Talk:Malky Mackay

Appearances

70 games in a league season are you sure? Kingjamie 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

August 2014 allegations

(discussion moved from user talk pages) Hi. I have to question your reversion of my edit to Malky Mackay's page. The Daily Mail might not be a reliable source for most things, but surely it is a reliable source for a statement saying that something "was reported". The very existence of that report demonstrates the truth of the statement, irrespective of the truth of the report itself. I mean, I can put it back in and cite an article from the Telegraph if it'll make all the difference, since that's presumably a reliable source. That article repeat the claims, naming their source as... the Daily Mail. Clicriffhard (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was poorly sourced and I think also went against the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. At this stage all that has happened is that Cardiff have passed a dossier of allegations to the FA. This dossier appears to have been leaked to the Daily Mail. It's fairly easy to see why Cardiff would make such allegations, given the acrimonious nature of the split between their ownership and Mackay. He has not been convicted of anything by a court or the FA, i.e. the dossier has not be substantiated or evaluated by an independent party. In any case, the substance of the story (it appears to have stopped him becoming Palace manager) is relevant to his professional career and should be put in that context rather than in the "personal life" summary. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. To reiterate: the passage said that it had been *reported* that letters had been sent and accusations made. That is undoubtedly true and the source demonstrated it verifiably. Nothing in my edit suggested that he was presumed guilty of a crime or any other wrongdoing and none of the reasons you've given for why the dossier might be untrue negate the fact that it was, evidently, reported. Even if you didn't like the source, why delete the information about the nature of the accusations? The same information appears in the BBC article you've cited, so I'm not sure why it was necessary to remove such an obviously significant aspect of the report. I do agree that it's relevant to his professional career, for what it's worth. I thought it could have gone in either section and wouldn't have been bothered in the least by it being moved. Clicriffhard (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC report has been changed to mention the nature of the allegations since I edited the article. Even then, the BBC report (as with the Telegraph) only says "according to the Daily Mail", which is pretty weak sourcing. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect, it's kind of outlandish to think that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source here. To publish that article without being sure that it was true would be to invite ruinous civil actions from Mackay and Moody, Cardiff City, and just for a bonus, a major London law firm. The reliability of a source has to be judged in context, surely. In any case, do you really not think it significant that claims of this nature have been made on the world's most visited newspaper site, regardless of credibility? The BBC have tagged the claims with "according to the Daily Mail" since they're obviously very significant but the BBC can't vouch for their veracity. I can't see why Wikipedia can't do likewise. Clicriffhard (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether the Daily Mail ends up in court is up to them, not us. I think the article is okay at present; it reports the fact that Cardiff have made allegations against Mackay to the FA - it's up to them (or the courts) to decide whether these allegations are true and/or whether action should be taken against him. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; there is no need for the article here to be up with the story, in the way that a news organisation (even one as august as the BBC) has to be. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to change the article so this is probably the end of the conversation. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but in ten years, it will still be significant to anyone who's still interested in Malky Mackay that the world's most visited newspaper site made these claims about him, however the story plays out and however true those claims turn out to be. It will be significant in one year, and it's significant now. It's encyclopedic information however you look at it and I don't really see what's gained by leaving it out. Wikipedia isn't required *not* to be up to date either, is it? Clicriffhard (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to bear in mind that a lot of people reading something does not make it a reliable source. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a bit condescending, and I'm not for a second saying that it does. However, a very major site making such extraordinary claims makes *the claims themselves* a significant event. Either they turn out to be true or they turn out to be untrue. Either way, it's a very big deal for Malky Mackay. Clicriffhard (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point all that is known is that Cardiff, who obviously have a dispute with Mackay and Moody and are therefore not a neutral party, have made allegations against them. We can wait and see if the allegations prove to have substance or not and then edit the page accordingly. It would be wrong to now state the allegations themselves as being fact, even by weaseling out by saying that it is according to a newspaper that is not considered to be a RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we also know that the Daily Mail has made extraordinary claims about the content and nature of Cardiff's evidence. How on earth is it "weaselling out" of anything to say that a major news site has published allegations relating to Mackay? It's simply a fact. They have done that, and it doesn't take much imagination to realise that the fact of them doing it already is and will continue to be a significant event in Mackay's life. I'm running out of ways to reiterate this, but I'm not suggesting (and never have suggested) that we write up the Daily Mail's extraordinary allegations as fact. I am suggesting that we write up the Daily Mail's extraordinary allegations as allegations. They are significant in themselves. Do you understand what I mean? Clicriffhard (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you mean. Your edit to the article was: On 20 August 2014, it was reported that letters had been sent to the Football Association by London law firm Mishcon de Reya on behalf of Cardiff City accusing Mackay and Crystal Palace's director of football Iain Moody of being racist, sexist and homophobic in a series of emails and text messages dating back to their time working together at Cardiff City. I'm sorry, but you can't say that someone is (or has accused of being) "racist, sexist and homophobic" on the basis of unreliable sources and contentious material. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you understand what I mean, why do you keep saying that we can't state the content of their report as fact? That isn't in dispute and never has been. I am suggesting that we should state the existence of their report as fact, and the content as allegations made by them and not endorsed by Wikipedia. On 20 August 2014, it was reported that letters had been sent... That is the difference between endorsing the report and relating the report. Now, I can appreciate that it might be necessary to make it much clearer who filed the report, but it's already clear that this was a report, not something presented as verifiable fact by Wikipedia itself. No, you can't say that someone is "racist, sexist and homophobic" on the basis of unreliable sources and contentious material, so it's a good job that didn't happen. However, we have very good sources for the fact that the Daily Mail has made these extraordinary claims in their report - claims which have major repercussions for Mackay irrespective of their truthfulness. We can cite the BBC for that. Clicriffhard (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"It was reported that" = WP:WEASEL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it may be necessary to make it much clearer who'd filed the report. That's exactly what WP:WEASEL says... Clicriffhard (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph is speculating that the FA will not take action against Mackay and Moody on the "racist, sexist and homophobic" messages because they were private correspondence. The police won't take action either unless one of the alleged victims formally complains. [1]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So? You don't seriously think that that means it'll just go away? Clicriffhard (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP

WP:BLPGOSSIP. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true". The source (the Daily Mail and, ultimately, Cardiff City FC) is not reliable. It is being presented as allegations, not truth. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that one's fair enough. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I guess we'll have to wait for someone more credible than the Mail to inevitably say exactly the same thing in a day or two. Clicriffhard (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The BBC is now reporting Cardiff's accusations directly, without reference to the Daily Mail. How does that fit in? Still gossip? If so, how do you ever refer to significant accusations on a Wikipedia article? Clicriffhard (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source, which meets the first condition of WP:BLPGOSSIP. The problem is they are still presenting it as allegations (which they are) and not truth, which is the second condition. It is verifiably true that Cardiff have made allegations and that Palace have dropped their interest in appointing Mackay as manager - that is in the article. The allegations themselves are not verifiably true at this point. Indeed, they may never be confirmed, if the FA or the courts do not investigate them fully. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There's something a bit off there, isn't there? If it's verifiably true that Cardiff have made allegations because the BBC article says so, then why is the nature of the allegations - also specified in the BBC article - not equally verifiably true? The article says that the allegations ARE about racist, sexist and homophobic texts, not that the allegations are allegedly about racist, sexist and homophobic texts. See the 15th para. Clicriffhard (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand you now. I'll try to rewrite it later; or try again (WP:BOLD) yourself. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go. It's very minimal and I virtually copied the wording from the article for fear of editorialising by accident, so I won't be hurt if you redo it. Hooray! I like to think that everybody won. Clicriffhard (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Malky Mackay. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10335~2473943,00.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10335~2620386,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)