Jump to content

Talk:Beth Mead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

@Egghead06: I don't think notability is an issue. You're right - FA WSL is not fully professional (it's semi-professional with a limited number of full-time players) so she doesn't meet the WP:ATH criteria, but I have a hard time believing she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Besides match reports and England team news, she's been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple sources:

Plus, given the increased coverage of women's football in England, she frequently appears in mainstream sources. Mosmof (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with you on reflection. Have never been convinced that WP:NFOOTBALL is fit for purpose and excludes all but international female players in the UK. As far as I am concerned, feel free to remove the Notability tag.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beth Mead. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Mead: Personal life

[edit]

Please do not remove the section referring to Mead's relationship and Pink News/Gar Star News sources. These are reputable news sources and they have been used in many Wikipedia articles. The information provided by them cannot be regarded as "false" unless proven otherwise by another reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmSam13 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmSam13: Per Pink News' entry on WP:PERENNIAL, it is designated as "generally unreliable":

There is consensus that PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation. If PinkNews republishes claims from a reliable source, cite the original source instead of PinkNews.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wider issue/problem here, arising out of the 'lockdown' and it becoming evident that many female soccer players are sharing households. My understanding of the rules is that we'd still need a very decent source (this sort of thing) before we can label them lesbians. There's been links to some individuals' social media used as sources, which obviously isn't good enough. And neither are links to sub-tabloid dross like PinkNews. I see from my watchlist there are loads of other players involved, so perhaps a discussion at a higher or more central level would be helpful? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bring back Daz Sampson. When I check the PinkNews reference, Mead's only mention is Footballer for Arsenal and the English national team, helping to dispel the stigma surrounding LGBT+ football players. That does not imply that she herself is LGBT. A tweet that took a screencap has the quote I think if players like me and Danielle can make people feel more comfortable and proud of who they are, then that's a good thing, but it is missing on the article from The Sun, which is considered a deprecated reliable source here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true! If you read the Pink News source, it states at the start of the article that it is a list of lesbians, stating "So whether you’re a lesbian or not, take note of these incredible women who love women". Beth Mead is on that list. So it clearly presents Mead as lesbian, let alone LGBT. I suggest you read the article more closely. The Sun is not a reliable source, it is a tabloid, and it certainly should not override the Gay Star News as a more reliable source. Also, just because it doesn't mention the relationship doesn't mean it doesn't exist. AmSam13 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/this-womens-world-cup-has-shown-what-lgbtq-inclusive-football-looks-like_uk_5d19eabfe4b082e5536c93ab?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK9S0kOCTNwXkrWAr2o-MUa2VHswovGHSmxAibaWIyDBMm_SGfXq62fR4t8XpTokxHDVnCIEO2Elzc4RGFN1xQfUt5NOzWHnmUEFxRn9m68W6RM9gW21QBpoZJK3C1PBQe9MECHhu4LrL-S4dlXcefYAjxsVPiMrEGHTfrnslANL ALSO states Beth Mead is "openly" out. It is published by the Huff Post, and uses the Gay Star News article as a cited source. Need another source? Well there is also this one: https://www.outsports.com/2019/6/11/18660301/out-gay-lesbian-bi-2019-women-world-cup-soccer. It is published by Outsports, which is owned by Vox and which I believe to be a reputable source. Clearly, there is no lack of trustworthy sources which not only document Mead being LGBT but that she is completely OPEN with this identity. I do not understand how the lockdown greatly affects the fact that Mead is openly lesbian. My statement is nothing to do with the fact that shes living at home with someone at the moment. The articles by Outsports, Gar Star News and HuffPost are all published WELL BEFORE the lockdown started in the United Kingdom, indeed well before the Coronavirus was originally discovered! These sources are largely dated around the time of the 2019 Women's World Cup. If that wasn't enough, Mead is also listed on the "Visible Lesbian 100 list" which is subtitled "MEET 100 LESBIANS CHANGING THE GAME FOR WOMEN-LOVING WOMEN", this is shown here: https://www.lesbianvisibilityweek.com/visible-lesbian-100.html#/. Then there is this https://www.advocate.com/sports/2019/7/01/megan-rapinoe-says-teams-cant-win-without-gays. There is another source that another user has added to my statement on the biography. So in total, not including the PinkNews source or the Sun source, that is SEVEN sources that can be used to provide a reference for my statement. SEVEN! At least some of them are entirely trustworthy. AmSam13 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say the players are together (like many others) but we have to consider verifiability, not truth. I've been around here long enough in various guises to remember back when some fairly obvious/blatant soccer lesbians (Hope Powell, Abby Wambach) hadn't 'officially' come out so we had to keep dutifully deleting this kind of gossip added by well-meaning editors. To be honest it sometimes felt a bit like a waste of effort because it was pretty clear the stuff being added was true, and at WP:WOSO we were obviously very supportive and pro-lesbian in general. I remember at the time I went around seeking advice from the women's sports and LGBT wikiprojects and the feedback seemed to be that to include this stuff the bar has to be set high ie. we need exceptionally strong sources. In my opinion that would look more mainstream like the Littlejohn/McCabe one above, rather than the examples you've laid out here. It's potentially a thorny issue because of privacy concerns etc. which affect us as Wikipedians due to our rules, more than they would for a writer at one of these advocacy blogs. They all tend to copy off each other and are (quite naturally) working to a different agenda. I can see you've been making the same kind of edits and got some pushback at Lucy Bronze and Leah Williamson. My advice is to try and listen to what other more experienced editors are telling you, drop it for now, but 'keep an eye out' for some better quality sources to come along later. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, that is indeed helpful. The thing is, I think that I have found at least three sources that are exceptionally strong sources for this matter. The case for the three in question is as follows:
1) Outsports article: https://www.outsports.com/2019/6/11/18660301/out-gay-lesbian-bi-2019-women-world-cup-soccer. There is not anything on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources about Outsports specifically, however Outsports has been owned by Vox Media since 2013. As stated on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Vox is considered generally reliable". The Outsports site in general is also run as part of SB Nation, which is also owned by the generally reliable Vox Media. This makes me think that Outsports is probably considered a generally reliable source by Wikipedia, as a subsidiary of Vox Media? The Outsports article also not only documents Mead's sexual orientation identity but also that of her alleged partner, Daniëlle van de Donk, and it cites this source to support its claim: https://spelersvrouw.nl/beth-mead-vriendin-van-danielle-van-de-donk/. Unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch, so I was not able to fully look into whether this article/news site is a reputable source (perhaps some of the Dutch speakers among us could help me here!), but as a reputable news site with referenced claims I think the Outsports article would have a very good claim to being a exceptionally reliable source.
2) Gay Star News article: https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/meet-the-41-out-gay-and-bi-soccer-stars-in-the-womens-world-cup-2019/. I was not really able to find anything on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or on Wikipedia in general about whether we consider the Gay Star News to be a generally reliable source (I am a fairly new editor, if you hadn't guessed, and I am not always clued-up on the location of the right guide pages). However, I had noticed it has been used in other biography of living person pages with no problems. For example, the very first reference on the Conchita Wurst page used a Gay Star Post article. The actual Women's football Gar Star News article itself is also notably cited by the HuffPost in this news article: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/this-womens-world-cup-has-shown-what-lgbtq-inclusive-football-looks-like_uk_5d19eabfe4b082e5536c93ab. Such usage of Gay Star News sources to me suggests that they are generally considered reliable?
3) Visible Lesbian 100 list: https://www.lesbianvisibilityweek.com/visible-lesbian-100.html#/. This list was published in The Guardian on the 20 April 2020, as documented here: https://divamag.co.uk/2020/03/03/vote-for-your-favourite-women-loving-women-in-the-visible-lesbian-100-list-2020/. As I'm sure users are aware, The Guardian is generally considered a reliable source. I'd probably say the Guardian is considered on a similar level of reliability to, the BBC, for example, which as you rightly point out is a good example of an exceptionally reliable source on matters such as this.
So I do think that there at least three exceptionally strong sources on this matter to be able to verify the claim.AmSam13 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed response, but no, I can't agree with this at all. 1) and 2) are salacious blog-style listicles. The Gay Star one is by admission based on "reader tips" and the first one ultimately derives from the players' Instagram accounts! Far from being exceptionally strong, they are nowhere near the standard of source required. For the third one, show me the Guardian article - there isn't one - I suspect one of the players listed in there had it 'spiked'. DIVA construct their lists from public votes, irrespective of whether the subjects wants to be in there. There is an article here which is a handy accessible explainer, for those of us who are not lesbians, about this issue and the 'levels' involved in 'coming out'. Seriously, if the players concerned don't want their status widely published, we have to back off. Quite apart from WP:BLP concerns around accuracy, legality, ethics, etc. we have to think of the players. You obviously follow the game closely and have great knowledge of the players involved, I am sure the last thing you want to do is cause them any unnecessary upset. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair though I don’t see what’s wrong with the gay star news. It’s not generated by readers tips like you say I don’t know where you’ve got that from. Also what’s wrong with Spielersvrouw as a source. And it is true that the gay star news is used on other living person articles Speaker of Truth and Wisdom (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to consider whether the source is reliable or whether SPAs should be adding juicy details to BLP articles. That's because articles do not list the current girl/boy-friends of subjects, not unless a reliable source documents the long-term significance of the friendship. There is a certain amount of tolerance for gossip at celebrity articles where sources often talk about little else other than the star's possible relationships, but who is dating-whom is not central to the biography of a footballer—not unless a reliable source explains otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Balderdash. If you are going to add a person's article to the category 'LGBT association football players', you need to provide a reference. Its only right. You should know that. Therefore, the existence of a same-sex relationship in this case is entirely relevant. As it is for other pages where the 'LGBT association football players' category is added. Its not about providing celebrity 'gossip', just a reference for why that player's article is in a certain category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmSam13 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, Bring back Daz Sampson, Tenryuu, just a note to say that AmSam13 is a sock, and Speaker of Truth blah blah is the same person. If you all edit similar articles, be on the lookout: one of their fascinations is with the gayness of female athletes and celebrities. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the action and update. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

[edit]

Following the peer review, I intend to put this through WP:GAN as I believe that it meets criteria, just like Keira Walsh. Any suggestions or objections? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks close to being a good article though I see the lead has a few references which may stay there or moved to the correct places in the article. Apart from that, it should be included on the list of nominations. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your feedback! I've made a few amendments and moved the references to the main text. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beth_Mead&oldid=1255217896"