Talk:Graham Rix

message: Convicted sex offender and documented racist.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/12/graham-rix-gwyn-williams-accused-racism-bullying-chelsea 2601:58B:200:3DEB:1DBA:8A85:CE77:73EE (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: chronic sociopath

message: No references, added tag.--FloNight 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No references

message: Text from article
Rix joined Chelsea as youth team coach in the summer of 1993; during an injury crisis, he briefly enlisted as a player for the club, playing a solitary Premiership match in May 1995 against his old side Arsenal. Rix became assistant manager in 1996 under new Blues boss Ruud Gullit, and continued in the same role under Gullit's successor Gianluca Vialli, winning the FA Cup in 1997, and the League Cup and Cup Winners' Cup in 1998.
In March 1999, Rix was sentenced to twelve months in prison, for having underage sex with a 15-year-old girl (BBC); upon his release from prison six months later he immediately rejoined Chelsea in his old job. He won the FA Cup again in 2000 before leaving the club in November that year, after Vialli was sacked by Ken Bates. Rix has since had unsuccessful spells managing Portsmouth and Oxford United; both times he was sacked after less than a year in the job.
Is someone questioning that this person is a public figure? This BBC story confirms that he is notable in my mind. BBC News | UK | Football star admits sex charge When a public figure goes to prison, this is notable. Criminal categories, denoting the type of crime, are an apppropriate for public figures. Therefore, a child sexual offender category is correct for someone like him. I'm adding the category back. --FloNight 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public person

message: Newspaper articles show that his conviction and later employment in coaching  caused controversy. Need a sentence or two about controversy. Will research and add. --FloNight 14:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable because of conviction

message: At least 3 editors have now added (or re-added) the category "Convicted child sex offenders" to this article, and each time User:Calgacus has reverted it. From his edit history the reasons that he has provided are:
"remove category; category is pointless unless one has an agenda; the category groups him with Myra Hindley and such folk, and implies he is a paedophile, which is slanderous and not the case"
"remove: this is mentioned in the text; the category is slanderous and completely unnecessary, unless one has an agenda"
"remove sex offenders category; it's absolutely unnecessary" 
It has been counter argued (in edit summaries) by other editors (including myself) that:
"Put cat back. If it is mentioned in the text then the related category should be included. How is the category slanderous? He was convicted for his actions, making him a child sex offender.)" 
"Put category back in, not sure about necessity but the conviction is a significant part of his public persona and is factual)""
I'd like to request some input from other editors. Thanks TigerShark 15:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not the only person to have removed the category. Firstly, the Category has some serious problems, which you'll see if you visit Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders. The category does not distinguish between convicted offenders who have engaged in forcible sexual relations and convicted offenders who have engaged in voluntary sexual relations, nor does it distinguish between those who have had sexual relations with people who are physically children, and those who have had sexual relations with people who have physically passed childhood (i.e. gone through puberty), i.e between paedophiles and perhaps the majority of men in history, from prophets to kings.  Secondly, I suspect the intentions of those who add it; I have no reason to disbelieve the idea that the users who add it are anything more than moderate versions of the anonymous vandals who frequently add things like "beast" and "paedophile" to this page. Anyone who wishes to group Graham Rix with characters such as Myra Hindley loses the right to be given the benefit of the doubt IMHO. Let me ask, why do you care? The article includes the information on his sex offence; that is enough. There's no need to add such dubious categories too. - Calgacus 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, to be clear, you are accusing me and everybody else who has added this category of being vandals and dismissing the idea that any of us have acted in good faith. Is that correct? I put it to you that Rix is a convicted child sex offender, regardless of your subjective opinions on the "voluntary" nature of the crime and the definiton of a "child". As to why I care, I want this encyclopedia to be as accurate as possible - Rix fits the category in question. My question to you, is why do you care if a valid category is included? Thanks TigerShark 16:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not accusing you of being a vandal, and you know that full well. As to your caring desire to keep the encyclopedia accurate, you should be happy then with my arguments, esp. since I've never argued that the discussion of it should be removed, just the blanket category. I'm glad you're on my side then. Thanks. - Calgacus 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Folks, Let's all take it easy. We need to WP:AGF even in the face of unpleasant comments. It's expected. Doing anything else doesn't get us any closer to consensus. Inviting more editors to comment is good idea. --FloNight 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started out think Graham Rix was borderline until I found the newspaper articles. He is very notable because of his conviction and the clubs decision to hire him. Anyway, sports figures are fair game. Their absence from the public eye in order to go to prision is very notable. It changes the team make-up or a team loses it's coach. This is widely discussed by fans. IMO, leaving it off would be whitewashing in his case. I'm also adding sentences on the topic to article. I want to re-read the newspaper articles first, though. --FloNight 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex Offender Category

message: In articles like this that are so link dense, I think the exhaustive year linkage should be axed. --DanielCD 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rix was reported as saying he "will be happy to have someone else buying and selling his players."
Was he referring to himself in the third person when he said this? Check and see if this is an actual quote by him or a quote from an article discussing him. Either way, this will need to be changed to make sense. --DanielCD 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ...meaning Rix was unable to claim any silverware as skipper.
What exactly does this mean? --DanielCD 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual (''sic'') editing comments