Talk:Graham Rix

chronic sociopath

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)

No references

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

Public person

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)

Notable because of conviction

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)

Sex Offender Category

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Calgacus, I re-worded the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders to make it clear that local laws apply and each article will specify the crime and site sources --FloNight 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

On Register?

From the Sex Offender article:

Especially in the United States and the United Kingdom, the person, if convicted, is most
likely required to register with the respective jurisdiction's sex offender registry.

In the UK, the register is called the Violent and Sex Offender Register.

Quote from article:

The Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) is a database that can be accessed by the Police
and some Probation Service personnel. The database holds records of those required to register
with the Police under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, those jailed for more than 12 months 
for violent offences, and unconvicted people thought to be at risk of offending.

(italics added)

Rix served 6 months of a 12 months sentence, and his offence did not include violence (the girl consented); so apparently would not be on the register. So why is he described as a sex offender? Why include him in the Category:Convicted child sex offenders?

Camillus (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Camillus. I think that the paragraph you you have quoted actually covers three independent criteria for being included on the list:

1) Those required to register with the Police under the Sexual Offences Act 2003

2) Those jailed for more than 12 months for violent offences

3) Unconvicted people thought to be at risk of offending

To be included on the register, I believe that an individual only needs to fit one of the criteria.

Also, I would suggest that inclusion on the register is not the correct criteria by which to determine whether somebody is a child sex offender. Rather, that the criteria should be for the individual to have been convicted of a sexual offence involving somebody who is legally a child. Cheers TigerShark 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous reply. From the three criteria you mention, it seems to me that Rix would not fit any of them. With all due respect, I find your last paragraph problematic - it appears to be your definition of a child sex offender. What references can you give? Do the UK authorities class him as a "child sex offender"? Also, if someone serves time for a robbery, then it is fair to say he "was convicted of robbery, and served X months/years", but not fair to say he "is a robber". Rix was convicted of a child sex offence, but I don't think it's fair (and I would even say it may be libellous) to say he is a child sex offender. While I feel the article should definitely mention his offence, I do not think it should be in the first paragraph, even before mentioning that he is the current Hearts manager, which is surely the most important thing to say about him? Camillus (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the first criterion does apply. Rix had to inform Lothian and Borders police of his new address and was banned from working with under 16’s. He was placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register for 10 years upon conviction in 1999 , making him lawfully a child sex offender. (Scotland Today article).

Personally I do tend to agree that the label ‘Child Sex Offender’ is somewhat inappropriate, however, Wikipedia is not about voicing personal views, it is about delivering the facts and the fact is that, by law, he IS a Child Sex Offender therefore the related Category should be included along with the details explained in the article. I don't understand why a convicted Child Sex Offender should not be included in the Child Sex Offenders category. Forbsey 01:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Forbsey. However, I note that the article says he was placed on the "sex offenders" register, but not "child" sex offenders. While I do not question that he was convicted of having sex with a girl who was legally a child, is there a different list for child sex offenders? Looking at the Category:Convicted child sex offenders, it seems to me a rather wide category, from people who were convicted of having sex with someone just under the age of consent once, to real beasts such as Ian Brady and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I do not question that the fact that Rix was convicted of a sex offence should be mentioned in the article, my only problem is with it being mentioned even before the fact that he is the current Hearts manager. Objectively speaking, which is the more important fact? Camillus (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i tend to agree with you there Camillus. He is a former footballer and a current football Manager first. He is best known for a notable playing career and to a lesser extent a notbale Managerial career. The details on his conviction should be placed after this information, or at least, not right at the start before we are even told he is the current Hearts Manager!

As for the Child Sex Offenders Category, I still beleieve he should be included in the category, but if I'm in the minority there, I am happy just for the details to be included in the text. Perhaps in the future more sub-categories will be added along with Category:Convicted child sex offenders which will help differentiate the difference in severity between each offenders actions and avoid lesser offenders such as Rix being included with the likes of Hindley and Brady. Forbsey 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The category itself is vulnerable to deletion; it's already been up for the vote, but remained because not enough people voted. There's no point having the category; for people, like FloNight, who wish to use Wikipedia to moralize (e.g. "leaving it off would be whitewashing in his case" Source), I suggest you open the category Category:Badies. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! FloNight, SUPER-DUPER MORALIZER, reporting for duty : ) What's up with calling me a moralizer? Are you aware that I've been tied up in a arbcomm case for the last 6 weeks for removing sex offenders and rapist categories from articles? Don't jump to conclusions, my friend. Please AGF. I evaluate every article based on the facts of the case. WP is not a Sex Offender Registry and should not be used as such. Non-notable people shouldn't have articles started based on sex registry offences. But, notable people like Graham Rix should have the information included in NPOV manner if it part of their public persona. IMO, it is in Rix. You are free to disagree on this point and argue it til the cows come home. Don't make a point by misrepresenting my position. It will get you a swift kick in the butt! an amused and slightly annoyed fellow editor, --FloNight 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you don't think that sentence sounds like moralizing? I.e. "leaving it off would be whitewashing in his case" Source What about using the word should twice? Sounds like moralizing to me. Why not just leave the moralizing to church groups and ethical philosophers, and get on with the job of writing an encyclopedia? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with FloNight here; he has been convicted (a matter of public record), is a public persona, so should be included in the category. But: the category should be split, I think, with a section for those who are notable primarily for sex offences, and a section for notable public figures who have also been found guilty of such offences. The dividing line to my mind would sit somewhere one side or other of Jonathan King. Oh, I moved the para to the end of the article as I don't think it's one of the most important things about him. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perspective: Let's all chill out here. No one's gonna "give up the ghost" over what they read here pro or con. It's just an encyclopedia. Nothing here is of life-and-death importance. That's a lesson I've learned myself lately.

The categories should err on the side of "do no harm" as much as possible. They're meant to aid in finding related topics, not for labelling people. In questions where it's debated, this should mean erring on the side of leaving them out.

Note I haven't read everything above, but I'll try to do that now and see if I can help more. --DanielCD 01:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable people shouldn't have articles started based on sex registry offences

Holy crap, is somebody actually doing this? If so this material needs to be put up for deletion immediately. We're not here to be a public service message board. --DanielCD 01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actual (sic) editing comments

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)

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)

...meaning Rix was unable to claim any silverware as skipper.

What exactly does this mean? --DanielCD 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Skipper means captain of a football team, and silverware refers to trophies. i.e. as captain he won no trophies.

It's an "Englishism". --Shadow Puppet 15:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Does 'sacked' sound a little casual to anyone else? Would terminated or dismissed be more appropriate, or is this all right as it is? 24.131.12.228 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)