Talk:Brian McGinlay

Daily Record Source

It is odd that this source is accepted as reliable for Mr McGinlay's speeding and (alleged) insurance fraud, but not for the other matters it reported!

Personally, I have no interest in Mr McGinlay's alleged proclivities. I included the report of them only for their direct relevance to him being struck off in 1986 and his sudden retirement six years later.

Of course, if alternative explanations can be produced then let's see them verified with equally reliable sources. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that those are some very strong accusations to make on someones BLP that cannot be cross checked. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So are insurance fraud and drink-driving, which is why they are attributed to a RS and neutrally worded. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

good point i forgot that thanks Monkeymanman (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is properly cited and reliable. Anyone seriously interested in examining the source can do so via an Athens log-in or sundry other methods. Again, to my knowledge there is no requirement at WP:RS for sources to pass the 'can Monkeymanman google it?' test.

It is disapponting that you seem to want to fudge or obfuscate BLP details when facts supported by RSs are already in the public domain. This seems to me to be seriously at variance with the ends of WP. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is properly cited and reliable, if so then why can it not be viewed from another newspaper or reliable source? want to fudge or obfuscate BLP details, when dealing with BLP's you have to be very carefull with what is included. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That part is fine now that you have a ref that can be cross checked. Although the part about him failing a physical is dubious. Normaly the herald refs can all be viewed online. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You will note that the information in the "checkable" refs corroberates the material in the "redundant" one which you are trying to suppress. You are wasting your time: I will find more sources ;) 90.197.224.58 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It just had information about his ban from driving, due to not giving a sample. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was asked to use Athens to review the source. It does discuss the drink driving but it is not the focus of the article and the other source covers it. I need to read up on whether the Fraud allegations should be included or not - are there any sources about whether it went further than an investigation? Same for the questioning over his "incident outside a toilet". My recollection of the general consensus is that usually allegations have to be substantial to be included if they go no further than that. Possibly the fraud could be mentioned - the rest seems unlikely. The other source I also checked He was dropped by UEFA in February 1992 after failing a physical exam. is incorrect according to the source. He was, in fact, dropped from one game. That doesn't seem notable - so it would be interesting to hear the rationale behind it's inclusion and the reason for the choice of words in the first place. At this point I would suggest holding off adding the material back - the first source is not needed for the driving violations & we need to check on the rest for inclusion --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although I'm not sure your personal reflections on the subject matter are of any relevance. Rather I simply wanted you to confirm what was in the source so I can put it back in the article. Obviously him being acquitted on gay sex charges in 1987 is a matter of public record and, since it has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources, I don't see any grounds for leaving it out. It belongs per WP:WELLKNOWN. Ditto for the (alleged) incident in 1992, for which no charges were brought.

Actually He was dropped by UEFA in February 1992 after failing a physical exam is correct according to the source. A referee who fails a physical obviously becomes ineligble to referee any game - not just that one in particular. That is why another exam was arranged for him which he would need to pass before refereeing again at that level. Of course this is notable. The choice of the word dropped was taken from the source: apologies if this offended your delicate sensibilities! 90.197.224.58 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Rather I simply wanted you to confirm what was in the source so I can put it back in the article this is not how it works. I'm now coming to the conclusion you are acting in bad faith in all of this - your refusing to discuss and listen to explanations of BLP policy.
• that is why another exam was arranged for him which he would need to pass before refereeing again at that level; good. Find a source that says this happened to McGinlay. You cannot say obviously xyz based on a source. This is another example of what I have been explaining to you for the last few days about interpreting sources beyond what they actually say.
• Ditto for the (alleged) incident in 1992, for which no charges were brought. - I do not believe this is correct, for a start we are basing this off one single line in a single source. WP:KNOWN asks for it to be documented.
• Ditto for the gay sex charges - we need a better source in my mind (I agree it is notable)

I am removing the material and posting it up to the BLP noticeboard so other people can weigh in --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: here is the [[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_McGinlay|BLP Noticeboard]] posting --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws and it has reached the point now where I am no longer sure if you are serious. You appear to be contending that the line "He was dropped by UEFA" is unsupported by a national newspaper article entitled "UEFA drop referee McGinlay." You complain about negative connotations attached to words like 'dropped' and 'import' which exist only in your head.

How am I interpreting that source beyond what it says? He was dropped by UEFA. He had to take another exam. Did you even read it?

I cannot find WP:KNOWN?

People who develop some sort of personal interest in keeping material off articles can always simper and mewl about "the sources aren't good enough," or "the sources aren't checkable." As you know, that's why we have WP:RS and WP:BLP. In particular, WP:WELLKNOWN could not be more clear on the matter. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You complain about negative connotations attached to words like 'dropped' I have no issue with that word. It is accurate. My problem is with the wording of the sentence. The article title is only a byline... the relevant part of the article says TOP Scottish referee Brian McGinlay has been dropped from next week's European Cup tie between Benfica and Sparta Prague because he failed a physical. It then goes on to say that he failed it due to flu and will have another medical three weeks later. In the article you wrote this is He was dropped by UEFA in February 1992 after failing a physical exam - which is true, but misleading. We have no information about whether he passed the other physical. The line suggests he was dropped for good not He was dropped by UEFA. He had to take another exam.

WP:RS is not a "floodgate" to allow any sourcing. It specifically asks for reputable sourcing - and as has been pointed out on the BLP noticeboard Tabloid news papers are probably not reputable/reliable enough for some of this content. Per WP:WELLKNOWN we need reliable third party sources; my contention is that this source is not reliable - being a tabloid newspaper report.

I know you are not going to believe me on this - so perhaps the BLP noticeboard will help decide this. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a tabloid newspaper. All contentious claims in any BLP must have the best reliable sources, or not placed in the article. There have been extensive discussions about this change in plociy which took place at the start of the year, and there should be no question that scurrilous material ought not be placed in any BLP. Collect (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because, from your POV, certain material is "scurrilous" or "contentious" does not justify its removal. Trinity Mirror is the largest newspaper group in Britain and these were factual news reports, not gossip columns or the like. As pointed out, it was also reported in the Times, a quality broadsheet. Remember that these are only the sources immediately to hand 25 years after the event - at the time the scandal involving Scotland's World Cup referee obviously got significant coverage in broadcast and other media. 94.7.184.152 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is covered by DO NO HARM. That someone was questioned on charges but not arrested or indicted, let alone convicted, is exactly the sort of material that is wholly inappropriate here except for truly major political figures and the like, where public trust is a key element of their professional role. We do not include it even if reliably reported when it has no bearing on the notability, unless a strong consensus case can be made from the coverage that it is of general importance and that no further harm can be done. We certainly do not include it on the basis of tabloids. I also take note of the selective quotation above, which I must frankly say does not strike me as a sign of good faith. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DO NO HARM was rejected as a NPOV failure. Articles should represent fairly and without bias what has been published in reliable sources. This is true for all articles, not just those you think are "truly major figures." Public trust is obviously a key element of a referee's role and the (already widely known) reasons behind McGinlay's removal from World Cup 1986/sudden retirement are obviously highly relevant to his biography. 94.7.184.152 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not our place to report tabloid speculation or rumor on those matters. Period. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you pretending to be American? And why are you also removing uncontentious material referenced by the Times, the Herald etc? 90.207.76.207 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at the relevant notice board and was agreed that the inclusions were not justified. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary Source concerns

The text which details Brian's most "nerve-racking" matches - and the refs - could fall foul of WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Therefore, I propose McGinlay refereed a number of exciting matches, with commentators divided as to the most nerve-racking.

Thoughts? 90.197.224.58 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a secondary source so is appropriate. Your alternative does not make sense because commentators don't appear to have commented on it..... (are you being ironic compared to my edits on the other page?) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

this is the sort of not-really contentious opinion about a sports figure which is assumed to the personal opinion of the source, and is quite customary here and in all sorts of writing. I think it's OK. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

tag on article

I replaced the missing information tag on the article with a NPOV tag, which is more usual for this sort of question. I have serious doubts about the permissible use of the missing information template at least on BLP articles, for it implies that there is something to hide. , e.g. , for the shocking details, see the talk page". DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)