Talk:David Beckham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Beckham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
  info
Good article David Beckham has been listed as a Everyday life good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
To-do list for David Beckham: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.


Contents

[edit] Trivia section

I've just removed this (again). Per WP:Trivia, there should be not be trivia sections in articles. Dave101→talk  08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capped off His Career in Style??

So much for NPOV there. What is with the "who just capped off his career in style" line? Not only is that not keeping with a neutral theme, it is an update that really can't last more than a few weeks once he joins the Galaxy.

I'd say it's factually wrong, cos he hasn't finished his career, so he hasn't "capped his career" at all yet. Removing. If someone objects, they can put it back and give reasons why here.Smoothy 11:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Additional words: OK, it does say "capped off his Real Madrid career" so it isn't factually wrong. Changed line anyway to something more plain, but agree that intro should probably be reworked as it doesn't read completely encyclopaedic.Smoothy 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section too long

In my opinion, the lead section needs a serious overhaul, as it's to large and encompasses to many points that could and should be in the main article (see Wikipedia:Lead section). Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead is ridiculous at the moment. I would have a go at cutting it down but it's best waiting until the article is more stable. Dave101→talk  19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Dave The guidelines say the lead should be about four paragraphs, but that would be the norm. David Beckham is not a normal article, as the subject is a major figure in current news now. I agree wholeheartedly with your post here. I am going to try to help make it shorter.

Boyceboye 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple links

Article has multiple redundent wikilinks - link not needed for every mention of 2007 or Real Madrid for example, especially not in the same paragraph. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you have clearly not understood that linking years when adjacent to linked date/month is not done just for the sake of wikilinking - it is required to allow all user-selected date formatting options to work, therefore I have reinstated the links. -- Arwel (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My bad - sorry! However, I stand by my point of things like Real Madrid and England not needing to be link every time they're used, especially not in the same sentence! Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] salary per second

the article states that he will earn about $90/second on the field. correct me if i am wrong but assuming he plays every minute (which he will probably come close to), this # seems inaccurate. if he gets $90 a second then 50,000,000/90(# of $'s/second)/3,600(# of seconds/hour)=154 hours. They play about 30 games per season which is 154/30=about 5 hours per game. This is ridiculous (unless you are including training and everything else) because the games are about 90 minutes. so unless i'm crazy 90 minutes=1.5 hours and 1.5 hours*30 games=45 hours. if this is true, 50,000,000/45(hours played)/3,600(seconds/hour)=about $308/second. This can be rounded to $300/second, still way above 90 a second. So either A) i made a mistake (i'm wrong), B) 90=300, C) your wrong, i'm right, or D) we are both wrong i'd say A is 20%, B is 1%, C is 65%, and D is 14%. up to u to find the right answer.

Poemisaglock 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC) i read the thing about the base salary only being $10 million. In that case this is 1/5 of 50 mil so 1/5 of $308 a second is about $60. your still off as far as i can tell.

  • Actually, his base salary is $6.5 million. The $10 million is with incentives and the other $40 million have nothing to do with salary, and references to such are completely untrue. N1120A 07:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer or Football

As Beckham makes the transition from footballer to Soccer-player, perhaps the article should as well. He will be introduced to a new audience in the states who will be looking him up and the term Footballer will not make sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.5.81 (talk • contribs).

Nonsense. His nationality does not change, and we do not change the phrasing of this article either. -- Arwel (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice... It was a legitimate question. There's no need to deride the person asking the question by throwing out "Nonsense." --Elliskev 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The above writer in incorrect, he should be referred to as a soccer player. As far as I know, this portion of wikipedia is not British, and "footballer" should be understood to be a silly term even by it's fans overseas. Even so, if Wikipedia was written by and for people in the United kingdom, any and all "football" terms would be appropriate, but as this is American, we already have our own football, and "soccer" has been the accepted term on this side of the Atlantic, "soccer" should be used. His nationality is also irrelevant...if baseball happened to be called "batball" in England, and Barry Bonds went over there to play the game, he should then be called a batball player, not a baseball player.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Odysseybookshop (talk • contribs).
Keep it as it is, he is is an English player, therefore recognised as a "football" player. This article should still retain British English spelling and terms, per WP:ENGVAR. Dave101→talk  16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
However... He does not (will not) play football in the U.S. He will play soccer. I think the best scenario would be to follow the lead of the Football (soccer) article and call him a Football (soccer) player. Footballer is totally unnecessary. --Elliskev 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed he is going to play football. While I love american football, I never understood why game you play by your hands is called football :). But seriously. The main reason for keeping word football is that Beckham has and will always have more fans outside USA where the game is called football. Plus, Beckham spent his whole live playing football (since he was a child), while he did not even started his "soccer" career. 80 % of the article should be about his time in Manchester, Real, English team... about his "football" career. Anyway most of the article was probably written by his British fans. --Jan.Smolik 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well observed, nonetheless, even though this is Wikipedia in English, it's still an American originated site. As he's now part of American pop culture, he is now a soccer player. Should he return to the UK, he can play any sport that's available there, here, it's "soccer". As a compromise, the above stated Football (soccer) I guess will have to do. "Footballer" should be out, and all future references post July 1st, should be soccer exclusively, until Mr. Beckham returns to England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.101.156 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 Jul 2007 (UTC)

There is a standard (or consensus - probably not the correct word either (in my defence, I am slightly drunk - LOL) that unless there is some overiding need, articles should stay in the "language" they were started in (I believe it's on the Wikipedia page about the differences in UK and US English). Now, wheter "football" or "soccer" come under this remit, I'm not going to pass judgement. However, he will always be a "football" player for the majority of people that know of him. And personally, I find the "Wikipedia in English, it's still an American originated site" ridiculous. That's just a step away from saying non-US edits are of less importance than US ones, and that all articles should be written in US English. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Article is here - WP:ENGVAR, especially referencing Retaining the existing variety in that article. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant where wikipedia originated, and whther it originated in the USA is completely and utterly irrelevant as stated by Darkson there is a standard by which if an article has been written in say British English, then it should continue in that. There is no reason whatsoever to change the format of him being a footballer to the vast majority of the world just to accomodate one country who insist on calling the sport soccer when most of the rest of the world call it football. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have hit a nerve! Nonsense! This is an encyclopedia, and this particular one is grounded in American English. This is not to deny anyone their freedoms of language or terminology. But the game in the USA is soccer. If you wish to stick to cultural origin, as opposed to common terms in use in the country where that something is being discussed, I'd better never hear or see the name "Jesus" again, since in the culture of his origin, the name would be Jeshua, or something akin to it... Yet it would be outrageous to call him "Yeshua", where in this western culture his name is "Jesus". This is an extreme example of course, but an important one, and one that can be applied in a thousand cases. Obviously association football is wildly popular throughout much of the world, and I'm sure that foreigners (from the american prespective) are quite annoyed that a country that doesn't even take to their game has dared call it anything but "football" (added in to anti-US bias), but nonetheless, here in the United States, we already have a game called "football", and when this game is being discussed, it should be referred to correctly. Otherwise you are showing a bias, and yes, as stated, this is an American website. Mr. Beckham has also chose to play the game here, on this side of the Atlantic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.101.156 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And as had been stated to you, wikipedia is a worldwide project it is not an American project. Most people in the world call the sport football. No-one has stopped anyone from discussing football as soccer in the USA, no-one is annoyed about anything as compromise has been reached already. It would also help if you would sign your comments. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously this matter has not been settled as this argument is occuring on many pages relating to this sport (as well as in many other completely unrelated subects where the sensitivity of English names or usage is in dispute). As to the point of no one stopping the subject of "soccer" being discussed in the USA, the very fact that it's constantly being referred to as "football" here belies that fact. You simply can't stand that although the rest of the world, except for all the above sited examples, like to call the sport football, many of us here insist on it's correct name, here in the states. And please, for the last time, it's irrelevant whether this site caters to people of all nations...I'm glad it does, but nothing escapes the fact that this article, and all articles relating to soccer/football are referring to something called soccer while on an AMERICAN derived site. I would not want articles about film or movies using the word cinema throughout or often, though it's a perfectly good word, and I ocassionally use it myself, but that word's context would be in either francophile media, or indeed on Wikipedia in France.. This will be my last response as the whole subject is barely worth the day I spent reviewing it. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.227.129 (talk • contribs).}
I think you'll find the sport's "correct name" is football, as that is the name used by the world's governing body FIFA. The sport (in its current form) was created in Britain, when the name "football" was adopted. Soccer was only adopted as a nickname for it at a later date. Dave101→talk  07:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is not an anarchy, it has its own rules, including rules for what variant of english you should use. And you will be surprised, it is not always american english. As both games are called football, it might be a bit confusing, especially for american readers. However after first look to the photo at the top of the page, it is clear what kind of football David Beckham plays. Anyway it is clearly stated in the lead. So any confusion is not very probable. BUt no one can stop you to use word soccer in the text you write. But please do not go to the article only to change british spelling to american one. --Jan.Smolik 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that both terms are correct, and neither is incorrect. Both terms originated in the U.K., by the way. Both are used today, by the way. However, it is certainly true to point out that football is used to describe this sport far more, and is used even in the U.S. to describe this sport.

So, it's not worth arguing and saying only one should be used. People who read the article will know they don't mean American football when they refer to Beckham as a footballer, and they will also know which sport is being referred to when the word soccer is used. Use either, use both. It's all fair. The whole world knows David Beckham plays only this sport, and they will be looking at the article for details and updates. It's encyclopaedic to state the obvious, especially in the lead paragraph. It is so stated. Sdsoc 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the opening line makes it clear that Beckham plays "soccer", the rest of the article doesn't need to be compromised to include American English and its terms. Dave101→talk  09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The compromise is using the parentheses, in either order, it makes no difference. The readers are intelligent, and everyone has heard both of these terms. U.K. posters, please understand that soccer is used more because of the media's insistance. Our federation fought the NFL for years on this, but the NFL won the argument, because the time was the 1940's and the NFL was strong, and there was virtually nothing going on in U.S. soccer at the time. Many of our clubs use FC and say football, as well as soccer-football to distinguish. We know and use terms like pitch and footballer, so most Americans have no problem with these terms being used in any context.

Refer to football when referring to his time at United, Preston, and Real Madrid. Refer to soccer when speaking of his time in Los Angeles. Cheers, Crassic 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No...as per WP:ENGVAR, articles should be in the same variety throughout, not chopping and changing. Rather heated discussion seemed to reach a consensus that as Becks has strong national ties to England, the article should remain in UK English. Paulbrock 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I suppose the article should remain in British English - since, as you said, he has strong ties to England. Cheers, Crassic 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality

is this page objective? i know soccer is european, but this page seems especially fruity. it reads like it was written by his publicist. could someone please confirm whether this page was written by his publicist or not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.124.139 (talk • contribs).

[edit] More on Language Choice

This is not an American Website (whatever that means) and Wikipedia has guidelines for how to deal with differences between British English and American English. If you have not read them, then do so before you jump asserting your opinion as law. When an article deals with a subject that is tied more strongly to one nationality it should conform to that style of writing until there is "reason to change it". Until now DB has been largely unknown in the US (It was reported today that 49% of Americans have never heard of him) and he was clearly most closely related to England. Now, having moved to L.A. both in team location and residence, this is going to change. If he does become a star in the US on anything like the scale that he has become in the UK then the 400 million speakers of the North American form of English are going to start using this resource more often. The idea here is not to argue over who is more important or which for of English is correct. Given that half of Americans are just learning about him and that between 70 and 75% of English speakers are in the US and Canada, I think it is fair to assume that for the foreseeable future those looking up DB on Wikipedia will be overwhelmingly North American. The point is to make this tool useful to the greatest number of users possible. Really the question is not whether the change is going to happen, but when. --Counsel 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree that it's "fair to assume that for the foreseeable future those looking up DB...will be..North American." Perhaps for the immediate future, but when the US hype dies down, the football fans around the world will still take a strong interest in him, particularly as he's still a member of the England national team. I would expect that a number of users of en.wikipedia have English as a 2nd languaage. I agree that to remove ambiguouity the lead should read something like:
David Robert Joseph Beckham, OBE (pronounced IPA: /'bɛk.əm/) (born 2 May 1975) is a professional football (soccer) player from England who plays for Major League Soccer's Los Angeles Galaxy.
This clearly states that he's a 'soccer' player; the rest of the article does not need to be updated. Paulbrock 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It goes beyond "Soccer". For example "pitch" does not mean "field" in North American English. Nor is the term "sent off" used to refer to an expulsion. The article will be more useful if vocabulary common to both regions is used, and this is, in fact (or indeed if you prefer), what the wikipedia guidelines provide.--147.222.246.34 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, "field" is rarely used to describe the "pitch" here, and "expulsion" I've never heard used in football, and if I saw it I'd wonder what it was on about (only used for children being removed from a school).
If all the terms in football need to be US-ised, can I also ask that the terms for the American Football articles are UK-ised, as I don't understand all the terms. For example, "quaterbacks" need to be changed to "throwers", "wide receivers" to "cathcers" and "half-backs" to "runners".Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is quite specific: This article started out on a British subject, using British English and the national variety of English used in the article should not be changed. Moreover, it is not acceptable to have the sections relating to his LA career in American English - the whole point of WP:ENGVAR is to ensure that a single form of English is used in one article. -- Arwel (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote to leave in the Queen's English, Granted, she is German, but that is beside the point. Leave it as it is. Soccer has very little support in the States. Really it is primarily a womans sport at the professional level here as American prefer to see some hand-eye coordination in sports (which is banned in soccer). As a baseball and football fan, I am only happy to watch professional soccer go down in flames here (again). I support the UK version of the article. Keep it unapproachable and let it die. Throw in a few, "indeeds", and add an unnecessary "u" to "color" and while we are at it, chop the "r's" off the end of all of the words. The Brit's can't pronounce them anyway. The Beckhams flame will burn out in the US soon enough. The US tabloid media follows controversy not royalty. Unless the Beckhams do something stupid, they are liable to fall of the radar screen, just as MLS will and rightly so.--147.222.246.34 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anon-user. I would hope that some kind of compromise could be worked out so that the article admits that, in the world of football/soccer at least, there are differences between British and American English. I would hope that both sets of terms could appear side by side. I would vote for the British word to be given first and then the American word. He is a football star first and then, we hope, a soccer star. Steve Dufour 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing that should be done for certain is to use neutral words whenever possible, especially when it comes to spelling differences. It is contentious to use words which vary between US and UK English, so just use a word that both spell the same way, so as to avoid uneeded controversy. Sdsoc 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph immediately above is very good, and I also like this part from User Counsel... between 70 and 75% of English speakers are in the US and Canada, I think it is fair to assume that for the foreseeable future those looking up DB on Wikipedia will be overwhelmingly North American. The point is to make this tool useful to the greatest number of users possible. Really the question is not whether the change is going to happen, but when.

(I second both of those commentaries. They are from North America, and very thoughtful!) Dylanedwards1986 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — Dylanedwards1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[edit] Supercouple internal link

  • The link to the Supercouple article was recently included within this article, and it seemed fine to include, as no one objected to my adding it, but it was recently removed. I added it back because I feel that it's noteworthy to point to David's romance with Victoria being considered a supercouple by the media. Yes, the David Beckham article discusses his romance with Victoria as being popular, but the Supercouple article addresses celebrity supercouples in general. The Supercouple article is always being improved, as are other articles on Wikipedia, and I really feel that linking to it in this article is not a hindrance to this article, but a notable addition to it, as it is with the Katie Holmes article or the Brad Pitt article. If anyone has an objection to having a "See also" section with the Supercouple internal link included within this article, please let me know why you do. Flyer22 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications?

I've been following the discussion without really contributing but can I ask a few points of clarification - specifically:

1) Which blog is being referred to - I've tried to google 'lily segundo' but couldn't find anything? Someone mentioned that this is a known figure - where can I find her please?

2) Negative coverage of wikipedia is mentioned wrt this article - where is this negative coverage please - links?

3) There is a post from a rep of the National Soccer Fans Coalition - what is this organisation - is there a website?

I'm still assuming good faith, just would like some extra info on some topics mentioned. Paulbrock 00:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good questions, Paul. I tried to find this alleged blog too, without success, and couldn't find anything for 'lily segundo', and most returns for 'lilyandvic' are Chinese language sites. I don't know whether you will get a reply, as after I referred the matter to the administrators' noticeboard users Lilyandvic, Dylanedwards1986, Sirgalahadnj, Jeremyroland, Kinkinfutbol, Futbolfanamerica, Britonincarlsbad, and JeraldTudor have all been indefinitely blocked - not by me, I hasten to add - as being vandalism-only accounts, as they all appear to have been created exclusively to edit this talk page for a single purpose. -- Arwel (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quater-final or quaterfinal

Is either "correct"? I seem pages on Wiki that use either. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the spelling (which should be quaRter), I think a hyphen is correct. Just simply take the lead from FIFA, who use hyphens. Smoothy 12:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions: Allow more U.S.-based input and editing on "David Beckham"

I also welcome messages on my talk page or private email.

It would help if we could work out a way to include more of the new U.S.-based people who want to contribute. It made sense before for this article to have mostly editors from U.K., but now there are people who obviously want to contribute who are not permitted. The U.K.-based editors seem to have the majority of the editing now, but it's mostly reverting or minor details, while the major new content is coming from editors and from American sources.

I hope this works out. I know that some good people gave up and won't be supportive of Wikipedia because of their good content being removed. Wikipedia is a good resource, but there is responsibility to the public that goes with providing service of a "free encyclopedia"..Sdsoc 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article can be editted by anyone except for IP users or new accounts. This is because of the current high-profile of the individual in the American public eye. Other articles are often given this level of protection, as well. Currently, this talk page was being abused by those individuals.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sdsoc - what should we "allow"? Many of the recent edits have been, inadvertantly or deliberately, adding in "Americanism" (not an insult), which have been reverted/editted in keeping with WP:ENGVAR, or the form of inapproriate "neutral" words (for example, awards rather than honours).Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 01:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing preventing established accounts in the US from contributing to this article, they just must write using British English, per WP:ENGVAR. It is not that difficult to write in a different variety of English, we do it all the time when we edit articles on subjects of American origin, and we do not take umbrage when our mistakes are corrected by native speakers. -- Arwel (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I've found I have had little trouble alternating between Canadian, British and American english as necessary. It simply require a will to maintain the style that exists. Resolute 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
So the "talk" on the variant style of English is sorted? I've noticed that whole swathes of talk has disappeared. In any case, there is no reason to not have US editors edit this article, they can edit as they have always been able to in the past. Only thing is that everyone should adhere and respect the language in which the article is written in (in this case UK English). In respect to this article (and in respect to WP:ENGVAR too), this article should stay UK English, seeing as David Beckham has far more ties to the UK (the clear majority of his life and career is based in the UK, he's only been out of the country for 3-4 years) and due to the fact that the article was written in UK English. If in the future notable events of his life happens outside the UK (in the US for example) which subsequently gets included here, changing the majority of the article to have a more US-centric view (in the style of other US-based people such as Anthony Hopkins for example) then yes, change the language. For now, 3 weeks in the US without doing any notable is not enough reason to change the language style. Smoothy 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The variant style of English issue has been sorted as those who were so insistent on US English were unhappy with the way I handled their complaints as an administrator, so they demanded other administrators handle the article; when I brought the issue up at WP:AN/I, not only did the other administrators support my actions, they blocked all the single purpose accounts who were arguing for US English as vandals and deleted the entire "debate"! -- Arwel (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well thank god for that, the whole situation was a bit ridiculous tbh. The criticisms leveled at you in particular Arwel were unfounded. Maybe now we can just focus on improving the article itself. Toon 13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Very good. Glad it's all sorted and common sense prevailed. Smoothy 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opportunities for commonality

I didn't want to jump in while the discussion was going nowhere. I figured my comments would be lost. Now that it's died down, I'd like to suggest that when editing this article an attempt is made at find commonality. There are ways to make sure that the content is understandable by readers speaking different variants of English. --Elliskev 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I've trimmed it down, had it reverted, reverted it, and had it reverted again. Why are these so important that they need to be stated in the intro?

"He is known worldwide as an elite global advertising brand. Beyond adidas, his non-sport endorsements are diverse,[5] and he is considered a top fashion icon."
"In January 2007, it was announced that Beckham would leave Real Madrid and sign a five-year contract with the Los Angeles Galaxy.[7] He played his final match with Real on June 17, after which the team was awarded the 2006-07 La Liga championship.
His new contract with the Galaxy took effect on July 1, 2007, and the team introduced him on July 13 in a presentation also revealing his number (remaining 23). Dignitaries including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa welcomed Beckham in the ceremony aired live around the world (His Galaxy debut is expected on July 21 during the World Series of Football).[8]"

--Elliskev 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the lead guidelines, projects, and media helps rules in Wiki:

You should never remove the basic facts about his world popularity or status as an icon. Facts like his heights of pay, FIFA WPOY, most-searched, speak to specific places and times in our history where he was the most known, of most interest, most-acknowledged, most important. General facts about his advertising clout and recognition are also basis biographical points.

You should never remove the basic recent facts regarding his Galaxy signing and new career here. It is only six months of his life, but in big picture it's a major milestone.

Facts most important to current day's news (important to media using Wikipedia) can be summarized in the lead. These are what the readers look at first and foremost if news researchers. They will decide for themselves if they want to explore details in the article. Obviously, major points that do not become important in the long-term big picture are removed from lead.

My personal opinion is that I can see his lead on my screen without paging down, and that seems about right for someone with a 15-year career who is also a major figure in sports news now.

There is repetition in the main article but some of that cannot be avoided (some can), the way it is sectioned. The main article will become more concise as time moves along and it becomes more clear which of the new facts are pertinent and important as a part of his biography. Sdsoc 13:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article of this length. Right now, there are 6 paragraphs. The lead section should not contain overly specific information. The fact that he now plays for the Galaxy is fine, but we don't need to include anything about his "unveiling" and the fact that the mayor of LA was there. As for his being a fashion icon, we can say that without the "He is known worldwide as an elite global advertising brand. Beyond adidas, his non-sport endorsements are diverse." The Google thing is not important enough to go in the lead, relative to the rest of what's in the article. There's just waaaayyyy too much detail. --Elliskev 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It depends what you are going by. Some say four paragraphs, and that would be for a basic biography of a living person. Please realize the importance in time we are talking about.

It is not too much detail to have six paragraphs here. The search engine reference is as important as the fashion icon reference or the pay reference. They speak to his worldwide recognition factor and interest factor. You may be looking at this as a non-researcher or someone familiar with him for a long time, but for the purposes of this service, you have to look at it in the way a news researcher or a novice or new interest reader may see it. Six paragraphs is just about right for this particular living person in the news today. Sdsoc 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENT, When editing articles dealing with contemporary subjects, Wikipedians ought to carefully consider whether they are regurgitating media coverage of an issue, or actually adding information which will remain salient over time. Is the importance of this stuff going to hold up over the long term? --Elliskev 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Beckham"
Personal tools