Talk:James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

However, he left Rugby Town after three games by mutual consent, following being fined by the club for dissent.

This is not referenced at all . It’s quite concerning when going through this page the amount of in referenced statements being made about Rowe. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Not referenced at all? There is literally a reference attached to the sentence, which you even copied in your post here. I also notice that immediately following this edit request you edited Daniel Webb (footballer) to say "After Rowe left the club, Webb remained a snake at the club under new manager Paul Cook". RedPatch (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above comment. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this can’t be used because it is unsourced and a blog. I think Rowe played 6 games at Rugby when researching so even that is wrong

It’s known in the fan base that Danny Webb has been a snake in his role at Leyton Orient and again while at Chesterfield. I will look for a reference from his Orient Days Super Mario 1887 (talk)

It's the club's official site, not a blog though. RedPatch (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a blog on their official site by an unknown. What type of dissent was it. This would never be on an official site . You’re on dangerous grounds and I would suggest it’s removed. It’s basically a random dig with no substance. If there was a report on this in a media reference to quote and rely on then yes by all means it should stay. I’ve looked and there is no media report ? Unless you can source one. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with RedPatch, source seems acceptable. It's not a blog afaict, it's similar to using a company's own website, which is acceptable if done right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not acceptable because there is no right of reply and not a media source. It needs taking down Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RS and stop wasting peoples time by making stuff up. If you keep doing that a WP:ADMIN may WP:BLOCK you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry that’s very rude. Not making anything up there is no media source to confirm this random point. You’re relying on a blog from the club site . Who was the author of this for example? What was the dissent ? When was the dissent ? It’s very odd you continue to pick and choose what you wish to be factual and not . Please remove this as per Wiki reference guidelines it falls short . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Again this has been edited with no foundation of a reference and the one used from the FA site has nothing to do with Rowe or Rugby Town. WP:ADMIN Please give a temporary block WP:BLOCK to Egghead06 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång Super Mario 1887 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you would object to the use of this reference from Rugby Town. It was already being used (above) to support his time with Histon, although I do note there is nothing to support this appearances and goals at Histon as given in the infobox??--Egghead06 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

buddy it’s a bit strange now. You’ve constantly gone on about his manager stats and kept editing incorrect ones including trying to exclude his time in his last role . You’re now taking away an edit that was made 3 years ago , you’re also trying to edit the opening paragraph about Rowe that’s been in place 3 years too. It’s all a bit odd, are you ok? The topic of dissent around his departure and the fine he paid apparently at Rugby Town would be recorded on the FA site. It’s just a fact, and despite my extensive searches and that of others this has not been found. Therefore it needs to be removed until such time it’s found. Quite simple. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So we have a reference which supports a statement but in your view this is not acceptable as we can’t find this information somewhere else. Pretty sure Wikipedia doesn’t function in this way. And, thanks for asking, I am fine today buddy.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad you’re fine. No, I will make it clear again, it’s pretty simple . All club fines are made public knowledge on the FA site. You’re making a statement that Rowe was fined for dissent. Yet there is not in the public domain anywhere unless you can find it ? Who is the author of this source ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s covered in the very reference after the statement!--Egghead06 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No it isn’t you’re literally making it up. There is no fine on the FA site relating to Rowe or Rugby Town. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy for it to stay in if it was on solid ground. Are you really going to go through what your friend Graa Sang did about Rowe marital status only to be proven to be wrong ? By all means raise a disagreement and let the discussion commence … Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The source literally says "Signed for Rugby in July 2005 and never hit any sort of form and after being fined by the club for dissent he was released by mutual consent only three games into his career." I’m not concerned about where this ISN'T written. BTW, this is already a discussion.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

2020</ref>

Egghead06 needs to stop violating this page with unreliable sources and unreliable information. It seems he has a personal vendetta against Rowe. Unsure if he knows him personally but is very factious in his editing.

I noticed that this was provided a few years back too.

- the match stats of Rowe's tenure at Gloucester City and Chesterfield are listed on Soccerway website, including FA Trophy. Just need to scroll back and they are listed. Soccerway is a reliable source of information. Immersive01 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Very odd how you’re now attempting to use soccer base as a source and the stats are far more unreliable. It doesn’t matter if they have concluded what wins Rowe for it isn’t a reliable site that is used for referencing manager statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Mario 1887 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Equally odd now Rowe didn’t manage at all at AFC Fylde.

Please revert edits back to original along with solid references .

Super Mario 1887 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the stats, per FIFA and by extension WikiProject Football, if a match ends in a draw and is then decided in PKs, it is officially a draw and not a win/loss. That was the original issue on the page earlier. Explained and referenced at Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Overview The reversion to the soccerbase reflects that. The AFC Frylde stats should be re-added though. RedPatch (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I can see that however soccer see isn’t a reliable source. Transfermarkt is a far superior and reliable source. These are the stats that need to be used. For example Rowe managed 23 games at Gloucester. Please adjust accordingly .

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523 Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Not clear what exactly should be changed/added, and seems controversial/related to some discussion. Also, Super Mario 1887 has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Managerial Statisitics

| style="text-align:center" |64 | style="text-align:center" |36 | style="text-align:center" |16 | style="text-align:center" |12 | style="text-align:center" |056.25 | |- |align=left|AFC Fylde |align=left|7 March 2022 |align=left|29 September 2022 | style="text-align:center" |27 | style="text-align:center" |16 | style="text-align:center" |6 | style="text-align:center" |5 | style="text-align:center" |059.26 | |- !colspan=3|Total | style="font-weight:bold;background:#eaecf0;text-align:center" | | style="font-weight:bold;background:#eaecf0;text-align:center" |4,662 | style="font-weight:bold;background:#eaecf0;text-align:center" |2,127 | style="font-weight:bold;background:#eaecf0;text-align:center" |2,328 | style="font-weight:bold;background:#eaecf0;text-align:center" |005.17

These are not the correct statistics.calculating each game from the start of his tenure appointments at each club to end date these are the correct stats game by game:

Rowe has managed 114 games won : 62 drew: 27 Lost: 25

separated and detailed stats of each game on the clubs official websites , soccerway and also Transfermarket determine that Rowe’s statistics for each club are:

Gloucester: played: 23 won: 10 drew: 4 lost: 9

https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/england/gloucester-city-fc/

https://www.gloucestercityafc.com/fixtures-results

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

Chesterfield: played: 64 won: 36 ( x 2 penalty wins as per RedPatch point penalties count as draws so 16 draws not 14 as below). drew: 16 lost: 12

https://chesterfield-fc.co.uk/matches/fixtures-results-2

https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/england/chesterfield-fc/723/

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

AFC Fylde played: 27 won: 16 drew: 7 lost: 4 (penalty wins or losses count as draws)

https://www.afcfylde.co.uk/1st-team-2021-22-fixtures-results/

https://www.afcfylde.co.uk/1st-team-2022-23-fixtures-results/

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/james-rowe/profil/trainer/86523

https://uk.soccerway.com/teams/england/afc-fylde/13630/

Please choose or combine any of sites and sources above for each stats. Soccerbase is not reliable and it also hasn’t covered fylde. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As to reliable sources, I don't know why you seem to be pushing for the use of Transfermarkt. Apart from it shouldn't be used on the English Wikipedia because it's user-generated, as people have told you above – see WP:TRANSFERMARKT – a quick check on its page for Mr Rowe shows it omits games for all three clubs he managed and also has his Gloucester end date wrong (see below).

Soccerbase is reliable for what it covers. It doesn't claim to be complete below Football League level, and doesn't include qualifying rounds of the FA Cup or the FA Trophy. Saying that, it's complete for the National League in recent years, though not for its regional divisions. Its page for Mr Rowe omits Gloucester's 20/21 FA Cup 2nd QR game and has his end date wrong, but appears correct and complete for Chesterfield.

Gloucester City confirmed on its official website on 24 November 2020 that Mr Rowe had left the club and that Jake Cole would take the Gateshead match later that day. So, as also stated in the GloucestershireLive report of his departure (currently ref #38 in the article), "his final match was a 2-1 win at Guiseley last Saturday" i.e 21 November 2020.

For Gloucester, Soccerbase includes three matches (D1 L2) between 21 Nov and their end date of 7 Dec, but excludes the FA Cup 2QR loss on pens (D1), so subtracting L2 from their published figures gives P24 W10 D5 L9.

Counting matches isn't really a satisfactory way of compiling stats tables – it's unreasonable to expect our readers to count WLDs, and there's far too much scope for editors to get it wrong – but Soccerway records P24 W10 D5 L9.

If it were me, I'd use Soccerbase for Gloucester and Chesterfield with a sourced note explaining the Gloucester discrepancy. As to Fylde, I've no idea where to find reliable stats other than by counting, but both Soccerway and the AFC Fylde website count 26 played and not the 27 in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi the soccerbase chesterfield stats are wrong that’s why they can’t be relied on. Rowe managed 64 games. 81.102.106.25 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Think perhaps you've misread it? Mr Rowe's Soccerbase page says: P64 W36 D16 L12. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi think the chesterfield stats only been updated recently as last time I checked they were incorrect . It’s good they are now right on soccerbase. Problem with referencing the Gloucester stats only a soccer are reference is that they display the wrong stats and that’s the whole point. it cannot be a normal satisfactory way but for AFC Fylde and Gloucester stats Soccerway enables the reader the correct detailed stats on the time of tenure. It’s just the way it is. So I think keep soccerbase for Chesterfield and use Soccerway for Gloucester and Fylde . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's actually common practice with player stats that a main source omits a match, or has an obvious typo, or doesn't do team sheets for early rounds of a competition, so editors need to add sourced notes to cover any discrepancies.

An alternative for Gloucester would be this from the Derbyshire Times, which gives 10-4-10, and add a note explaining that one of the "losses" was the FA Cup match mentioned above, lost on pens so counted statistically as a draw, to make the figures 10-5-9. Soccerway colours that FA Cup match as a loss, so the reader would need to be told what's going on anyway.

As I said above, it isn't a good idea to source figures by counting matches. It might be better to omit stats entirely for any club for which the only way to source the material is by counting tiny coloured squares. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi yes makes sense. Actually x 2 draws on the chesterfield stats for Rowe are penalty wins too. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Mario 1887: Noticed your change to the stats in the article, and I think you might have miscounted. Both Soccerway and the AFC Fylde website count 26 games after 7 March and before 29 September. We're also agreed on 6 draws. Fylde lost to Gloucester on 26 March, York on 2 May, Boston on 15 May, Banbury on 13 August and Scarborough on 20 August, which is definitely 5 losses. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Mario 1887: repeating the ping because i messed it up the first time... Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Struway2 In case you didn't notice, Super Mario 1887 is indeffed now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

2025

@Struway2 Pinging you to look at this edit, since you seemed to understand the statistics. Not sure what the new "c" is supposed to refer to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

They were just trying to add a (correct) footnote to the table without knowing how to format it. I've fixed/sourced it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I hoped was going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Short lead

@Egghead06 You're right, it is short. I added something, see if you think it's enough. I'll note that I do NOT think the court-thing should be in the WP:LEAD, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

the lead is fine and has been for years Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

RedPatch, on [1], I disagree with you, like the banner says I think something like that is needed. The current WP:LEAD doesn't quite "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No I agree with RedPatch. Other managers do not have leads like this. You are over complicating sections with random adds. Please stop. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We're into WP:OTHERCONTENT now, but see for example

• Alun Armstrong (footballer)
• Craig Armstrong (footballer)
• Derek Armstrong (footballer) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. They gave 3/4 lines. Don’t list all their clubs do they. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But those WP:LEADs do mention some clubs, the lead in this article didn't. Perhaps some sort of compromise is possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Rowe is / was a professional manager. The lead was fine and the page by all accounts has had more than enough activity . It is not needed . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

More edit-warring ahead, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Why ? The examples you used don’t show Alun Armstrong teams he played for in his lead. The example you used contradict the point you are raising . I am not interested in edit war , I’m only interested in this instance on this page ensuring that is stays on track . I have compromised over the last days on numerous matters , without raiding disputes . I hope you will do the same . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Quote from that article's WP:LEAD:

"His career as a player, which ran between 1993 and 2007, included spells at Newcastle United, Stockport County, Middlesbrough, Ipswich Town, two spells at Darlington, Rushden & Diamonds and concluding it with a brief spell at Newcastle Blue Star." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes but he is a far more notable player than Rowe. He played at the highest level. Rowe is notable for his managerial career to date. That’s where you’re missing the understanding I think. ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have to disagree that an edit like [2] is "random". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You are repeatedly going into sections that have been sound for years and adding content that is not required or already exists on other sections. That’s random. When challenged about this from numerous editors you simply disagree on everything and raise disputes. It’s all getting a bit much. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I agree with RedPatch. The lead is wrong . Rowe is a football manager and that’s what he is most notable for. You seem to be adding way too much stuff on his playing days rather than focusing on his managerial career. The lead was okay in my opinion because that’s where this page will get most focus. Please revert back to the original. Mumford11 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mumford11, if that's you again, Super Mario 1887, stop digging. If you EVER want to get unblocked, you must immediately stop creating sockpuppet accounts. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Credibility of References

As per WP:CRIME all referencing which include any of the false allegations against Rowe need to be removed. The allegations have been proven to be lies and reading around how best to handle this it’s clear misinformation cannot be shared on a public figures page. No information rather than misleading information is the guidance. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is undeniable that Rowe stood trial and was acquitted. It would not be a neutral and balanced account of his life to omit mention of the trial. Spike 'em (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think to report he stood trial is one thing but to reference sources that outline the details is what the allegations is spreading mis information. As per WP:CRIME Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please provide an example of a ref about the trial that would meet your, or Rowe's lawyers', approval. Spike 'em (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t a clue about Rowe or Rowe’s lawyers . It’s common knowledge that any articles in the public domain that consist of false allegations against public figures are brought down. This page will be no exception. I’m pretty neutral in this but attempting to add articles like the telegraph on October 7 th is an example of quite a few that have been challenged not just by me. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Many of the references used on John Leslie (TV presenter) (to pick a random example of someone acquitted of sex crimes) still seem to be active, so what you say is patently untrue. Until they get taken down, then it is fair to pick some recent non-sensationalist articles as references. Spike 'em (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I just looked … the specific details of the allegations against Leslie are not referenced so that’s untrue. I do agree he had a trial and was acquitted needs to be somewhere. however it’s dangerous territory using sources that go into detail on the specifics. Whether that’s to try and prove where Rowe lives or his marital Status . We don’t want the page removed. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already said above that we have better sources than the thrusting penis article, but you are yet to provide an example of an article you think is ok to reference his trial and acquittal. Until you do so I won't waste any more of either of our time. Spike 'em (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5849956/2024/10/17/james-rowe-trial-verdict/

this is an International one that looks credible . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And are you really suggesting that none of the BBC, Telegraph or the Guardian are credible? Spike 'em (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You’re missing my point I think . The allegations have been proven to be lies. So in effect the page is being used to spread further lies and insinuate Rowe has done something wrong. This goes for any public figure accused of false allegations , to prevent this page being completely removed we need to tread carefully as my hunch would be representatives of Rowe will just group this with the media sources you mention and it will all be getting removed. The allegations have been proven to be lies. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC also states If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Spike 'em (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t noteworthy or relevant is it as it’s been proven to be lies. That’s my point . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree with it. The allegation and what came of it needs to stay included in the article (current article-content on it is generally fine, though per Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#New_disagreement there are some words I think can be reasonably added) per the extensive coverage spanning years (WP:NPOV), and it's certainly "relevant" for any reasonable use of the word "relevant." For example, it had a significant impact on the article-subject's life. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

what impact did it have on his life ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

He lost 2 jobs, haven't worked for the duration of the process (I think), had to pay money, sell his home, and got a lot of undesired media-coverage. There's probably more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

He could have sold his home to move out of the area , he might have alot of money so money is no objective. You’re speculating a great deal. One thing I agree is that it impacted his career , which is not speculation. If you want to speculate perhaps you should become a journalist ? Let’s stick to the facts of what we know through reliable sources. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"The case has cost him tens of thousands of pounds that will never be recovered. “We had to sell our home, which was hard,” he says. “The emotions of not working, losing my livelihood, I wasn’t in a great place. I’ve been carrying a weight, a dark cloud, around with me and trying to hide it in everyday interactions."" That doesn't sound to me like he sold his home to move out of the area. But people read stuff differently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My point exactly where is Rowe quoting that it has hit him hard on his personal life ? Nope the quote directly says it’s impacted his livelihood. It can be interpreted many ways , but your bias or my bias is not good editing. That’s misleading ! If it isn’t factual then the information remains out of the page. You know this really so please start being fair and sensible with your edits on this page . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh just a little nudge too , you keep adding that he is living in Derbyshire . How do you know this if you keep trying to edit in another section he had to sell his family home ? You are contradicting yourself . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Per [3] and other sources he lived in Derbyshire as of October. That's good enough for WP-purposes. It is possible to sell a home in Derbyshire and then get another home in Derbyshire. That's assuming the home they sold was in Derbyshire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad you’ve taken my point on board about where he resides. You are the perfect customer for these media outlets. You literally believe everything that’s printed and then state it as fact on this page. Of course some is true some isn’t true and some is the middle somewhere. let’s keep on track the page is about a football manager. That’s the main source of interest. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have trimmed some of the extraneous commentary from the article that is either solely opinion or was originally written at the time of the events and so has been superseded. After the fact all that needs to be stated is the leaving of the clubs, the subsequent charge and then the trial outcome. Content such as was sourced from Rowes interview with The Guardian needs to be attributed clearly to Rowe, whereas presently it was just an assertion in wikivoice. A sentence such as "Rowe complained about his treatment by Chesterfield" and / or words to that effect may be justifiable. Koncorde (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, I'm mostly ok with your cuts, but I did re-insert one thing:[4]. If you have an opinion on the content discussed at Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#New_disagreement, I'd like to hear it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts on that is about minimising an allegation that the person was found not guilty of. There's probably a way of not duplicating what is mentioned in the subsequent paragraph seperated only by a heading for Fylde, and it felt very clunky without the context of the arrest. Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We could change

• "...into allegations of misconduct, later disclosed as an allegation of sexual assault in November 2021."

to

• "...into what was later disclosed as an allegation of sexual assault in November 2021."

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Either of those works. Should move citations to end of sentences however rather than midsentence per MOS for citations. Currently article is a bit messy with midsentence cites when not really required (generally only used for controversial, or specific language use being supported). Koncorde (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And your cuts may have left a bit of overcite, but there is no rush on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde, what MOS requires citations to go to the end of the sentence? I can think of multiple times I've needed 5 cits for a sentence and someone objected per WP:OVERCITE but not all the content was supported by all the cits. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:INLINECITE & WP:INLINE both quite clear, and I know there's a few other places where it's mentioned in a few MOS:

• As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas. For exceptions, see the WP:Manual of Style § Punctuation and footnotes. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker. Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings. The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.

and

• The best distance between the material and the citation is a matter of judgment. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to it within a sentence, but adding the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient. Editors should exercise caution when adding to or rearranging material to ensure that text-source relationships are maintained.

WP:OVERCITE is an essay, and really very much a feeling. If there's a simple statement and 14 sources, that's overcite. If there's a simple statement about complex case law and 14 sources, that may be overcite. If the citations are dated / aged and more up to date cites, or more reliable citations contain the same information, and we're still using stuff from a decade earlier - that's overcite. In the end if there is a single sentence requiring multiple cites because not everything is in one, I'd be wary of WP:SYNTH and be looking to see if it could be broken out or using a merged cite ref. Koncorde (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But that says and commas and includes it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, which clearly is not saying always end of sentence, and that it's a matter of judgement. I don't think we can make a blanket statement that MOS demands end of sentence. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Common sentences that may require multiple cits without being synth: "X was married in 2005; as of 2024 she and her partner have three children and live in Sussex, where they grow mushrooms and sunflowers." You could easily get marriage date, where they live, how many children they have, and the garden crops they grow from multiple cits, none of which include any of the other info. Valereee (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's saying end of sentence or paragraph unless there is contentious content. In short; unless there is some grand need to source something mid-sentence (such as never before mentioned information), it's not essential and actually detracts from readability when there are multiple cites mid-sentence (particularly around punctuation).

Regarding Synth; I don't disagree. I'm just saying that there are instances where multiple sources for one sentence is used for OR / Synth. For basic statements of fact, the most comprehensive article should be used, and only any other article that adds the missing content / context. If there are multiple sources covering a lot of the same content it's best to trim down to the minimum. A bad example of SYNTH I often see is "playing style" or similar (see Lionel Messi where honestly, not convinced a lot of it can be found in the sources for either him or Cristiano Ronaldo a lot of the time) and which is also where OVERCITE is very common (due to superlatives etc) as people try to desperately reinforce an opinion. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)