, I'm not about to go looking for sources I know are not out there, just so I can add 400 words on a time in his career that nobody in actual fact has considered particularly noteworthy, to be allowed to add God knows what percentage of characters you think that adds up to in your interpretation of BLP and vague or non-existent recollections of what Jordan is and is not remembered for, to be able to cover the aspects that reliable sources have bothered to consider historically notable. No, as ever, people looking for well sourced, properly attributed information, have to go elsewhere. People looking for a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type one line summarisation of his coaching 'confrontations', can come to this 'article'. What's ironic is that the article now retains information I had purposely added for balance, although not striclty on the formula you seem to employ, but nonetheless in the proportion reflected by the sources, to properly temper the 'impression' he is only remembered for being an 'attack dog'. Since the hack though, anyone reading this now is going to to get quite a ridiculously one-sided view now in the opposite direction. In addition, add to that the fact the lede is now also a whacking great BLP violation too. Again, I'll leave you experts to solve that one, in a manner that doesn't involve reverting this to E-class or contradicting your previous positions, if you can. MickMacNee (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, they're going to get that impression because you'd rather complain that we are not presenting him as someone who spent 90% of his Spurs career attacking people, than actually try to balance the section out. Bearing in mind that all five of us have engaged in qualitative discussion, I'd say there is an underlying consensus to expand on the current section. Myself, yourself and Echetus have said in varying ways that there is scope for more than one and a half lines (but less than six paragraphs) while the primary concern of myself and Chris is that, regardless of the shortcomings of other parts of the article, the Spurs section is proportionate to what he has done while at Spurs. If not being allowed to negatively skew the facts about a living person is too odious a restriction for you, that's your problem. But I hope that you see sense and start discussing how we can accomodate the information without being misleading in a negative way. —WFC— 09:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be doing nothing more to this article. If I could, I'd revert all my recent expansion, both positive and 'negative'. To be accused of wanting to deliberately negatively skew a BLP is more than enough for me to take. If you think that's what BLP actually says, or even how readers think, then good luck to you. If you guys want to pretend that UNDUE refers to your personal views of what an article looks like, rather than what it actually refers to, namely representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", then good luck to you also. I know what the references say, and in what proportion. The consensus is inherent in the wording of the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one day you'll come to terms with the meaning of phrases such as "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints." In the meantime, thanks for the good wishes. Regards, —WFC— 15:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one day you'll read the whole policy page, and realise that's not judged through simple personal opinion, or done in situations where an articles current allocation of 'space' is not credible at all, because it's in a complete shit state full stop. As of right now, in your supposedly BLP compliant version, as far as 'space' is concerned, 'confrontations' is still the only notable aspect of his Tottenham coaching career. The only aspect. If you really were acting per policy, you'd have removed the entire section. Are you purposely leaving out the section where he calls Tottenham a top club also? Is that a BLP 'balance' issue, or just a straight up mistake? MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you've gone from saying that 90% of what he does at Spurs is confront others, to 100%. Okay. Thanks for educating us on BLP. —WFC— 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 10 August 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jordan (footballer) → Joe Jordan – I believe that the football player is clearly the primary topic amongst people known as Joe Jordan (rather than Joseph). His viewing statistics (11,842 in the last 90 days) are almost 20 times greater than the musician (605) and almost 30 times greater than the politician (397). The footballer is very notable within his field; he is only one of two players from Great Britain to score in three separate FIFA World Cup tournaments (David Beckham being the other); he appeared over 50 times for his national team and has been inducted into the national hall of fame. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support does indeed look like primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - appears to be primary topic. GiantSnowman 12:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per proposer's sound analysis. --Cavarrone 05:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Jordan. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Jordan. 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) 12:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Jordan. 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) 12:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Jordan&oldid=1207859543"