This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Nathan Cleary is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Nathan Cleary is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I'm surprised that Cleary's corona virus shenanigans are included in the lede, and MaskedSinger's claims that "He will be remembered forever by this" (emphasis theirs) as laughable. It looks like WP:RECENTISM. Sure, the facts should be included in the article, but I can't imagine any encyclopedia having them in the lede. I know we don't get much traffic here, but would anyone care to lend an opinion, or do we need to go through the WP:3O process? Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dear Doctorhawkes, the issue isn't that Cleary violated quarantine, it's that he lied about it. A lie that has potentially put the whole season in doubt. This puts him in a different class to Addo-Carr and Mitchell which is why I didn't contest your deletions there. Having said that, I take objection to you coming along and reverting my edits multiple times without the courtesy of a discussion here or without the courtesy of a note on my Talk page. Your opinion is valuable, but not more valuable than mine.
Keep punching like Laurie Nicholls would want you to MaskedSinger (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think "potentially" is the key word here. The NRL don't seem to think so, hence a lesser fine. And I haven't seen any reputable source saying he lied, just that he omitted details. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dear Doctorhawkes, you're much smarter than this :) His original alibi was to deal with the pictures - they came over for a few minutes before getting an uber and while they were here they took a picture and I forgot about it. - how on earth does this make any sense knowing that he participated in a video with them?? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi! 3O here. I believe Doctorhawkes is correct here - putting the quarantine violation in the lead is undue weight and recentism. A while from now (and I'm talking months if not years), if this really is what he's remembered for (and that's backed up by significant reliable sources), it can be added back, but for now it's overcoverage of a recent event. creffett (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was also asked for an opinion.It does not belong in the lede. Creffett's reasoning is correct, so I do not need to explain in detail. . DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
Response to third opinion request: