Talk:Sam Kerr

Loan from Sky Blue to Perth Glory

According to Sky Blue FC, Kerr was on loan from them to Perth Glory for the 2015–16 W-League.[1] Hack (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Footballer/soccer

I've noticed that the lead section of this article has been switched back to footballer from soccer player which I modified earlier on today. It also says "soccer player" in previous versions this year alone. Who says we write "Australian professional footballer" where we have, e.g. Mary Fowler (soccer) and Australia women's national soccer team having their current titles includes "soccer" in them. Having some consensus on what word we use after professional in the opening sentence would hopefully solve this problem. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

She is a soccer player not a footballer. She's from Australia and plays for the Australian national team, it's basically the same as Clint Dempsey, just because he played in England, it doesn't make him a footballer. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Should be soccer as per WP:NCFA --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I would think we have a 100% consensus that we should use soccer instead of footballer so I shall change that back. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I made that edit a few days ago and didn't realize it was reverted. @StarryNightSky11: stop making that revert, it's becoming disruptive and you're edit warring. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

'Soccer' is correct. GiantSnowman 17:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring

@Namdor67: Please continue the discussion here and stop reverting edits. I don't know if you're aware, but you linked me a page that gives the 100 best male footballers and 100 best female footballers, in order of most recent date the articles were written. You seem to think it says only male for some reason. Your argument is also not relevant, because even if someone created a list of the top ten thousand footballers and Sam Kerr was not on it, she would still be widely considered one of the best footballers. I gave two reliable sources that showed Sam Kerr is considered one of the best footballers. You showed me a list of 100 male footballers (so she wouldn't be on the list no matter what) and said you personally do not consider Sam Kerr one of the best because of this. Wikipedia is not for these types of debates. If a reliable source says Sam Kerr is considered one of the best footballers, then it is correct to say so in the article. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is yourself using ONE tabloid off handed article reference to push an agenda.

Again, Sam is an incredible athlete, and is one of the greatest ever female footballs. One of the greatest Australian athletes ever.

Hundreds of references do not mention Sam as being one of the greatest footballers, full stop.

Wikipedia is based on facts, not your opinion to change it.

Do you not understand the facts and reality of why it was stated she is one of the "greatest female footballers"? U

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facts_precede_opinions

We have the greatest "male footballers" and greatest "female footballers". But in ranking Sam is not one of the greatest footballers, full stop. She is categorically one of the greatest female football players. End of.

If you wish to take things further as Wikipedia states, Facts Precede Opinions that content accepted by Wikipedians to be factual takes precedence over content that is contended to be opinionated.

Show me just with theses references where is Sam Kerr mentioned?

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-soccer-players-2023/david-de-la-riva

https://www.fctables.com/top_football_players/

https://one-versus-one.com/en/rankings

https://sports.yahoo.com/ranked-100-best-players-world-173418995.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHV_tBvSr9YUMmguNJpmZANqXWZzryrqY2POils0uHGLccW7vEdEdN7HAElnEudBq_EpFAJh97SqiCJmpE1lYCt1ZyV7Fm-CtoJRjQeSIBVeqyL6-5E9GSWJ2qDjllKH3DOqoj6vFpfG2yB32_ilStnwR5-wea2pTiy7PEroULfZ

Do you wish me to find more and put them on Sam Kerr's page?

You know the facts, refrain from editing based on emotion and irrational behavior. Namdor67 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Change "greatest female footballers" to this by all means, if you choose so.

Sam Kerr’s latest exploits mark her out as "one of Australia’s greatest athletes".

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/may/09/sam-kerrs-latest-exploits-mark-her-out-as-one-of-australias-greatest-athletes Namdor67 (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You typically only need one reliable source per sentence in Wikipedia articles. A Fox Sports article stating, "Australian superstar Sam Kerr has cemented her place among the world’s best footballers" is easily enough to write on Wikipedia that she is considered one of the best footballers. I could put more sources but you don't usually need 5 refs for one phrase. I don't know why you say random charts, fan-run ranking sites, and sources that don't mention Sam Kerr are good sources on Sam Kerr. I've never seen someone try to use a source that does not even mention the subject as a source on the subject. It is rare to find people discussing Sam Kerr and call her a "female player" unless it's deliberately in the context of discussing her winning an award for best female and male footballer. Normally people just call her "one of the best" when talking about her herself. I understand it's prestigious to have her as one of the best "female" players rather than just player, and it is seen as a promotion of women's football and feminism to say "female" player, as it reminds people of women's football, and puts "female" in such a positive connotation. For example, arguably the best player on the USWNT, Mallory Swanson, has her Wiki biography listed that she is a player for the "United States women's national soccer team" but other players just have "United States national team" without women, because it is considered an honor to be called "women/female." But reality is Sam is just not typically called that.

Sam Kerr called "the best player in the world":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11981781/Aston-Villa-boss-brands-superstar-Sam-Kerr-best-player-WORLD.html

Sam Kerr called "one of the best soccer players in the world":

https://www.essentiallysports.com/soccer-football-news-months-before-fifa-womens-world-cup-megan-rapinoe-teams-up-with-rival-sam-kerr-as-they-tease-partnership-with-billion-firm/

"James Johnson claims Sam Kerr as best player in the world":

https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/james-johnson-claims-sam-kerr-025000571.html

"In just two seconds, Sam Kerr reminded the world why she's one of football's greatest players":

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-15/in-a-game-of-big-moments-sam-kerr-small-glories-set-her-apart/102345788

Sam Kerr is almost ALWAYS referred neutrally as one of the best players when discussing her game. The only time she's called female is to deliberately say she won a female version of a male/female award. It is 100% correct to say she "is widely considered one of the best footballers."

I have A LOT more sources if you need. Sam is literally CONSTANTLY called "one of the best footballers in the world." You have not provided a single source that shows your viewpoint. A female footballer is a type of footballer. She is constantly called one of the best footballers. Do you have a myriad of reliable source discussing Sam Kerr saying that she is somehow not a footballer? I'm not even sure what your reasoning is for changing the edit.

The main reason "female" was removed was for grammar. It sounds odd to refer to her as one of the best female players then greatest Australian athlete in the same sentence. Why does she switch from female to neutral Australian? It's awkward to read, and sources state otherwise. It already states earlier in this article that "She is widely considered as one of the best forwards of all time in women's soccer" which makes perfect sense. That was a great sentence. But saying it again in a repetitive, awkward, clunky phrase that switches halfway through the sentence should be removed. Sources clearly say she's one of the best footballers, so we can opt for the smoother sentence. She is considered the greatest Australian player, so we should say she is considered one of the best in the world. Australia is a top 10 ranked nation at the moment.

"Australia’s most-capped Socceroo Mark Schwarzer said that she (Sam Kerr) could be remembered as the greatest Aussie footballer ever once her career is done... “I think she can be (called the greatest),” he said.":

https://sport.optus.com.au/news/gegenpod-podcast/os42846/fawsl-winners-2022-sam-kerr-golden-boot-matildas-greatest-ever-gegenpod Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You know and I know realistically "Greatest Footballer" is said in general discussion or in an article about women's football only. When of course she is one of the best over the last few years in women's football. But she would not make any of the premier league squads, or lower divisions squads as a footballer.

"Australia Women's team loses 7-0 to Under-15 men's side"

https://www.goal.com/en-au/news/australia-womens-team-loses-7-0-to-under-15-mens-side/blt91e9ef45234df6c2

It's no offence or disrespect to Sam, she is a sensational athlete, an Icon, I watch every game she plays in. But in all rankings of The "best footballers" she does not get a mention. And to clarify Fiffa do rankings, then it is used by a Fifa game not visa versa.

Grammar is correct, it is used widely, even in all references before the last section.

"BBC Women's Footballer of the Year award from 2018 to 2022 and has been named to the Top 10 of The Guardian's The 100 Best Female Footballers In The World from 2017 to 2022, ranking 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 6th, 3rd, and 3rd, respectively."

"Kerr is known for her "speed, skill, tenacity", and backflip goal celebrations, and is widely considered one of the best female footballers, and strikers, in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."

If you remove Female, then you have to include all footballers, and rankings...

Sam ranks equal top, in women's football rankings.

This is why rankings and greatest are separated by Gender..Facts proced opinion.

If you remove "female" you are also saying she is one of the best strikers in the world, as well as one of the highest ranked footballers. Full stop.

"Kerr is known for her "speed, skill, tenacity", and backflip goal celebrations, and is widely considered one of the best female footballers, and strikers, in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."

We have to be factual, the above reads perfectly accurate.

A superb, Remarkable Athlete, would no doubt agree on the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5L_JbZFx5H0 Namdor67 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have many sources. You are just giving your opinion. Tell me how my sources are not reliable. The only way for you to prove your argument is to tell me that Wikipedia cannot state precisely what is stated in these sources. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's your opinion based on articles that refer to women's football..! Read the articles!

This is not about Gramma, it's about your emotions and opinion.

Why lie?

There is no argument, facts are she does not rank in the top 1000 footballers, nor is she one of the best strikers in football.

But in in women's football she definitely is.

Wikipedia is not about your emotions and trying to manipulate articles to suit you.

Facts are Facts..

I gave you loads of "Footballers" rankings, where Sam Kerr is not present. Are you really that blinded by your own agenda here? Even a world renowned incredible Athlete in Serena stating facts is below you? Namdor67 (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Under no circumstance does Wikipedia use articles that don't mention the subject as a source on the subject. Your opinion is perfectly fine. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with your opinion. At Wikipedia we use reliable sources to write articles. We do not add in our personal explanations, we do not violate Wikipedia's rule against original research. I appreciate your time spent researching, but we have to use what the reliable sources state, not your personal conclusions. The only way it is possible for you to claim "one of the best footballers" should be removed from her biography is if you can prove that all the sources I provided stating she is one of the best footballers are unsuitable for Wikipedia's reliability policy. If you can do that, we will then have to go through all the Wiki sports articles that use those sources and remove all that information for being unreliable. These are already established sources, so I don't know how you're going to claim they're not. It is wrong for you to remove "one of the best footballers" when there are reliable sources stating that Sam Kerr is one of the best footballers. Your opinion is fine, but we have sources that state what she is considered, and all this Wikipedia article is doing is stating what she is considered. There is obviously no objective way to judge sports players, so this article will not claim "She is the best in the world." We will merely say she is "considered" one of the best, because by reliable sources, she is. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Footballer" full stop rankings is not my opinion. I presented you with FACTS.

Your sources refer to women's football, and achievements in women's football, representing Australia in women's football.

My sources are full stop "footballers" rankings which are far more accurate and defining. Which supersede any article you choose to cherry pick.

How can you possibly rationally state she is one of the greatest players, strikers in all football men included???

Your opinion and emotions can not, and will not overrule facts.

AGAIN. Show me where Sam Kerr ranks in "Footballers"?

FACTS AND SOURCES. "Footballers"

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-soccer-players-2023/david-de-la-riva

https://www.fctables.com/top_football_players/

https://one-versus-one.com/en/rankings

https://sports.yahoo.com/ranked-100-best-players-world-173418995.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHV_tBvSr9YUMmguNJpmZANqXWZzryrqY2POils0uHGLccW7vEdEdN7HAElnEudBq_EpFAJh97SqiCJmpE1lYCt1ZyV7Fm-CtoJRjQeSIBVeqyL6-5E9GSWJ2qDjllKH3DOqoj6vFpfG2yB32_ilStnwR5-wea2pTiy7PEroULfZ Namdor67 (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That's lovely but none of these sources mention Sam Kerr. I could give you my personal opinion on Sam Kerr, but it would be irrelevant. Both my and your opinions do not matter here. Some people think she's the best, other people think she sucks and is overrated. Irrelevant. We are not allowed to give our opinions. We are not allowed to do original research. We are not allowed to draw conclusions from sources that do not mention Kerr. We have reliable sources stating she is CONSIDERED one of the best footballers. It is incorrect based on Wikipedia policy for you to remove this information. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you have the opinion, cherry picked articles, pundits opinions.. I have the facts in world "footballers" rankings.

And she is not there.

Now.

Do you understand why all major sports are divided into Female and Male categories??

You can draw a conclusion by researching and finding the facts as to why.

Sam is perhaps my favorite athlete, and in my "Opinion" she would agree categorically with Serena.

I stand by "footballers" greatest world rankings, sources.

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facts_precede_opinions

You were determined to remove a long standing statement, based on facts.

So from here you need Wikipedia administrators, as it is you who wish to override facts to your opinion. Namdor67 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We ARE NOT ALLOWED to draw conclusions by researching. This is DISALLOWED according to Wikipedia policy. It is INCORRECT for you to draw the conclusion that Sam is not considered one of the best footballers because you do not find her on a list. It is CORRECT for Sam's Wikipedia article to say she is considered one of the best footballers if a reliable news source states she is. I have a reliable news source stating she is. I published it. You erased it. You are wrong to erase a reliable news source and the information in that news source just because you personally disagree with it. I don't care if you think Sam is the worst player ever. That's fine. But this reliable source is giving us information on Sam Kerr that was published and you should not be erasing it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You errassed "female footballer", you alone out of all the editors are somehow offended she is mentioned as one of the greatest female footballers, and strikers in the world

Based on your emotion and opinions are forcefully pushing your agenda, from sources that are obviously referring to female footballers, if you read the articles.

If she is not listed in any current greatest ranked "footballer" sources, it NOT based on conclusion or research. It's a fact she is not ranked in the present "Greatest footballers in the world".

We do not need her name to be there, as it's already established she does not rank in any of the current "greatest footballer" lists or sources.

But she does rank in female, or women's greatest footballers.

So on the contrary, it is you who has been researching to draw conclusions, which as you deem is DISALLOWED according to Wikipedia policy.

So you are INCORRECT.

I as you to use logic, ALL editors apart from yourself find "one of the greatest female footballers, and strikers" offensive and inaccurate.

So for the last time, if you wish to change due to your opinion over facts, you will need Wikipedia administrators. Namdor67 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you feel so offended, perhaps you might try and edit this page, to include her as one of the greatests footballers, full stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rapinoe

She is an incredible Athlete and arguably the greatest Icon of soccer in the USA. Namdor67 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Explain how Fox Sports is not a reliable source. If you can, then we can erase the claim, or find a new reliable source. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Explain how every "footballer rankings" including Fiffa are not all reliable sources.

Sources are the Guardian and separate men and women into to different categories.

Best Male and Best Female...

Sam is the one of the best Female footballers, and strikers.

If you leave out female, then it is all inclusive.

I do not appreciate being threatened with "EDIT WARNING".

When you changed a long standing statement, and a conscious that all editors have seen as appropriate.

Also I do not appreciate being lied to with you stating "The main reason "female" was removed was for grammar."

I ask you kindly to take the matter up with an Wikipedia administrator to resolve your issue. Namdor67 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources that do not include Sam Kerr cannot be included to talk about Sam Kerr.

It was removed for strange wording. We already have it stated that she's one of the best in women's football. It was then repeated in a clunky manner to say she's one of the best females and best Australian, which sounds strange and makes little sense. We already said she's one of the best in women's football earlier in the section.

We have multiple sources directly talking about Sam Kerr saying she is quote: "One of the best footballers in the world." I don't know how you're arguing we cannot put this info in her article when there are credible sources that consider her to be.

I understand it's prestigious and a promotion of women to say women's football, which is why I think it's great that it was stated in the first place earlier in Sam's article. But to repeat it again wasn't good writing, and sources generally refer to her as just a footballer, unless they are specifically talking about a male and female winner, which should then be stated. On Megan Rapinoe's article, it states all the way down in the senior team section the entire title "Rapinoe trained with the United States women's national soccer team," which definitely sounds awkward because we already know she's a woman and we already know we're talking about the sport of soccer. The repetition that far down in the article is not great sounding, but it is considered glorious to say the entire title because it is a promotion of the success of the WOMEN'S team specifically. Normally it would just say "Rapinoe trained with the United States national team" or perhaps "United States senior team." I don't know if you want the same thing for Sam Kerr, that it is a promotion of women to call her best FEMALE player, but the sources just don't generally refer to her as that when discussing her as a person. You can put that she is called the best female in places discussing her winning a female-specific award, but to repeat it again when just generally talking about her success and when the sources don't say that is wrong. We already stated that, and I have credible sources supporting the correct wording. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record.

You're sourcing OPINIONS of pundits and journalists, who are referring obviously to women's football...OPINIONS...

News or Web sources are sourced for FACTS.

Such as.

As in her interviews and about her life and relationships- Facts.

About her height age and statistics- Facts

About her awards and honours- Facts

About her seasons- Facts

About her career and clubs- Facts

About her appearing in major public ceremonies and other popular media-Facts

You are sourcing opinions to force an agenda.

I sourced Facts based on statistics and rankings based on biological athleticism.

Rankings are based on certain facts.

You are insulting my intelligence and everyone who reads this, to use sources in such away which are opinion based, to fit in with your opinion..

Sam is a female footballer, and is ranked at present as equal top female footballer, and striker based on- Facts.

I shall not continue this pointless debate, when you are clearly only interested facts.

I ask you kindly to take the matter up with an Wikipedia administrator to resolve your issue.

FEMALE remains, it is coherent and factual and grammatically correct, which was apparently your main concern.

Unless administrators resolve it other ways.

Let's enjoy watching a superb Sam in the Women's world cup please. Namdor67 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a typographical error. This is the amended version.

I shall not continue this pointless debate, when you are clearly NOT interested facts. Namdor67 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to edit war with you doesn't mean you should leave your edit as is if it's not settled. It would help if you contact admins because I don't know how to. My main concern is sources rarely refer to Sam as a best "female" footballer unless it refers deliberately to the context of awards and honors with male and female counterparts. In general when discussing Sam as a player they say footballer. You have provided no reason that these sources are unreliable. You've only stated your opinion and original reasearch (concluding the source stating Sam Kerr is one of the best footballers is wrong because you found another list of footballers without Sam on it).

I am absolutely stating the opinions of sports pundits when I write Sam Kerr is CONSIDERED one of the best in the world. That is how Wiki articles on sportspeople always work. It is a FACT some people consider these players to be the best, that some people know them for skill, etc. We write that a player is "known for skill, speed..." "considered one of the greatest," we can even quote what a pundit said about them, etc.

We know she's a woman. We said so about 200 times in the article she is a women's footballer. Whenever that is properly phrased and sourced, it should be there. That's why I made no attempt and I have no desire to remove the second sentence in the article that says "She is widely considered as one of the best forwards of all time in women's soccer." It the second sentence of the entire page, the sentence everyone will read when they find the page. It is good writing and is correct. I'm merely going to the bottom of the section and phrasing a sentence in a way that makes sense and is SOURCED. It's even more awkward to read when it says female footballer and striker. What does that mean? Female striker? Gender neutral striker? Why is she not a female Australian athlete? Why is it female, neutral, neutral? Why is female sloppily thrown in there when we said it beautifully in the second sentence? This source states she is one of the best, not female best. What is your reason for removing the sourced information? Would you prefer if we wrote in quotation marks that she is considered "among the world’s best footballers"? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Also it literally says under the Western New York Flash, 2013–2014 section, "Head coach Aaran Lines said of Kerr, "With her attributes – her speed, athleticism and instincts – if she continues to develop at the rate she is, Sam can become one of the best strikers in the world.""

Why is sourced info already in the article saying Sam is considered one of the best in the world but you're removing it from other parts of the article? Why is it wrong to say she is considered one of the best when coaches, professional players, and journalists do consider her one of the best (although you do not)? I really don't understand. You also posted the wrong source and you gave the Gaurdian search feature for all the articles about 100 footballers, listed in order of most recent publication date, instead of linking the list Sam is on. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Again.

There you go quoting personal opinions that are based on women's football. trying your hardest to manipulate quotes to suit your agenda.

Do really think Aran Lines did not mean women's football?

That he was saying she would become on of the the greatest footballers, strikers in world football as in the Premier League or La Liga?

FIFA has no ban on women playing in the men's game. So Sam would be playing in one of the Male top leagues. Not a contract for 2 million, but a contract for between 70 to 110 million.

"The Matildas captain has signed a mega-money deal worth nearly $2 million."

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/sam-kerr-signs-for-chelsea-new-club-latest-football-transfers-matildas-australia-contract-details-price-ffa-perth-glory/news-story/a568e0064077ac63fd113c0b5740b660

Women do play in Men's team you know, fact.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57164928

AND It's not my edit you're trying to remove, it's a grammatically correct and a long standing coherent statement. That offends only you.

If you remove "female" it becomes all inclusive, males included.

The Guardian separates Women and Men into the "greatest" statistically, biologically based on facts.

Fiffa rank women and men seperatly.

But you believe you are above them, with your relentless pursuit of your opinion.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/series/the-100-best-footballers-in-the-world

I'm sorry you're offended, but facts over opinion must prevail.

This is the last time I shall reply on a clear fact that Superb Sam is no doubt one one of the greatest female footballers, and strikers, in the world.

You will have to learn how to get Wikipedia administrators help on this matter, as obviously you changed it and are on a quest..

Until then.

FEMALE remains, it is coherent, factual and grammatically correct. Namdor67 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are doing original research. None of what you just stated is in any source. Sam is called one of the greatest footballers by reliable sources. It is your personal opinion if she is great in a league she's not playing in. That is not sourced. That is your opinion. You are creating WP:SYNTHESIS of published material, which is entirely against Wikipedia guidelines. Your entire argument has been nothing but a severe violation of Wikipedia's rule on WP:SYNTHESIS. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the one doing all the original research, on opinions based on female football.

There is no argument.

Sam kerr is one of the greatest female footballers, and strikers in the world.

SO don't threaten me please with your opinion and research trying to use WP:SYNTHESIS when it applies to you.

The long standing statement is of the majority.

WP:SYNTHESIS

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Namdor67 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For the very last time.

You will have to learn how to get Wikipedia administrators help on this matter. Namdor67 (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about my viewpoint. I am stating in the Wikipedia article exactly what is stated in reliable sources. You are removing reliable sourced information because you have personal opinions and interpret things differently. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral.

I do not force opinions.

There are a plethora of references to all the top ranked greatest all inclusive "footballers" in the world.

"Kerr is known for her "speed, skill, tenacity", and backflip goal celebrations, and is widely considered one of the best female footballers, and strikers, in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."

Above section is a long standing, majority consensus.

End of discussion, seek Administrators help if you wish to proceed further. Namdor67 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you prefer as a compromise if we called her one of the best female footballers and one of the best footballers? I don't think that's worded well but I don't know what you want at this point. Why is she referred to as just a striker and not a female striker? Are strikers not football players? You are going against what Sam Kerr is commonly called. I was reminded to come here just now after iwcwatches called her "One of the best football players in the world, striker at Chelsea Football Club and captain of her national team, the Matildas." I'm trying to understand where you're coming from but you're not giving any reason that she cannot be called "considered one of the best footballers" when she frequently is called one of the best footballers. Reliable sources state this. I perfectly respect your opinion that she is not, but your and my opinions are not suitable for forming a Wiki article. Saying Sam is not considered one of the best, when I have sources saying she is considered one of the best, because you personally don't see her on a list you looked at, is not how Wiki articles function. You are forming your own conclusions based on information that does not mention Sam Kerr. We have the information about the subejct Sam Kerr right here, where she is called one of the best footballers. It is 100% ok that you personally do not consider her one of the best. But we have reliable sources calling her this, and it is correct for the Wiki article so state this. I have tried looking to contact admins and I'm unable. I usually don't get into debates that require admins and I've never done it before. If you could help that would be great. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not undo end of discussion..!!

All your sources refer to women's football, you are hell bent on pushing your personal agenda.

She is not ranked in the world's greatest footballers of men and women combined.

If you remove female, it therefore incorporates all footballers, men and women.

Sam is equal top ranked female footballer, an Icon, one of Australia's greatest athletes!

100 percent.

And do not use..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11981781/Aston-Villa-boss-brands-superstar-Sam-Kerr-best-player-WORLD.html

As it's one, about the women's football after a woman's tournament.

And most importantly.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

I am neutral, not research, just sources and statistical sourced facts, sourced "Greatest footballers" rankings.

For the last time the section is a long standing majority consensus. That is how Wikipedia works.

End of discussion, seek Administrators help if you wish to proceed further.

And again do not undo end of discussion due to your obsession over this matter.

Enjoy Sam in the Women's World Cup, as I shall. Namdor67 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Kerr is recognized for her remarkable "speed, skill, tenacity," and backflip goal celebrations, solidifying her as one of the world's highly regarded footballers, and strikers in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."

I'm proposing this compromise as not to take away from Kerr's incredible achievements, skill, athleticism and being a highly regarded ambassador of the game.

And as not to open up the pandora's box of natural occurring biological advantages men have in certain sports by removing "female'.

Remove "female" in the way you propose then you include men, and biological advantages, that are widely scientifically proven, and why Transgender athletes are banned from elite international track and field events. https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/35925450/track-organizers-ban-transgender-women-elite-competitions

As It's more than just testosterone levels.

Men tend have a higher proportion of Type II muscle fibers, which are associated with explosive power and speed.

Larger lung capacity, men often have larger lung volumes, which can facilitate increased oxygen intake during intense physical activity, leading to enhanced endurance performance.

And a differences in skeletal structure which provide mechanical advantages.

Not opinion, just biological proven factors when it comes to why women and men's "sports" are seperated. It's not fair to compare women and men due to biological advantages men are naturally born with. Or to take away from the exceptional ability and athleticism women display in sports.

It's not opinion, just science. And again I'm not using any personal research for a wikipedia article.

You have removed "female" three times and it's been reverted due to incorporating men's scientifically proven natural advantages.

It has not been reverted due to misogyny, or any lack of respect towards Sam and her incredible contribution to the game. I for one have watched every game she has played in ever since she started showing such great skill..Also an Australian Icon that will have her named etched in history.

The compromise, I feel is accurate.

If you decline the compromise, then seek further assistance advised by Mitch.

As I stand by the long standing "best female footballer" as nothing has changed since 2021, and even before she signed for Chelsea, in my book she was one of the best. Namdor67 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion and original research. The sources directly state Sam Kerr is one of the best footballers in the world. Wikipedia stating Sam Kerr is considered one of the best is correct, because reliable sources say this.

Of course it's about a women's football player in a women's tournament? Sam Kerr is a woman. She is a woman while being one of Australia's greatest athletes (which is a direct quote from source), one of the best strikers (direct quote from source), and one of the best footballers (direct quote from source). Why are you placing female into footballers and changing the quote into something the source does not say, but you do not wish to change the quote for striker or Australian athlete?

Of course we are able to find her called both "best footballer" and "best female footballer" because most awards are given a male and female version. When discussing female awards, she is called female. When speaking about her as a person, she is called one of the best footballers (NOT female). Even in your source you continue using, Sam Kerr is referred to as "the best in the world" (gender neutral) because she made the Guardian list of 100 female footballers.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/06/sam-kerr-the-best-player-in-the-world-tell-us-something-we-dont-know

The title calls Sam Kerr "the best player in the world" because she was on your list of female footballers. Your own source is proof that it is correct to call her "one of the best footballers." We could add this Guardian article that is completely about Sam Kerr as a reference in the Wiki article. It is a very good source. You linked a search of 100 best male and female footballers that isn't about Sam but just mentions her on the list.

I did not use Daily Mail as a reference in the article. I used Fox Sports. I asked you repeatedly if Fox Sports was a reliable source and you refused to answer. If it is not reliable, I will find another source for you. I apologize for using Daily Mail as an example in our chat. I have found a better source on the subject. If you have a problem with any of the other multiple sources I showed, please say so.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/best-in-the-world-rival-boss-alltime-praise-for-kerr-as-aussie-superstar-saves-chelsea/news-story/fa3b8037ad0f2d1dc8dc4a54b0e35758

I believe NY Times is a reliable source for Wikipedia. I will find as many as you need.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/11/sports/world-cup/sam-kerr-world-cup.html?mtrref=oceanhero.today&gwh=D60808E62BD967CC66047B1777BB826D&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL

"This 25-year-old Australian striker is one of the best players in the world right now." - NY Times

Could you please help me contact admins? I rarely get into debates on Wikipedia so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not trying to argue I just genuinely have no idea what you want me to do. I haven't done this before. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No "Personal Opinion" and would you stop with this research accusation as you are researching constantly. researching articles that refer to women's football. Look at your research papers posted here.

Every editor has to techniquily research to find sources and articles containing relevan information, or there would be no Wikipedia!

I am not putting MY ORIGINAL research anywhere on any ARTICLE.

You can not twist this to refer to your agenda here. Please refrain from using this completely out of context.

In Bold at the beginning. "Wikipedia ARTICLES must not contain original research"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

For the very last time.

If you remove female then it's all inclusive, Male and Female football.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/27/womens-football-is-not-just-a-spin-off-of-the-mens-game-its-great-in-its-own-right

She does not rank in the overall "best footballers" sources, Women's football rankings she does.

And your MAJOR concern the grammar was incorrect as you stated, is incorrect.

The Garmma is correct and the consensus by all editors who see this as accurate is correct.

"Kerr is known for her "speed, skill, tenacity", and backflip goal celebrations, and is widely considered one of the best female footballers, and strikers, in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes.

You alone wished to change it, I reverted back to a long standing consensus.

I respect your determination, use that determination and research how to seek administrators assistance.

I have ended my discussion on this matter. Namdor67 (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Namdor67 and Helpfulwikieditoryay: Can I suggest that you try one of the dispute resolution processes listed at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Mitch, May I ask what is your editor's view on this matter? Namdor67 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is probably worth one of you invoking WP:3O or WP:RFC. Note that both of these include instructions to create a "brief neutral description of the dispute". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I will rephrase the question.

Are you neutral on "female" being removed? Or based on what I present below. Are you against or for "female"?

The statement that Sam Kerr is widely considered one of the best female footballers in the world has been consistently present on her page since at least 2021, according to the Revision History. This statement has been deemed appropriate and accurate by highly respected editors, especially considering her inclusion in the top rankings of women's football. I support the opinions of these experienced editors who have not made any amendments to the statement. Not when Sam Kerr has been one of the greatest female footballers, which has not changed since 2021.

Statistical sources on all "footballers" (full stop) world rankings I stand by as "fact over opinion".

This is not a source or my opinion. This is in regards to a number of highly regarded editors and a consensus of other world class highly distinguished female footballers, and athlete's pages.

Please read in relation to editing consensus.

Vivianne Miedema.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivianne_Miedema

Megan Rapinoe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rapinoe

Thank you kindly Mitch, for your time and assistants, also recommendations. Namdor67 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

To note.

Helpfulwikieditoryay has made the same changes on 2 previous occasions, which were undone. Namdor67 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whatever it is you are arguing about. But I see the debate going on and not getting anywhere, and repeated suggestions that administrators' help is required (search the page for "admin"), and also statements that contact admins because I don't know how to and tried looking to contact admins and I'm unable. Just to be clear, I am not an administrator, but I don't think that one is necessarily required here. Wikipedia does have a page WP:DISPUTE describing how to get help resolving disputes such as this. I suggest that you should read that page. Since you've already discussed the matter but apparently are not getting anywhere, and want some additional opinions - and no-one else seems to be offering any - the processes described under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE might help, eg seek a third opinion or request for comment.

To reiterate: I'm not offering an opinion on the article content, the subject of this disagreement, I am pointing you to Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, since you appear to be in need of some help. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize I replied to the wrong comment.

Here is a proposal.

"Kerr is recognized for her remarkable "speed, skill, tenacity," and backflip goal celebrations, solidifying her as one of the world's highly regarded footballers, and strikers in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."

I'm proposing this compromise as not to take away from Kerr's incredible achievements, skill, athleticism and being a highly regarded ambassador of the game.

And as not to open up the pandora's box of natural occurring biological advantages men have in certain sports by removing "female'.

Remove "female" in the way you propose then you include men, and biological advantages, that are widely scientifically proven, and why Transgender athletes are banned from elite international track and field events. https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/35925450/track-organizers-ban-transgender-women-elite-competitions

As It's more than just testosterone levels.

Men tend have a higher proportion of Type II muscle fibers, which are associated with explosive power and speed.

Larger lung capacity, men often have larger lung volumes, which can facilitate increased oxygen intake during intense physical activity, leading to enhanced endurance performance.

And a differences in skeletal structure which provide mechanical advantages.

Not opinion, just biological proven factors when it comes to why women and men's "sports" are seperated. It's not fair to compare women and men due to biological advantages men are naturally born with. Or to take away from the exceptional ability and athleticism women display in sports.

It's not opinion, just science. And again I'm not using any personal research for a wikipedia article.

You have removed "female" three times and it's been reverted due to incorporating men's scientifically proven natural advantages.

It has not been reverted due to misogyny, or any lack of respect towards Sam and her incredible contribution to the game. I for one have watched every game she has played in ever since she started showing such great skill..Also an Australian Icon that will have her named etched in history.

The compromise, I feel is accurate.

If you decline the compromise, then seek further assistance advised by Mitch.

As I stand by the long standing "best female footballer" as nothing has changed since 2021, and even before she signed for Chelsea, in my book she was one of the best. Namdor67 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I will address your personal opinion because it seems important to you. I still don't think our opinions matter here, because we should go by what the reliable sources state. I still don't know why it's not ok for the Wiki article to state she's considered one of the best if we have credible sources that state she's the best.

Most people don't share your view on what "best" means. First of all, who are the best sports players is 100% subjective. So you already cannot be objectively correct to say she's not one of the best, and your opinion cannot override that reliable sources have called her one of the best. All Wikipedia is doing is saying she is considered one of the best. Not everyone has to consider her that.

Your personal definition of best is to throw all players into a hodgepodge of men and women and see who can score in a scrimmage. This already isn't even the definition of best player that most people go by, because a lot of the time a player considered the GOAT loses the game. There's lots of discussion on who can be a GOAT when they haven't won anything, not even a major trophy. So you're giving complete subjective personal opinion on if Sam Kerr is the best or not based on what games you are assuming she would theoretically win or lose.

Here I'm just going to give a bunch of examples of how people subjectively determine who they think is the best. I do not agree with or endorse all these opinions. I'm just explaining that what you think is the best is pure opinion. How you choose to measure the best is pure opinion. Some people personally believe biology is what it is and your skills are what matter, so a more talented player competing against an untalented player, but the untalented one is 75 pounds heavier and is able to knock them over, still means the talented player is a better player at the sport. Other people believe how good you are at a sport is how good you can be, so if you can't change your biology then it has nothing to do with you and that has nothing to do with how good you are at the sport. How good is what level you can reach, how much you can improve, how much you have improved since you were born. So if someone is born at level 1 and they reach level 5 (went up 4 points, and reached as great as they can be), they are better than someone born at level 4 and went up to level 6 (went up only 2 points). So it's not meaningless points, but who is achieving the most for who they are. Other people believe the best is irrelevant because it's whoever has opportunity and money, so there's no such thing. Other people personally believe Sam is better than men and they want her on the Chelsea men's team to make up for the men's failures. Other people believe who is the best player is based on who has the most successful career. Doesn't matter if it's men's or women's, whoever's better at their game is better. Most people actually agree with some variety of these opinions, as they are rather unimpressed with lower level men and impressed by top level women, even if the lower level men are stronger. They personally believe and understand the logic of the woman being better than these men. Other people believe where you started from matters most. Usain Bolt is better than a newborn baby deer. The newborn deer can run faster than him, but Usain Bolt is the fastest for who he is (a human male), so Bolt is the best, easily. Other people believe how they would play football against the opposite gender is as irrelevant as claiming a football player is not the best because they're not good at basketball. It literally has nothing to do with their career as a professional footballer, and is therefore irrelevant to any judgment about how good they are. I could go on and on and on thinking ways people judge who the best is (I do not agree with all these reasons, I'm just explaining). Your personal judgment using the hodgepodge scrimmage method that isn't even part of Sam's career is just one personal way to believe if Sam is the best or not. Reliable sources don't agree with your judgment. I respect your method of judgment, but it is 100% subjective, as is everybody else's. The authors of these reliable sources have subjective opinions as well, so Wikipedia is merely stating that she is CONSIDERED one of the best by major news sources. Wikipedia is making no claim about how good she is or not.

We have 3 practically perfect sources directly stating Sam Kerr is considered one of the best players in the world. These sources are all entirely about Kerr, which makes them better sources than a huge list that merely mentions Kerr once. I think it would be best to use one of the following for the Wiki article.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/matildas/australian-captain-sam-kerr-named-best-player-in-the-womens-super-league/news-story/931fedf4d4edf1788c8ecfd06116103c

"Australian superstar Sam Kerr has cemented her place among the world’s best footballers" - Fox Sports

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/11/sports/world-cup/sam-kerr-world-cup.html?mtrref=oceanhero.today&gwh=D60808E62BD967CC66047B1777BB826D&gwt=pay&assetType=PAYWALL

"This 25-year-old Australian striker is one of the best players in the world right now." - NY Times

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/06/sam-kerr-the-best-player-in-the-world-tell-us-something-we-dont-know

"Sam Kerr the best player in the world? Tell us something we don't know" - The Guardian.

I'm trying to include the information in these sources to Kerr's Wikipedia article. There should be no reason I can't do that. It's just information. Wikipedia should state the information. The information in these sources shouldn't be somehow exempt from explaining who Sam Kerr is for a biography. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If we stand by reliable sources in this matter, it's the statistics that overrule pundits opinions and news that reads about women's football.

Fact over Opinion.

Regarding "Best Footballers" full stop.

Natural born advantages have given all track and field "world's best records" in the favour of men. Is not my "opinion" it's an undisputed fact, due to males natural born advantages.

Not in anyway taking away from the brilliant athleticism women, and great acehements women have performed.

You decline the compromise on this matter, that's your stance.

So I will not continue this discussion further and ask you kindly to seek administrators advice, or what mitch has taken his time to kindly provide. Namdor67 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about records. We're not saying "Kerr is the fastest footballer in the world" or something like that. We're talking about who is the best football player. That is always going to be subjective. Sam Kerr has been called one of the best footballers many times. Wikipedia should state the fact that Sam Kerr is considered one of the best footballers. You haven't once addressed this point.

Your compromise is fine to me, but doesn't make sense for Wikipedia. Highly regarded and considered one of the best is the basically the same thing so I don't see your point there. The biggest problem is I do not see a source calling Sam "one of the world's highly regarded footballers," but we see many sources calling her one of the best. I hope I have adequately explained to you that someone's personal definition of best is complete opinion, and you can't go publishing your personal explanations on news articles that are not stated in the news article. The fact that Sam is considered one of the best in the world is well-documented and should be stated in her Wiki article.

Do you agree it's a fact that reliable major news sources are calling her one of the best in the world? Do you think it's ok if Wikipedia discusses this? Is it ok to talk about how Sam is considered one of the best, regardless of other personal opinions if she's actually the best or not?

I didn't accuse you of misogyny. Calling someone a female footballer is not considered offensive to feminist footballers, such as Leah Williamson. Williamson often makes it a point to say women's football herself because it's a promotion of women's football. Kerr's article already says in the second sentence, "She is widely considered as one of the best forwards of all time in women's soccer." Can we not talk about both? It says women's football right there. The compromise should be to say "one of the best footballers" the second time, all the way at the bottom of the section, referenced with sources calling her exactly that.

Is this information ALLOWED on Wikipedia? Do you think we should be allowed to talk about these sources? It seems like you're silencing these sources entirely because you don't agree with the wording. Isn't it ok if it says both? You already have "women's football" at the top. People who share your personal thoughts about the subject can have their own thoughts while reading the article. But the article should say what is stated in sources. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows an encyclopedia format, which means it strives to define and present information in a coherent and neutral manner. The goal is to present information in a clear and concise manner, striving to provide factual and accurate information without personal opinions or subjective biases. It does not rely on people assuming. Changing it to "One of best world footballers" is convoluted, when your sources are pundits opinions discussing women's football. I am being neutral and unbiased standing by a encyclopedia format, and sources of "world footballers" rankings based on data, not opinions.

Sam is one of the best female footballers and strikers in the world based on female rankings.

Your major concern was grammar, as you initially stated, which has been addressed as being perfectly fine. Your personal opinion has been to remove "female" on 2 previous occasions which have been reverted. They obviously, like myself are only striving for Sam's profile to remain coherent, precise and neutral.

All I can suggest for the very last time is to seek administrators assistance, or the helpful advice given by Mitch.

Kind Regards. Namdor67 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind regards.

Who are some of the best footballers in the world is opinion, straight up. We're not talking about facts (such as who is the top goal-scorer, or won the highest number of awards, etc). Who is the "best" is a matter of opinion. Wikipedia is reporting that people from reliable sources have this opinion ("she is considered one of the best"). That's all. You spent all this time trying to convince me she's not one of the best, which I don't have a problem with and I'm not arguing that. The information published on the news is allowed to be stated on Wikipedia. That's all.

I don't see why you think they're talking about only women's football in the articles. Where does it say that? Kerr is called "among the world’s best footballers" by Fox Sports under the football section. "One of the best players in the world right now" by the NY Times in the sports section. "The best player in the world" in the sports section by The Guardian. Not in a women's only section. They don't say for a woman. They straight up say she's one of the best. Therefore we shouldn't make it up on Wikipedia that they meant female. Your opinion isn't objective, as I already explained people have vastly different measurements of what it means to be the best. It's just an opinion and Wikipedia should state that people have this opinion according to credible sources.

Is she the best striker or female striker? Is she the greatest Austalian athlete or female athlete? The sentence was clunky and unclear, repetitive and unnecessary, which was my initial reason for editing. But now that we are in this discussion, not only is it a little poorly worded and repetitive, I see that it's not what Kerr is commonly called. She is called one of the best many times, so it's correct to state that. Your point of view about women's soccer is already in the second sentence of the article. I think removing one use of "female," while giving sources, making the sentence smoother, and leaving the first use of "in women's soccer" is a fair compromise.

This is my opinion and just one way to think, but I think the most logical way to go about it is to judge a player's career. Sam Kerr is one of the best on the field. It doesn't matter if she would hypothetically be the best in a fake different format of the sport that has nothing to do with her real life and career. No conjectural comparison to imaginary formats is necessary. She has a real career. If she is one of the most successful footballers and is good on the professional field she's playing on, she's one of the best. So if we need to personally debate about this, there's my opinion. And we have the sources anyway. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'm slowly going through this wall of text, but Namdor67, "refrain from editing based on emotion and irrational behavior"--that's one of the weakest arguments you can make. It's condescending and, instead of actually being an argument, it violates WP:AGF. Also, I'm getting kind of bored with the "full stop", which basically means you're stomping your feet without actually producing an argument. Finally, as I'm reading over the sources provided here, it seems to me that you are going to great lengths to basically add "female" to whatever the sources are saying: that's your own editorializing. Your opinions on testosterone and whether this athlete would be able to compete in a man's league are not just irrelevant but also insulting to the subject, and I urge you to drop that line of argument. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the full stop, but as you said you're slowly going through a wall of text.

I've tried to resolve the issue the best I can, but due to a stalemate felt it wise that it be resolved with others help. And thank Mitch for advice on the subject.

I don't feel I'm being "Irrational and emotional" I'm trying to keep things to the point of the change which really only relates to one word that gets repeated, with that I've been mindful to be respectful and stay on point.

I apologize if you found a certain section insulting and irrelevant, my only intention was to clarify how changing the long standing statement that has been accurate, creates ambiguity when altered in such away.

Thank you for your input.

Kind regards. Namdor67 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have words of advice: if people keep on reverting from one version to another, as I've clearly noticed on the article history, at least one of you may be blocked from editing, as minimal as only the article, or this article may be temporarily protected for content dispute with the protection level being full as one of you who also participates in this discussion above my addition here is an extended confirmed user.

On 1 July, two of you have changed the article from one version to another four times in 24 hours, violating 3RR. Try not to do that again. Thank you, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've noticed GiantSnowman has warned two users about the 3RR rule. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Iggy for your advice and I agree.

I contacted GiantSnowman, and accepted his warning, and will not make the same mistake. Namdor67 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record.

Critically analyzed statistics don't discriminate, statistics don't have opinions, statistics are unbiased and do not discriminate in the profession of any sport, or human beings. Neither do scientifically proven biological studies discriminate. Being publicly insinuated as being misogynistic with no foundation other than opinion is far from how Wikipedia works.

My focus was on staying on point and adhere to Wikipedia following an encyclopedia format, which strives to define and present information in a coherent and neutral manner. Namdor67 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, saying statistics are unbiased is one of the easiest ways to determine that someone has never actually worked with statistics or quantitative research. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect my profession is that of a statistician, although I never utilize my own research for any Wikipedia articles.

Statistics themselves are not inherently biased or unbiased. Statistics are mathematical tools used to analyze and interpret data. The bias or lack of bias in statistics arises from how the data is collected. Namdor67 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

As an example world records can involve various statistical measurements, such as time, distance, speed, or other relevant metrics depending on the specific activity or sport. Namdor67 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

https://speedsdb.com/soccer-players Namdor67 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately lying, but we have a whole category on how one might unintentionally incorrectly use statistics. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Football/soccer is a multi-billion dollar industry, and the accuracy of statistics is highly scrutinized. Professional football leagues and governing bodies often have official statisticians or data collection agencies responsible for collecting and verifying match statistics. These organizations have strict protocols in place to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the data.

As well as professional footballers that undergo statistical analysis after each game, facilitated by dedicated specialists employed by their clubs. Namdor67 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

While generally true, none of that is particularly relevant here in a discussion about how reliable sources describe a player. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources I referred to where the numerous sources available on "Footballers', with are statistical attributes that rank players overall, The whole discussion was based on the best world footballers. I went with the statistics, that is all which I consider relevant. https://one-versus-one.com/en/rankings/all/statistics?model=1v1_index&page=1&age_min=16&age_max=40&total_id=total Namdor67 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Excuse the typographical errors I was eating. Namdor67 (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You mostly ignored @Helpfulwikieditoryay saying this above, but I'm going to repeat it: pulling up lists of statistics and then saying "Kerr isn't on them, therefore she isn't one of the best players in the world" is wp:synthesis. It also avoids the point that other editors are making here and in the edits: our readers aren't idiots, and it's clear (in my opinion) that an article calling her "the best striker in the world" isn't attempting to draw a comparison to Haaland or Lewandowski. There are plenty of sources calling her one of the best strikers in the world, and that is sufficient under our policies. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no misogynistic intent whatsoever, as being insinuated on the view history page. My point was clarity that is all Mitch and not comparing her to Haaland and so on. My intent was the same approach in regards to Serena's opinion based on what she expresses.

Your opinion is your opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5L_JbZFx5H0 Namdor67 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The more that you post these unrelated links to videos and articles about mens and womens sports, the more I start to think that you aren't really here in good faith. I don't care what Serena says, and I don't care what random online statistical rankings of players say--they simply aren't relevant to this discussion. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I am here in good faith Mitch, look at the edits I have made on Sam's page am I not doing it in support of Samm Kerr and readers. Pass judgement on me if you wish.

You have experienced your opinion, I respect that.

The page was reverted, I'm not going to ever undo it, ok.I don't wish to fill up Sam's talk page any longer, out of respect for others.

Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not Mitch, but I appreciate your decision. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have clarified that earlier Alyo.Namdor67 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Individual awards

This section could do with breaking down a little better. There's a mixture of sporting achievements for leagues, goals but then within it are personal awards for things like the "Keys to the City of Perth" which seems odd to include there. Koncorde (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

She plays in an English team, it is unambiguously known as "football" - even FIFA is abbreviated appropriately - it is not appropriate for the complete and exclusively American term of "soccer" to be used. TJM2022 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

not done--she's Australian, where they also use the term "soccer". Alyo (chat·edits) 17:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). If you want to get into the topic a little more deeply, and have many hours to spare, you could also look at the Talk page for that article. It's also worth looking at Names for association football#Transition away from soccer in Britain, which tells you that the name soccer was common in the UK until at least he 1960s. All the clubs playing the game in my area of Australia still use the word soccer in their names. One obvious reason for that is that those towns already have a club using the word football, but which plays Australian rules football. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

sam has scored 99 goals for chelsea not 50 something 120.155.218.40 (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That number refers to league goals only. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Unjustified claims in opening paragraph

"Kerr is widely considered one of the best strikers in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."

This is asserted in the second sentence of this article. Neither of these assertions are true, nor are they supported by the references attached to them.120.88.154.121 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

TBH I doubt this is really your true concern, but I've added more sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The rest of the article, and the multiple awards and signs of recognition mentioned in the lead already, amply demonstrate these assertions, and according to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY there is really no need all of those citations in the lead (or the rest of them), but thanks to Alyo for adding the citations. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink agreed, we really should add a player profile/legacy section (Messi, Sinclair, R9) just so those sources and prose have a clearer place to go. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Allegation of "racially aggravated harassment"

Hello everyone. I was wondering whether this article should contain some mention of the allegation of racially aggravated harassment against Kerr and the current court proceedings against her? The argument in favour of including something is that this is now well referenced in reliable media. The argument against is that these allegations have yet to be tested in court and Kerr is entitled to the presumption of innocence. What do other people think? My reason for treading carefully here is that I note this is already a highly contested article. Research17 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Please provide some reliable sources discussing what you're referencing--otherwise it sounds like twitter arguments, which we cannot include. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It has now been addressed in the text. Errantios (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've now noticed. BTW, congratulations to those editors who have included the text on this. I thought this was a pretty good exercise in a balanced approach to a potentially divisive issue. Research17 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@BilledMammal I disagree with this edit on BLP and LEDE reasons. The latter says that "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources", and right now the entire section covering the incident in the body is about four lines long. I realize there's a lot of coverage of this, but it's just news orgs repeating the same three facts/allegations over and over because she's so well known, rather than saying anything in depth about it. Same for MOS:LEADREL -- this isn't remotely near the level of importance as the rest of the facts in the lede. I really fail to see how this is one of the most important events in her life at present, before we know at all whether this will blow up into a bigger issue. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Doesn't belong in the lead, especially as it hasn't even reached court yet and could be thrown out before it does. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the current breadth of coverage (at least 220 stories, probably more), including in sources that would never normally mention her, I believe it does belong in the lede. If subsequent events turn it into a minor point then it can be removed, but until that happens we shouldn't make assumptions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If subsequent events turn it into a minor point then it can be removed, but until that happens we shouldn't make assumptions. But right now you're making the opposite assumption in order to include it, which I believe is the opposite of how we should be treating these sorts of controversies per BLP. Everything in that policy is about minimizing harm and visibility on contested issues until they have fully developed or come to some sort of established conclusion. We should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the BLP, not saying "if it goes away then we'll remove it." Alyo (chat·edits) 14:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We’re not making an assumption; based on the extensive current coverage it is a significant point.

And we meet our BLP obligations by including that these are merely allegations, and that she has pled not guilty. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The case has reached court, a "not guilty" plea has been entered and the matter is scheduled for a full hearing in February 2025. Not up to us to guess whether the charge will be withdrawn. I've added a little clarification to the few words in the lede, but one line there seems quite enough for the moment. Errantios (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And we meet our BLP obligations by including that these are merely allegations, and that she has pled not guilty. Well, again, we also have BLP obligations regarding the relative weight we put on various facts, such as including issues in the lede at all. This case will not go to trial, if it does at all, for nearly a full year. During that time, an editorial decision is being made about the relative importance of this case to her life despite us having nearly no confirmed facts, which I believe contradicts BLP (particularly the line about eventualism and the presumption of innocence we must make). On sourced facts, we have four lines in a 4k+ word article. There isn't much to say about the incident at all (at least until there's some actually confirmed consequences, be it punishment, contractually, or with her captaincy of AUS) so I disagree that it's of lede-worthy importance. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We have some significant confirmed facts: that Kerr has been charged with an important offence, that she has appeared in court and entered a plea, and that a trial date has been set. The lede line has been shortened (which I agree with) and the few lines in the main text, with those few words in the lede, seem to me to achieve balance on what is a major issue in Australia. This is partly because there are demands for her to be removed from the team captaincy as a damaged role model—which we are correctly not mentioning unless something comes of them. Errantios (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I obviously have a different perspective, but I'll let this discussion sit for now and perhaps return in a few months depending on how the coverage develops. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will just add that reportedly Kerr could go to jail, possibly (although I would think extremely unlikely) for two years. Almost any jail time for Kerr would be a blow to Australian soccer prospects. Errantios (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, to be absolutely clear, if there is any punishment (even if just in regards to her NT standing), I think that elevates the importance of this significantly. I just don't think that will happen for months at minimum, and in the meantime I read the above policies to say that we should err on the side of non-inclusion. All good. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I was only adding this to the discussion. Of course, there won't be any sentence before February. Latest news here. Errantios (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) And here. Errantios (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't read SMH articles most of the time (although occasionally Edge lets me do so). I think what's in the lead now is okay, but I have added the time scales and a link to the offence, for clarity. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For both lede and text, I've addressed the obscurity of the police account of the charging. The police media officer (possibly not a copper) might be to blame. Errantios (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all the sources say she has been charged with "racially aggravated harassment"; I'm not sure why we're deviating from that? BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BilledMammal that we should link to the actual offence, which is the only one she has been charged with. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly undue weight to have it in "If subsequent events turn it into a minor point then it can be removed, but until that happens we shouldn't make assumptions" is an absolutely extraordinary statement and the exact opposite of the intention of BLP policies. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal and Laterthanyouthink, the problem is that the sources are self-contradictory. They quote the police as stating that Kerr has been charged under s 4A of the Public Order Act, which does not mention race, and report that she has been charged with "racially aggravated harrassment", which would be under s 3132 of the Crime and Disorder Act. CDA s 3132 historically supplements POA s 4A, and perhaps she has been charged both ways, as alternatives to be considered by the court. Then maybe the poiice statement is just incomplete; our article needs to note the uncertainty, although should not speculate on the reason for it. Errantios (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Errantios (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I have not read all of the reporting, but I see that the Crime and Disorder Act article says "Section 31(1)(c) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress. A person is guilty of this offence if he commits an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (see harassment, alarm or distress) which is racially or religiously aggravated within the meaning of section 28." I'll leave it to others to decide how much detail to include in the body at this point. (One day I'd like to to a structural cleanup per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but that's not going to happen in a hurry.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That article appears to be technically out of date and I've amended my previous post accordingly. CDA s 32 is here. We seem to be on the same wavelength. Errantios (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My issue is that this seems to be based on WP:OR, rather than reliable secondary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal. The material is within WP:OR, which requires that material be "verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation". My material cites statutory provisions, which are readily verifiable. However, I will now add links to them. Errantios (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason it is OR is because it is based on your interpretation of primary sources; it’s WP:SYNTH. Do you have secondary sources for this?

WP:SYNTH says: "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." The sources that I cite do not conflict with each other. Instead, I am pointing out that the sources already being used conflict. Even the police statement on which some sources (eg The Guardian) rely is self-conflicting. Errantios (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The police statement is a primary source. Can you link the secondary sources that you believe are conflicting? BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BiledMammal. Any time you're directly citing "statutory provisions" in any article with the possible exception of articles on the statutes themselves, you're almost definitely engaged in synthesis or some other form of OR. In any case there's also a question of WP:DUE. As editors keep saying, there are a lot of sources on this. If you cannot find one single reliably secondary sources talking about this then clearly it's not something that is significant so it's not worth including in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Every one of you is missing the point that I have attempted to address: factual conflict in the sources. The Guardian states that Kerr has been charged with "racially aggravated harassment". Its claimed source is a police statement that she had been charged with "a racially aggravated offence under Section 4A Public Order Act 1986". Actually section 4A says nothing about "race". Perhaps the police were thinking of a "racial" element in the alleged fact of calling the officer a "stupid white bastard". That would not, however, lead to a charge of "racially aggravated harassment": the charge would not be phrased in that way, because those words are a specific offence under a different act. The media have proceeded as though she has been charged under that act. Perhaps she has - instead (contrary to the police statement) or in addition. But WP should not be going along with what the media are supposing about the charge laid, when that supposition is not supported by the evidence reported. Is WP to reproduce whatever the sources have said, even when it can be shown that the sources contain conflict? I do not read WP:OR as preventing care on such an issue. WP:DUE has nothing to do with that conflict, which is not about points of view but simply factual. Errantios (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You're seriously mistaken. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts, so WP:DUE still applies even when it applies to facts. Also if there is clear conflict in reliable secondary sources then this can be reflected in the article by mentioning both claims in the article. But this would need to be clear conflict e.g. one source says she was charged under section 1, one source says she was charged under section 2. Or one source says she was charged with racially aggravated harassment, and the other source says she was charged with simple harassment. As it stands, our article doesn't say anything about section 4A anyway which seems the best solution if it's unclear what section she was charged under. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, while I don't know and don't care to know the nitty gritty of UK law, it sounds to me like this whole thing might be nonsense anyway. This document from the CPS [2] says "In the case of offences under section 4 or 4A of the Act, the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence is either-way" and other similar stuff. So it seems referring to racially aggravated versions of section 4A is something even the CPS does.

I'm sure in charging documents, prosecutors needs to be a lot clearer on what specifically they're charging people with, but wikipedia isn't intended to be such a thing.

I assume the reason why they are referred to as racially or religiously aggravated versions of section 4A etc is in part because section 32 which I think establishes the offence specifically refers to section 4A. So the offence isn't truly independent. Actually that seems to be the case for most or all of the offences established under that law. [3]

The CPS also says Where there is credible evidence to prove the racially or religiously aggravated form of the offence, this should always be charged. The basic offence should also always be charged (as an alternative in the case of summary trial since the magistrates cannot bring in an alternative verdict) but a plea to the basic offence is not acceptable. suggesting if she was charged with the racially aggravated version of section 4A, she was also likely charged with the basic section 4A so it's probably not wrong to say she was charged under section 4A.

This BTW is another reason why OR is generally a bad idea. Editors too easily misunderstand stuff and so e.g. make a fuss over things which sources have felt are clear enough for their purposes. Again neither Wikipedia nor the sources are intended as charging documents.

P.S. It's sometime IMO acceptable to use OR to establish there is reason not to trust source/s. Given apparent complexity of the section 4A point, IMO it's entirely reasonable to exclude any mention of section 4A which doesn't seem particularly important anyway even if we are effectively relying on OR to make that decision. The key thing is the OR itself doesn't appear in the article.

P.P.S. I can also understand why someone with a keen interest in the law might not be happy with police or media simplifications. Anyone is welcome to take that up with them if it's an concern. But it's not something we will deal with unless it becomes a significant deal in reliable secondary sources. Likewise if people want to further clarity on precise details of the charge, they can ask about it on the WP:RD or somewhere outside wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with being interested in such things, but it's not something we're going to be dealing with in articles unless it's covered in reliable secondary sources.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your deeper OR, Nil. I agree with you that the CPS paragraph "Racial/Religiously Aggravated Offences" provides a likely solution to the problem that had appeared from the media sources and the poiice statement—which did not seem to be simplifications—and that it would be best for WP not to mention s 4A. Errantios (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Current events

Current news, especially when it's something as minor to her life, and as clickbaity as talking back to an officer, does not belong in the FIRST section of someone's biography. There's already a ton of explanation down below. The last paragraph should be removed from the opening summary. Just because people were discussing eye-catching stories from a few weeks ago does not make it notable for a person's biography. Discussion on this topic has already pretty much died (according to internet traffic results) and will probably be removed from the beginning of her article in the future anyway. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not "minor to her life". Captaincy of the Australian women's football team is the hight point of her life and prominent voices are calling for her to lose it because of this. WP is caught here: those calls aren't WP material, unless and until she is dismissed.

To characterise the incident as merely "as clickbaity as talking back to an officer" is to ignore the fact that the poilce haven't seen it that way; she has been charged with an offence for which she could spend a considerable time (perhaps up to two years) in jail, during which she would be out of the team. Errantios (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not been convinced that this incident is even remotely serious. It's absurd to have it in the beginning of her biography. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

the poilce haven't seen it that way To rely on the police as your source for what is or is not major to her life yet again seems to be very opposed to BLP. she has been charged with an offence for which she could... (emphasis mine) this is the assumption I have such a problem with. I'm bringing this up on the noticeboard. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not said that I am relying on the opinion of the poiice. I am referring to the fact that (because the police are taking the matter seriously) Kerr might go to jail for up to two years, which obviously would be seriously damaging to her career. Errantios (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Kerr might go to jail for up to two years so what? What policy do we have that states that the potential risk of a penalty increases how serious we should treat the information here on WP? Because I can point to numerous policies that support the opposite--that we should give the benefit of the doubt to people who have been charged with crimes until they are actually convicted. What you are arguing for violates CRYSTAL and the more you rely on this argument, the more I see a very serious BLP issue. Until something happens that actually affects her career, basing our coverage on charging documents, statements by police, or potential career damage is incredibly problematic. Police statements are not independent, reliable sources. There is no difference between "relying on the opinion/judgment of the police" and covering a topic in greater detail "because the police are taking the matter seriously" under our sourcing policies. In both, you are relying on police documents, which we do not treat as fully reliable sources, in order to say "might" and "would be". Alyo (chat·edits) 13:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I should have posted a link, thank you @Morbidthoughts. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus there appears to be to leave it out of the lead, so unless something changes, it should remain so. (Just noting here in case a new editor wanders in unknowingly and adds it again.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)