Talk:Hope Powell

Club career

Millwall..1979?-1987
Friends of Fulham.. 1987-1989
Millwall 1989-91
Bromley Borough/Croydon 1991-98?

Pink list and world pride power

There is a discussion at the BLP board about the subject of this article. Is this material worthy or noteworthy enough for inclusion here? --Malerooster (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should notify WP:LGBT too? They might be able to offer some guidance as to the appropriate weighting to ascribe to the material within the article. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the LAST group I would ask for their opinion about whether to include material about LGBT issues :) just kidding!!, some of my best friends are LGBT :), that was a joke to, err, better stop while I am behind, oh g%d, I just noticed that one as well. Seriously, no big deal. I actually find the BLP board to have some good neutral observers, again not saying that the project isn't. --Malerooster (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Material about her brother being in a band, but he wasn't?

I liked the part were she "rubbished it" or what have you. That's well put. We don't need to include ever rumor that ends up getting shot down. At least this isn't about her sexuality I guess. --Malerooster (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it was widely reported and since Hope was pissed off enough to correct it in an interview (and blame Wikipedia!) it's only fair we set the record straight.

“ Rubbish – total rubbish. It makes me want to swear! I don't know who puts such garbage up on Wikipedia. Normally I'm a pretty relaxed person, but it annoys me so much when people ask me whether it's true or not. ”

To say she "rubbished it" is the most accurate description! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, its only fair that we don't include fakelore or urban legend or writers miss reporting. Again, the actor who was rumored to put gerbils up his azz had 10 times the coverage of this misnomer, but it was decided, thankfully, that we don't need to report or mention it in his bio. We are above this type of nonsense. Her bio now correctly makes no mention of this, since it really isn't that noteworthy or of encyclopediatic value to help the reader better understand the subject. --Malerooster (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. But there is no suggestion of any gerbils up Hope's ass; you are constructing (quite a bizarre) straw man argument here. Having info about siblings in a personal life section is only standard WP:BLP procedure, and where there's been any doubt amongst published sources it is surely better to provide clarity. Scurrilous rumours of ass-gerbiling would be something else entirely. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, I'll bite. Is Gary Powell her brother? If he is, then I agree, he should be mentioned as standard BLP material. If he isn't, why would we mention him? Because somebody idiot, err reporter, err, whoever, made the mistake and thought he was? Provide clarity? How about we just stick to providing the reader with correct facts about her family and leave it at that? --Malerooster (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The best part is, I didn't even know Hope was black, so when I saw the picture of Gary, I thought the connection was some sick joke or something. But its better, I guess all black people look alike and are related. --Malerooster (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea but, with respect, this is something that's gone on in your imagination. Feel free to seek further input but ultimately if you want to keep this adequately sourced stuff off the page you'll need to come up with a policy-based objection. As with the lesbian thing above, it's not really enough to have a vague sense of foreboding which isn't articulated coherently. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy based objection is common sense and editorial oversight thank goodness. There are plenty of sources that report that the moon is not made of cheese. Should we include that sourced material to the moon article? (I better go read the article first, because you never know and I'll feel foolish). This endless argument on the project of "ew,ew,ew, look, I have a source this says this, so we have to include it and let the reader figure out how to interpret it or its censorship or its what have you" is not good. Are there claims from multiple sources about this other person being her brother, and has it been covered widely? Or is it some one off stupid factoid that adds nothing to our understanding of the subject? I still don't know at this point. We are not the news, or a gossip site or a reporter of everything written about the subject. I will read WP:NOT again I guess. Didn't we start at the BLPN board? Maybe others can weight in as to wether this material rises to the level worthy of inclusion? --Malerooster (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hope Powell. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.womensoccer.com/refs/clubs/englandclubs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308044510/http://www.divamag.co.uk/diva/features.asp?AID=4134 to http://www.divamag.co.uk/diva/features.asp?AID=4134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)