Talk:Ian Botham

message: Does this article really need 13 categories? For example:
*Shouldn't :Category:English batsmen, :Category:English bowlers and :Category:English all-rounders be mutually exclusive?
*Is it that helpful to have three county cricket affiliations (:Category:Somerset cricketers, :Category:Worcestershire cricketers and :Category:Durham cricketers)?
*Is anyone going to look under :Category:Queensland cricketers?  If so, what about club sides that he played for?
*Surely all :Category:English cricket captains were either :Category:English ODI cricketers or :Category:English test cricketers (alternatively, it may be sensible to have two sub-categories of England cricket captains, one for Test captains and one for ODI captains, with possibly a further category for Test and ODI captains)
(No objections to :Category:Wisden Cricketers of the Year or :Category:Cricket writers and broadcasters, though). --ALoan (Talk) 13:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An all-rounder is both a batsman and a bowler; I don't see the terms being mutually exclusive. Though I do admit that (although I have retained these categorisations - along with the categorisation of "wicket-keeper", I'd be happy to remove them). Personally I find it interesting which major first-class sides a player played for. True, people are unlikely to search for Ian Botham under Queensland cricketers, but those looking for Queensland cricketers may find it interesting that Ian Botham played a (somewhat ill-fated) season for them. I think it's interesting to have an English cricketer captains category - it would be strange to have an English test cricketers other than test captains category, and so any test captain appears in both. Currently "English cricket captains" only includes those who have captained at least one test - though I take your point that a separate ODI captains category may be interesting, jguk 21:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Shouldn't this statement quote a source? Should it be deleted without one?
From an early age, he always wanted his own way in a devoutly, almost religious, single-minded fashion. When informed that Ian wanted to be a sportsman, the careers master at his school said to him 'Fine, everyone wants to play sport, but what are you really going to do?
MichaelMaggs 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fairly famous quote and one I've heard before (or at least words to that effect) on television. I'll find a source on it as i'm sure it will have found its way to print somehwere. --LiamE 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been having a good look around and not tracked it down yet. Has any got Ian's autobiography to hand to see if its in there? --LiamE 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family history 

message: Another nickname - in the England team - for Ian Botham was "Guy the Gorilla". It came, apparently, from a Christmas Party down under, when he dressed up in a gorilla suit.
It gave rise to Geoffrey Boycott's notorious "order" to skipper Mike Brearley in 1981: "Put the gorilla on at the other end!" - which worked: 3 wickets for 1 run ... and another win.
81.102.133.198 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional nickname 

message: I've removed/rewritten to sentences downplaying Botham's achievements in 1981. "the 1981 Australian team had been weakened by the effects of the Packer affair" -- No, Packer (WSC) cricket had ended 2 years before and all players (except Greg Chappell) were available. If the team was weak, it wasn't due to WSC cricket. "The 1981 Australian team was not highly rated and many regard it as the worst team Australia has ever produced" - who are those "many"? I don't believe them. Australia in the early 80s was pretty strong and even drew a series with the Windies the next summer. The team was much weaker in the mid 80s. Rocksong 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure if this is of sufficiently high importance in the broader context of Botham's life ROxBo 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on opposition in 1981 

message: I have added a table and a few comments in regards to his records in this area--Philipjelley (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Centuries and 5 Wicket Hauls

message: "[I]n the top 5 in the history of the game" - is that the top 5 all-rounders? Apologies for clueless query - but might be good to clarify. Regards,Notreallydavid (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-time rankings 

message: User:‎Nbagigafreak added some content about Botham naming his dogs after grape varieties, and having a range of wines named after him. The sources are a YouTube video and an ad for the wine. To me, this is undue trivia. I reverted with just such a comment. User:‎Nbagigafreak has just restored the words, with no Edit summary or other communication. I don't want an edit war, and won't revert, but let it be recorded that I don't think this content improves the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you discuss it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine and dogs trivia 

message: I changed this section around. In some respects linking the two events separated by 10 years to the word "courted" was never going to stand. Also we are talking about libel actions which is more civil law (not an expert so don't quote me on that) or if at all falling into criminal law at least is only concerned with the "civil" behavior of those involved.  
The particular court cases should have dates, duration, judgement, judge's name, etc. This needs to be in full. In the sole libel action for ball tampering - the balls were presented to the jury and this needs to be included to show that justice is about detail no matter how small. I'm being serious. 
If you disagree with my edits then revert to previous edit.
Sluffs (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section rewrite 

message: I've removed some duplicated blue links. I can see why previous editors may have thought that the length of the article meant that it may be better to have multiple blue links for readers to look up words. However it is already quite a colorful article with a large number of blue links. If you really think its necessary to link to Imran Khan and the England Cricket Team multiple times then restore the links but I think its better to encourage readers to stay and finish the article from top to bottom - which brings me onto the personal section which is below a big table of matches played. If you are reading a paper book cricket biography the statistics tables are normally at the back in an appendix. This is a biography with stats so I would like to suggest that the table be moved to the end of the text.
I think bios need to have the "life" bits - I know a lot of people who do the hero bit like to think their heroes descended from some higher plane fully formed with their heroic talents already completely "in the bag" but I think the struggle and battles of an early career and the disappointments and victories makes for an interesting biography.
Take for example the Viv Richards early career section that I've just done. I mention his job as assistant groundsmen at Lansdown C.C. in Bath and gave the impression it was to help support him financially (which it was) but I left out the fact that Richards actually had to do the work - he really did work - Viv Richards took the roller out and prepared the field all for £1 a week (a year later he was earning big money) - so hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. Keith Richards from the Rolling Stones mentions the first time he met Muddy Waters at Chess Studio - he looked up at a man painting a wall in overalls and lo and behold saw Muddy (I got this from an interview with Keith Richards in the book Blues Guitar published by Guitar Player Magazine). I hope I haven't overstepped the mark by pointing this out. Cheers.
Sluffs (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Blue Links 

message: Substituted at 18:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ian Botham. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505055546/http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=celebrity-x-factor&method=full&objectid=22143891&siteid=93463-name_page.html to http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=celebrity-x-factor&method=full&objectid=22143891&siteid=93463-name_page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see the article has been tagged for multiple issues. Would anyone like to try and improve the article objectively and introduce some additional citations? Jack | talk page 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I made a start myself but this remains a very poor article indeed. Whoever did the main "work" was focused on the 1981 series and there have been several inputs by people who are fascinated by all the trivia about Ian Botham. Appalling. Someone needs to concentrate on his full career and get things into perspective as I've tried to do with all the POV crap that was there re the 1981 series. Jack | talk page 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I started on this a while back, User:Harrias/Ian Botham, but it's not the sort of project I can really get back into fully at the moment, though I still hope to complete it. Harrias talk 18:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Harrias. Even though it's unfinished, your draft is infinitely better than the mess I found in the published article yesterday. One thing you need to watch out for, though, is the dead or spurious citation links. I won't use your content for anything I do here, other than for checking and correction of minor errors where applicable, because it's your work and you must take the credit. My main concern for the moment is the sourcing but the biggest issue the article has is the lack of overall career coverage. I'll do what I can to remove any dubious content and/or citations and I'll try to put some kind of career detail in, even if only in summary form. Thanks for letting me see your draft and good luck with it when you have time to complete it. Jack | talk page 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, Harrias, I've had a go at this and I've removed all the dead and dubious citation links. I'd advise you in your version to limit yourself to the ones now in the article as they are all valid. What would be good, given that you obviously have the Doust and Murphy books, would be if you could fill in the early life and career development sections up to 1974. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 16:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: Should the "Personal Life" section contain a mention of the subject's twitter account being hacked? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, see the previous section for more background information, including what I actually said, rather than this mischaracterization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should we add a line about the subject of the article's twitter account being hacked?

message: I am filing an RfC for this dispute as the discussion has clearly reached an impasse. My position is that this was widely covered by numerous reliable sources so it should be included:
* Huffington Post (source)
* The Telegraph (source)
* Buzzfeed (source)
* The Guardian (source)
* Sydney Morning Herald (source) 
* Fox Sports Australia (source) 
* Canberra Times (source)
* Wisden online (source)
* Cricketing Allsorts: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (and The Downright Weird) (book) (source)
The objections to this are that it's "tabloid fodder", the person proposing the addition is "wikilawyering", that the addition "wouldn't help people learn about the subject" and that the sources "[say] absolutely nothing about Botham", are of "generally low quality" and are being "misrepresented".  80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, see the previous section for more background information, including what I actually said, rather than this mischaracterization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Background (twitter)

message: *No.  For one thing, none of the sources confirm any compromise of his account, merely that this is what he claimed.  Furthermore, the text that was being added claimed the picture was of Botham's...erm...bits, which is a gross BLP violation given that none of the sources said this.  And even assuming for the sake of argument that his account actually was compromised, so what?  Why is a compromise of one's Twitter account and subsequent sending of a single pic of some naughty bits worthy of inclusion in a BLP?  That it was picked up and made the rounds on news sites says more about how society consumes "news" and about clicks driving reporting than it does about Botham himself.  And make no mistake, it says  about Botham himself (except maybe that he should use better passwords...if that's even what happened, which we don't even know).  As I said above, as someone who had never even heard of Botham a week (or so) ago, this would not offer  insight into Botham as a person or an athlete, etc.  Even worse, imagine someone reading this a century from now wondering why this is here.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (twitter)

message: On this site it says that Lord Botham and his family live in Almeria, Spain. This is incorrect, we live in North Yorkshire, England. ````request edit Sarah Shield - Daughter of Lord Botham
:Done (copied refs from Ravensworth). The mention of Almeria / golf is unsourced, so is this still valid? Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address of Lord Botham 

message: The section on Botham's media career is written in an extremely one-sided tone. Just take this as an example: "he imparts information and opinion objectively, giving praise where it is due and constructive criticism where that is due". This reads like something a PR person was paid to write.
I would suggest this section is rewritten by someone who has access to primary sources on the subject, or the biased parts are simply removed. Secondus2 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media career