Talk:Wayne Rooney/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wayne's favourite is Diddy, not Eminem and 50 Cent.

No its not, it is tupac

—The preceding

I find some of the content of this article distasteful, but nevertheless they are facts relevant to Wayne Rooney. If you know stuff about any charity work he has undertaken, by all means include it, it would be nice to see. In the meantime, I've removed the prositutes section because most of it wasn't relevant to Rooney at all, but some other person's defamation case. The remainder went in "personal life" 125.239.244.181 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this really need a section of its own? I suggest that the section be removed and replaced with a note that Rooney was the subject of speculation (admitted by him) in this regard under the general heading 'Personal Life'. Most of the existing section is a precis of a court case between two other parties, not Wayne Rooney. Furthermore, the section as currently written is confusing as it suggests, in contrast to the use of the plural in the section heading that his visit was a one-off event. The Angel of Islington 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I would like to remove the majority of the section, leaving the following:

Rooney's personal life has also often been marred by accusations from the press surrounding his visits to prostitutes, which he later confirmed to be true. Rooney has spoken of his deep regret at the incident.[26]

I suggest that it all that is required. The Angel of Islington 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag because no specific reasons have been given for the article (or sections thereof) containing POV. It is not clear what "at best questionable" (see below) means, and it is not clear what part of the article is being referred to. The other POV criticisms seem to be out of date. If anyone disagrees with what I have done, please say so. The Angel of Islington 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a POV neutrality symbol because the last part of this article is at best, questionable.82.42.151.164 15:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As no reasons have been given for the alleged POV and if the tag dates from 17 Aug 05, is it not time to remove it perhaps? The Angel of Islington 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The part about teams using his anger against him is something A LOT of commentators mention - being in the article just writes down what a lot of people think. Spain did this to DEADLY affect - how best to defend against rooney than get him off the pitch Thnom 21:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Add picture of Rooney

... several commentators comparing his impact to that made by the legendary Brazilian Pelé at a similar age during the 1958 World Cup. Other commentators, perhaps prematurely, have compared him to Manchester United legend Eric Cantona.

Which is more premature - comparing Rooney to Cantona, or to Pele? Wonder if a Man United fan added that last sentence ... AndrewMcQ 22:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vandalism!!!!!!!! --213.235.102.135 09:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

He is compareable to Pele at his age, what is the problem???

I would suggest that at Manchester United it would be considered sacrilege to compare a young player to cantona as opposed to pele, a player who's list of erstwhile young heirs could constitute numerous teams! (217.43.172.170 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

i thought it said at the bottom of the page: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. we CAN edit mercilessly. -Anonymous

You'll notice it says edited not vandalised. Mouse Nightshirt 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the person who keeps deleting the edit "This has left him a traitor amongst the Goodison crowd" please leave it where it is. It is not a matter of opinion, it is simply a fact, leave it where it is. —The preceding

Michael, unless you can

verifiable information only. Thanks, Gwernol

11:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuately, something sprayed on a soccer stadium is not a

reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. Even if we accepted it as a reliable source, it at best shows that one vandal at Everton thinks this. The booing happens to every player who switches clubs in every sport on Earth (well, okay that's probably a slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean). It doesn't rise to something we need to comment on in an encyclopedia. Sorry, Gwernol

20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, when we have a

verifiable evidence we can. Until then, this is your personal interpretation. It may well be correct, I'm not commenting on whether it is or not. I'm just reminding everyone of the rules of writing an encyclopedia: information needs to be sourced and to be a report of mainstream opinion, not one's own personal opinion. It shouldn't be hard to find a newspaper that reports your interpretation, that's all that's needed. Good luck, Gwernol

21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The edit we are discussing was "This has left him a traitor amongst the Goodison crowd". If it had been something like: "Rooney is consistently booed when playing at Goodison Park" I would not have a problem with it, though technically this would also require a

verify this information for themselves. Gwernol

21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I absolutely would not consider my personal recollections to be a reliable source any more than yours are. As the policy you quoted says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources" (emphasis added): note the word published and also read

WP:RS to find out what counts as a reliable source. Sorry, Gwernol

21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous picture had a "no source, will be deleted" notice on it, so I've replaced it, Just In Case. --fuddlemark 09:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? how does London redirect to this? Surly the city of London is more important that some football player?

• It was vandalism that was fixed. -- Reinyday, 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the {{POV check}} onto this page because stuff like, in the opening paragraph, states "he is a talented young player" etc. Serious work must be committed to this article for it even to be regarded as NPOV. --Kilo-Lima 15:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I see an anon has put Wayne in Category:Roman Catholics. Given his name, I wouldn't be surprised, but is there any clear evidence for it? And even if there is, is it a relevant fact to record? -- Arwel (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian Brothers La Salle is a Catholic school. Perhaps he's said he's agnostic or something (doubt it), but he was certainly raised Catholic.

How do you know? Plenty of people attend faith schools for different reasons, be it academic, convenience or whatever. I know many Anglican, other christian denomination, and non religious people who have sent their kids to an RC school. Dainamo 10:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The initial fee of £22m is paid directly to Everton Football Club.

I think this is wrong. United initially paid Everton £10m. While another £10m was paid a year later on 1 August 2005. Plus a Payment of £3m if Rooney is still a United Player on 30 June 2007. I'll leave it for now to see if anyone disagrees. --Redmachine432 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Though there are a few mistakes here or there, the article on the whole does not appear to me to be biased. Calling a talented player a talented player cannot be deemed to be inappropriate, and Rooney definitely qualifies as a talented player and also as one of the most promising young players of our time, as can be testified to by anyone who as seen him play.

59.93.245.124 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that describing him as a talented young player is not POV, as I'm pretty sure he's won a few young player of the year awards, which would be a definite source for the comment. The whole `temper` section needs renaming to `disciplinary issues` and its loaded terms removed (`tantrum`?), and there's nothing on the brothel thing in Personal life - BBCi can be referenced for that.

I think also the SHREK lookalike thing is supremely important to half of Manchester82.9.36.7 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the incessant vandalism of this article, I have semi-protected it which should at least keep some of the kiddies away. -- Arwel (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose deleting the "Trivia" section as it appears to be becoming a magnet for for any rubbish people want to insert. As it stands, it's supposed to be reporting what was said about Rooney in the German magazine, "Kicker", but recently it's had "Footballers' Wives character Callum Watson is based directly on Wayne Rooney. Elements of Rooney can also be found in characters Darius Fry and Harley Lawson" added - can anyone prove this? (

Why exactly did him being compared to Pele lead to him being nicknamed Shrek. Surely, this nickname is more to do with the fact that he actually looks like Shrek. I can't think of any possible connection between Pele and Shrek. Timb0h 09:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is he actually nickamed Shrek, or is this the vandals?--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure he's officially nicknamed anything. The "White Pele", I've only ever seen on Wikipedia. He does look a bit like

type

09:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You see it a lot on the web, can't say for sure if this is something the rival fans throw at him. Someone also went to the trouble of doing a piccy too - Shrek/Rooney--Andymarczak 10:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've actually just hidden all the nicknames from the article, and they should stay hidden until decent references can be provided.

type

10:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows he's called Shrek.

Skinnyweed

16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided references to all of his nicknames. They are actually quite easy to find. --theorb 05:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still dubious over the El Pele Blanco thing. I've heard the tabloids call him the other things multiple times, but the El Pele Blanco thing I've only heard on here. It seems to have come from one interview, which has been added into a fair number of generic information pages (like the source for it). Not only that, but El Pele Blanco is such a moutful, it doesn't lend itself to being a nickname and that's why I don't it really is one. HornetMike 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't searching for additional sources for the El Pele Blanco nickname. I wouldn't be surprised if it came from one interview, and may be popularized by that interview (since I did see links to forums for El Pele Blanco when I did a search on the nickname). A lot of nicknames are derived from the media. I don't believe that just because it is a mouthful would necessarily mean that this is not a legit nickname. Is "The Round Mound of Rebound", or "The Hick from French Lick" a mouthful? Those are real nicknames, albeit nicknames of basketball players. Just a few thoughts. --theorb 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rooney was Nicknamed sherk by The Sun a bristh tabloid paper, Rooney had reportedly spit a girl in a Night Club after she claimed he looked like shrek.

i would say he looks like shrek even though shrek may be cuter than him

I see Shrek is back in, but where did Smeagol come from? I've never seen or heard this one? Darkson - BANG! 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why links to sites relating to Rooney's injury have been removed. Do they not give an indication of the cultural impact of Rooney upon the Enlgish physche? I have restored them for the time being, but if they are subsequently removed, could the editor please bring the debate to here and justify it? Thank you. McGonicle 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Add more references and help inline cite them.

Source: BBC

This is so that Rooney does not have to fly back from Germany and a replacement can be drafted in - see article. TheTallOne 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Is it worth mentionning that it was brought forward inorder for this to happen? TheTallOne 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That "World Cup doubts" section is recentism. There's more on this than his Euro 2004 performance.

Skinnyweed

16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good reason to add more on Euro2004, rather than take away from WC2006. In time, the injury section may be reduced accordingly to its long-term context. SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the heading as the allegations were denied, and thus I don't consider it important enough to be a topic on this page when it hasn't been substantiated. The content itself is still under the "personal life" heading. If anybody objects to this change please state why here before reverting it. 82.17.202.62 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the PC Brigade is out waving their bullshit again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391684&in_page_id=1770

I guess the

Rise above it, my friend, rise and float like a cloud above the whole PC malarky. Budgiekiller 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's political correctness gone maaaaaaaaaad! The Daily Mail - honestly. HornetMike 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's grotesque. And putting red and white paint on it doesn't improve it much either.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  05:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The precise reason for the sending off has not been made public yet. See [1] - so this article should not speculate. Jooler 08:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm it seems rather obvious, because he raised his hands to another player? It may have been harsh, I've seen worse incidents in the WC - some of which have bordered on assault and gone unpunsihed. But them is the rules. You are asking for trouble if you ever raise your hands. He's an immature hothead, it was bound to happen, he's just immature. Still, I agree that we should wait for the official explanation. Anything else is just speculation and has no place in an encyclopaedia. hedpeguyuk 9:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the direct red was a consequence of two yellow card fouls at the same time.

The article states that he left the game against Portugal because of injure which is false. "Unfortunately Rooney was injured early in the quarter final match against Portugal and England were subsequently knocked out."

That's talking about Euro 2004. HornetMike 14:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/england/5138240.stm says that the reason for the red card was the stamp, not the push. Baiter 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I added 'perhaps intentionally' after the stepping on Carvalho's groin, because the article made it seem like it was an accident as Rooney tried to gain his balance. Although we'll never be sure, it looked purposeful to me, and I think portraying it as a clear mis-step is a mis-step on our parts. Baiter 20:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that people think the groin-step was deliberate, why would he do that? he was trying to get the ball and stay on his feet. The addition of "perhaps intentionally" could be followed with "perhaps not". So I have removed it. Report the facts and leave the interpretation to the reader. Jooler 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he? Why did he push C. Ronaldo? Why does he curse at officials during matches? Why does he often pick up yellow cards? Peoplesunionpro 04:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, my addition was POV. I still feel this paragraph reads like it was likely an accident, which I also find POV, so I am going to change it from 'he appeared to step on' to 'he appeared to stamp on on.' Whether it was stamping or alleged stamping is up for debate, but he certainly stepped on the fellow. Baiter 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement, "As Rooney tried to retain his balance, he appeared to step on Carvalho's groin" does not "report the facts and leave the interpretation to the reader": it puts a particular spin on events (increasing the likelihood it was an accident) by emphasising one of a number of things that was occurring at the time of the alleged stomping, and leaving out the rest. How about "as Carvalho was lying prone on the ground and Rooney was standing over him, Rooney appeared to step on his groin", or "Rooney's gaze appeared to be downwards as he stepped on Carvalho's groin"? They are also 'facts', but reporting them without further elaboration puts a different spin on events. The relevant fact is that Rooney appeared to step on Carvalho's groin-- unless Wikipedia wants to devote several hundred words and a photomontage to absolutely every aspect of the incident (which is disproportionate), that fact should be reported without more. So with due respect to Baiter, I think the resolution to the problem lies in deleting the introductory phrase "As Rooney tried to retain his balance", not changing "step" to "stamp".

And I agree with Jooler that speculation as to the reason for the red is no more than speculation, which is unencyclopedic. The red card immediately followed the incident(s): that's all that can be said at this stage.203.3.176.10 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have replayed the incident many times now. It is important to look at the incident in real-time and not just slow-motion. Slow motion always gives the impression of more deliberate movement. I am pretty sure now that the act was not deliberate. Theere was no "gaze downward at Carvalho's groin", you can't follow the eyeline with only a two-dimentional represwtation, without seeing it from ore than one angle. What is certain is that he was battling for the ball, and he was unbalanced. He was crouched over with his head almost level with his hips. If nothing else I think you have to give Rooney the benefit of the doubt. Jooler 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say "appeared to step" rather than "stepped"? I could understand the "appeared to" in conjunction with "stamp", which implies intention, but with "step", it adds a degree of uncertainty as to what happened which is not justified by the available video evidence, seen by millions of people around the world. Whether intentionally, unintentionally or carelessly, he very clearly did step on the player's groin. Jayen466 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Agreed article modified. Jooler 10:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For historical perspective why isn't Jorge Andrade named as the Portuguese player involved in Rooney's first metatarsil injury during Euro 2004? It would clear up water cooler conjecture regarding any possible motivations of revenge on the part of Mr. Rooney

BE ASHAMED OF YOUR ONE SIDE POV. CRISTIANO RONALDO'S DISCUSSION PAGE AND THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE A FORUM FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE! IS THIS A IMPARTIAL ENCYCLOPIDIA?

rooney got a direct red card for a stomping in ricardo carvalho's low parts. if he got a red card over this + is push we'll never know, but the fact remains. there is no need for intentional or not intentional in the page. you're going to be partial if you say any of those two words.

It's through discussion that wikipedia articles are improved. I don't think the current version is perfect, and I'm sure someone will always have disagreements with what's written, but the article certainly has been improved by the discussion on this talk page, and I'm sure through further debate we'll have an even better article. And a more NPOV article as well. Your anonymous criticism of our discussion is unwarranted. Baiter 02:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"... I am pretty sure now that the act was not deliberate" (Jooler), really says it all. The problem is that in an encyclopedia, an opinion that an editor holds (even if s/he is "pretty sure" of that opinion) is not relevant; the decision the referee made, and the fact that there is controversy on the record on the topic, is. As a person involved in editing the article, you're naive if you think that your personal opinion hasn't affected the way you have constructed it. As stated before, a number of things are 'certain', some of which point one way, some of which point another. To privilege one of those things, which happens to promote your POV, is not good editing.203.3.176.10 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

From viewing the video numerous times "... I am pretty sure now that the act was not deliberate" - I am clearly stating that and I think that stating that is quite honest of me. Naivety doesn't come into it. Rooney has stated quite clearly that it was unintentional and I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Jooler 06:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to do my best to work in the referee's statement to the London Times into the disciplinary section, but am not sure if I've managed to do so without looking biased one way or the other. I'm uncertain as to whether or not I should have put it at the end of the section to make it chronological or immidiately after the confusion is introduced, to say we now know for certain that it was in fact the step and not the push that caused the card. Any thoughts on what would work best? Vickser 03:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If the refs were wearing microphones, could FIFA publish what was being said at the time to the players to show once and for all whether it was the step or the push that got the red card? This could also clear up whether or not video footage was used to send of Zidane.

"Before the match Rooney's Manchester United team-mate Cristiano Ronaldo approached him from behind and aggressively placed his head close to Rooney before speaking directly into his ear [6 http://worldcup.reuters.co.uk/portugal/news/usnL01398402.html]."

This news article says nothing about this incident, is there another source? --Phelan 06:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the statement. If you can find a source, re-add it. --Phelan 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned, although briefly towards the end of that source. There's a video of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqC3NE7TYVE&search=rooney%20ronaldo where you can clearly see that happen. I'm sure they'll be clearer sources though. Englishrose 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry. I missed this part:"Ronaldo had also feigned a head-butt towards Rooney seconds before the match kicked off as he was walking past his club mate to take up his position on the left-wing." And thanks for the video, though from what I see there, it doesn't seem agressive, it seems playful...But since I could probably be biased, I'll wait for someone else to review it. --Phelan 02:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since FIFA have maintained the disciplinary action against Rooney, and further punished him with a monetary fee and a 2 match-suspension (as per Wikipedia's World Cup 2006 - Disciplinary Action page), it's time to remove the sneaky words contaminating the impartiality of this article.

Rooney, being 'convincted', no longer "allegedly" stomped on Carvalho's groin. He stomped. (Legal analogy: you're only an 'alleged robber' until convincted in court. Henceforth, you're a robber.)

This is a Reverse-Weasel Word.

Also, after the referee declared unequivocally that he awarded the red card for the stomp, is there a reason to include whatever Ronaldo said or didn't say, or did or didn't do?

The admission that the sending-off was exclusively related to the offense against Carvalho makes this speculation perfectly irrelevant and, instead, gives the impression that the Encyclopedia (through us) is trying to find excuses for a red card which - per FIFA (see above) - was not only merited, but actually insufficient punishment for the deed done.

This is analogous to using weasel words. We could say it's a Weasel Fact.83.132.98.175 13:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article ATM describes the facts of the incident itself rather than that of a referee who had to justify his decicions to FIFA ,or FIFA who jave to back-up the decisions of the appointed referees. You can verify them for yourself by looking at this. Jooler 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jooler. As a footballer myself who never quite made it but managed to play alongside some players that are now in the Premiership, it is a bit hard to say it's an intentional stamp as Rooney makes no eye contact with the player he puts his foot on. Couple that with the fact that the player is tangling with him from behind, I can see how Rooney could have quite easily accidently stepped on him. From my experiences, that kind of stuff happens all the time in those situations. It is just unfortunate that Rooney stepped on his groin, if it had have been on his leg it would have been a nothing incident and seen as accidental. However, that's just my opinion. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's the opinion of countless others. Rooney says he accidently did it, so we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see how you can compare it to a conviction at a court case because if it was decided in court there would have been statements from independent experts and behaviour analysts/body language experts. Englishrose 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the word 'accidental' again when describing the step. Rooney says it was accidental; the ref says it was on purpose. We can't be certain one way or the other, and all we can report on is the facts. Rooney DID step on Carvalho. Rooney DID claim it was an accident. The ref DID claim it was a stomp. Not being a court case, we don't give the benefit of the doubt to Rooney. We simply report what happened, and the various opinions, as opinions, about the play. Baiter 01:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that the word "accidentally" - was added by an anon IP user and was not part of the text that I was referring to earlier. Jooler 09:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the stamping incident contains information repeated unnecessarily. I suggest that under 'World Cup 2006 Doubts' (which I suggest also be renameded simply to 'World Cup 2006') it is simply noted that he was sent off. The details of the sending off only need to be included in 'Disciplinary Issues'.The Angel of Islington 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

the comment about manchester united's wealth is definately not encyclopedic, nevermind biased. I'll do what I can to get rid of the POVs.82.42.176.67 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Alex Ferguson refers to wayne as 'Mickey' as in the actor Mickey Rooney. I think this has more of a right under nicknames than Shrek, no-one calls him this they just say he looks like him.
Wayne Rooney has, on several occasions, been referred to as 'Wazza' by team mates in both Manchester United and England.

I've just removed what I'd consider opinion from a recent edit of this article. Please contact me on my talk page if you dispute this. Pursey 10:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor edit. Rooney is not a centre forward he is a deep-lying forward (Second Striker) like Scholes was when he played behind RVN.

This article is confusing in terms of layout. I don't have time to do it right now but i've got an idea how it should be.

I propose:

Career

-Everton

--Transfer out

-United

-Disciplinary issues

International

(General info)

-World Cup 2006

Personal Life

(Fine as is)

Career stats

References

External links

I thought deragotory nicknames were not allowed in the main box. Numerous attempts have been made to add Chelski to the Chelsea box and time and time again it has been removed. Even after proof that Chelsea FC tried to copyright the term.

Shrek, may be a much loved character, but it is used in a perjorative manner when referring to Rooney. I'm sure if asked personally he would rather not be known as this. It is only used by opposing fans and 3rd rate press. Same goes for Chelsea/Chelski.

I suggest it be removed otherwise we should systematically add such nicknames to other profiles. Tony Adams was regularly called 'Donkey' etc.

i agree

"Rooney is also on the cover of FIFA 07 in the United Kingdom."

I think that this should be at the bottom of article

and not in the summary.

   I agree. As well as the fact that he is on many other game covers, 

not just FIFA 07. skaterdude182 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

someone needs to edit that box, and also create one in Messi's article. —The preceding