Talk:Lorenzo Amoruso

Untitled

How odd. There used to be a mention of the racist abuse which was perpetrated against Victor Ikpeba on this page. Now it doesn't even show up in the history. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloveoil (talk • contribs)

You must be mistaken, there is no deleted versions for this article. Rockpocket 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not mistaken, for it was I who added it. Its removal, and subsequent removal of any evidence of its existence, is what makes it so puzzling. Never mind, I shall add it in again at some point. --Cloveoil 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way anyone can remove evidence of a page's existance from the deletion log (which only admins can view) and I assure you there is no deleted versions of this page. So either the version is in the page history somewhere, or it never existed in the first place. Rockpocket 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism U turn

The full quote is: Amoruso had yesterday morning used a tabloid newspaper to deny allegations that he had abused Ikpeba, but by lunchtime, after watching video footage of the match, he had confessed. from the Times 10/12/99 90.194.100.16 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Give me the ref online so that i can check it Monkeymanman (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I accessed it through the LexisLibrary database. May I remind you that your own apparent lack of access to these research tools should not be used as an excuse to delete sources which don't meet with your approval. In this case you will see that an administrator and I achieved consensus on the wording of the section. This should not be destroyed by suppression of WP:RSs or the introduction of more pro-Rangers bias. Thanks 90.194.100.16 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I AGF as far as i can but when accusations start flying around like pro-Rangers bias. The fact is that you have taken sources (which can be checked) out of context in the past (i assume it has been yourself if not .....) The user in question is not an admin (even if they were they have no more power over content than anyone else) and they were actually just removing more pov sentences that you had attempted to include. Monkeymanman (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The references are mostly acceptable. The language is definitely not acceptable - we are not dramatizing his life; we are laying down the facts with references. Descriptive words are to be avoided - and you can't sidestep this by using inline quotes from the sources (I have reviewed our policies and this is now accurate). I reworked some of what is there but it needs a LOT of massaging - I will try ot come back to it. (and, yes, I am not an admin :)) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Errant, (i take it thats what you like to be known as) you have already said yourself that The language is definitely not acceptable, now when someone adds a ref that cannot be cross checked by another, easily or at all, and the same person has used unacceptable language with many of his inclusions then how can those refs be deemed noteworthy when you have to take the persons word for it. Especially within a BLP. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Call me Tom if you like :) I agree with what you are saying - I am trying to stay a little neutral but if I were forced to take a stance I would probably agree that the IP editor in question here is probably not the best person to accept non-cross checkable sources from. Some of the content I'd be willing to accept - even from the paper references, it is the language used I have issues with :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried my very best to incorporate your last inclusion (not you errant) in a more neutral manner. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Captaincy

That whole sentence makes no sense; he will always be the first Catholic captain, right? The source gives no details r.e. the two year limit given? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Humiliation

I am going to change this back from the current wording. He was left humiliated is a statement of fact - which is innapropriate. It needs to be attributed. Honestly I would prefer removing the mention of humiliation because it is hard, from the article, to work out who to attribute the opinion to. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So is it fact or opinion? 90.207.105.117 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion; as with all these words. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sex before marriage

I am unconvinced of this relevance to his biography; it is tabloid reporting for a start and doesn't seem hugely relevant to his biography. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject claims Don Juanism is his "biggest weakness." So, in order to be fair, we should give this due weight beside the depression and Baileys-dependency. Obviously we ought to put these matters in their proper context and perspective. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This got discussed and the verdict was tabloid gossip (i.e. not relevant to his biography) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussed by whom? When? 90.207.105.117 (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

here --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by you and your mate? Excuse me if I don't find that consensus overwhelming! 90.207.105.117 (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N is a well trafficked board; generally speaking if anyone had disagreed they would have noted it :) By all means find some other people to comment on the inclusion. WP:RFC might be a good way. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Forceful

Calling the denials forceful might be true - but it needs a source. The sources are unclear as to how he denied the allegations - the current article reads like he denied it directly to tabloids (i.e. did he write an article himself or did he call reporters or??). It was probably more likely he denied it and tabloids reported it. The sentence feels very problematic. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think with these things it is important to stick fairly closely to the sources. The Times in this case:

Amoruso had yesterday morning used a tabloid newspaper to deny allegations that he had abused Ikpeba, but by lunchtime, after watching video footage of the match, he had confessed.

Now, what you think to be "probably more likely" is well and good but really it's you that needs a source to back up your version of events. Obviously he produced a string of excuses/denials (and threatened legal action) but to avoid WP:UNDUE I think a list of them is probably unecessary. I don't think that's too unclear given we link to the sources. I also found a source for "vehemently" and I'm inclined go with that because it's clearly the best summation. Feel free to disagree, but please, let's try to work with WP:RS rather than our own 'problematic feelings' or what we think 'probably' happened. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your twisting meaning :) when you consider how the original sentence was structured my comment makes more sense. My point also still stands; "he denied in tabloid newspapers" is incorrect according to the source - which is vague anyway. If you can source the word vehemently then you should do so - it would probably be best attributed though. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Briefly" came out of retirement?

At the end of the Blackburn Rovers section the article states that "In January 2008, Amoruso briefly came out of retirement to sign for Cosmos on a part-time basis". Fair enough but the infobox has him making 52 appearances for the club. Either the figure is inaccurate or an edit should be made as 52 appearances is in no way brief. In fact I would seriously doubt a player could make 52 league appearances in one year as the infobox claims, even though my knowledge of the San Marino league is non-existent. I would have changed the article myself but I don't know which is the wrong bit. Keresaspa (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorenzo Amoruso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522005321/http://www.serieaweekly.com/2012/01/player-profile-lorenzo-amoruso.html to http://www.serieaweekly.com/2012/01/player-profile-lorenzo-amoruso.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)