Talk:Graham Spiers

message: What exactly is under dispute here? That he is a Rangers supporter; or that he wrote the chapter in the book? I don't even see this as contentious - is the article supposed to ignore his writings on the subject? 90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: does the citation say what you have said, and does this merit a place in his biography.Monkeymanman (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and yes. What makes you think otherwise? 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have an edit history of taking sources out of context and misquoting sources. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The more you say it doesn't make it true. Please try to focus on the content at issue, thanks. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok. That's good if we're all happy with the article in its current state. Can all 3 tags go from the top of the article now or are there any further objections? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i think there was one already there for some time, but i will remove the tags if the article is stable? Monkeymanman (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: seeing as the same contested material is now being re-added, i have replaced one of the tags.  A quote from the man himself about him being a rangers supporter is different to selective quotes from his column to further the position of a third party. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: cherry picking negative statements from this reporters column does not seem entirely appropriate.  He must have made thousands of statements over the years about football, some negative, some not.    A statement from spiers himself regarding his background to being a supporter of Rangers is different, and thats why i agreed to that inclusion and felt that sat well.  These selective quotes are only trying to degrade one set of supporters or club. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've raised this at WikiProject Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I am hesitant over the main quotation and the content regarding Rangers. He is clearly critical of the club; however the quote seems pure OR in that the source for it is his own writing. Ideally it would be nice to have a source that said Spiers has been critical (and pointing to some examples). The same issue applies to the remainder of the section. piers has been a prominent critic of the club's leadership and supporters. He has highlighted many incidents of racism and sectarianism. (for example) is completely unsourced and possibly OR. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cherry picking quotations of Spiers' to further a position (i.e. attack Rangers) is lacking neutrality. I think, if one took a neutral overview of his writing, one would rightly conclude he is critical of a element in the Rangers support. But the point certainly doesn't need to be laboured. The way the article is currently written, that aspect of his writing is given undue weight. In fact, in an article that is essentially a stub and is likely to remain that way, we probably shouldn't be quoting him at all. 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually most of that section is OR, because none of it seems to be citations from third parties to show that this is his position. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation