Talk:Ledley King

Arrest

This article goes into detail about how he was arrested, and bailed. It mentions Redknapp's ban on alcohol. But it does not mention the fact that King was cleared of all charges and was innocent. Anyone reading the article is getting a biased slant of the event, as it is implied that he was arrested and apologised for committing a crime, when in fact he only apologised for being in the headlines and making the club potentially look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.83.105 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Birthday

Is his birthday December 10th or October 12? The external link gives it as 10/12, and presumably that is in British notation, meaning 10 december. Other language versions of this have october 12 as birthdate. Can Anyone verify this? --{{User:Wonderfool/sig}} 09:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

THFC official bio lists 12 October 1980. probably most reliable source. The rest of the web is divided - presumably because Americans quote dates backwards.--T (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not close to being neutral and shows a heavy bias in his favour. Some examples are included below

He rose to the challenge brilliantly, kicking of the 2001-2002 season with a clean sheet against Aston Villa and an excellent performance man-marking Duncan Ferguson as Spurs held on for a point against Everton at Goodison Park despite playing the final 25 minutes with 9 men. By the end of the season he'd been capped for England and was regarded as one of the best young defenders in the country as Tottenham finished 9th, their highest league finish in 6 years. - This would need sources to justify "brilliant" and "Excellent", especially for the "one of the best young defenders in the country"

but he continued to impress with some excellent displays at the back. However, King was criticised due to the large amount of goals Tottenham were conceding. The season ended with Tottenham letting in 9 goals in their final two games against Middlesbrough and Blackburn Rovers. However, people[citation needed] defended King, saying the reason Spurs were conceding so often was because of Hoddle's poor choice of tactics in using a 3-5-2 formation and Tottenham's lack of a proper defensive midfielder that left the defence unprotected. same as above, needs sources to justify its stance

Expectations were high for the season and King did not disappoint, forming a new excellent partnership with Michael Dawson. King's excellent displays at the back meant that Spurs were even stronger in defence than the previous season, conceding only 38 league goals. Again, sources to justify such a point of view.

However, when King was fit his performances were of a consistently high level. King's finest moment of the season came in a Premier League clash with reigning champions Chelsea at White Hart Lane, when Chelsea's pacy forward Arjen Robben was played through on goal. Despite Robben having a several yard head start, King was able to catch up and make what was arguably the best tackle of the season just as Robben was about to shoot. Again, source it, prove it. IS this commonly accepted by the news media at the time or just someones opinion?

Playing a starring role by man-marking Thierry Henry out of the game and not putting a foot wrong, he impressed everyone with his composure Again, where's the source for this? The whole article takes this tone, which reads a fan boy's opinion rather than a neutral article about the player. For example, who is 'everyone'? Is this 'everyone' just the writer, or did he make such a big impression on all the media outlets of the time? --Tiresais (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Injuries

I don't think there is enough detail on his injuries, especially the ones of late. The fact he is playing only every other game is perplexing to me and I'm sure a lot of people who visit his wikipedia entry probably come in search of information about this matter Bucko2007 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I think this may need to be changed:

"Known for his pace, strength, heading, composure on the ball with both feet and ability in timing his tackles...."

I know him cause of his injuries.83.128.22.232 (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations

There is a major lack of citations on King's article. Could do with a load. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I have updated the format of the references that were added. Could do with some more in other places in the article. Have cleaned up a little of the English also. Govvy (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Statistics are wrong?

The statistics appear to be wrong. The column headed "FA Cup" appears to include Carling Cup appearances as well, and even then, it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.18 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ledley King's 'goal' v Portugal

King definitely didn't score against Portugal in February 2004. Various sources call it a Miguel own goal, including a Portuguese match-by-match history of the national team: Almanaque Da Selecçao (Rui Tovar 2004). But this isn't about one source or another, or a question of interpretation (what constitutes an own goal). The video slo-mo is conclusive: Beckham's free kick from the right is touched square by Miguel's left foot and put in by his right knee. King doesn't touch the ball at all. Cris Freddi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.5.1 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

no mention of him scoring the fastest ever premier league goal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.58.60 (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

His son lives near me 2A00:23C8:7631:5601:B0F9:EB34:1EFA:B3FE (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

sorry i just re-read it and saw... my bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.58.60 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Read up on Wikipedia's policy on original research. Your own opinion of what the video shows is not relevant, no matter how 'conclusive' you believe it to be. Information should be cited from reputable sources. The FA, UEFA and the BBC have it listed as a Ledley King goal. I've re-added the goal with three sources cited. Little Professor (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

2009 Arrest

An IP recently added a load of detail copied directly from a Sun article relating to the above event. The Sun is not considered a reliable source for articles covered by WP:RS and with specific references to Biogs of living persons WP:BLP. The arrest did not lead to a trial so there is no confirmation of the events apart from those briefer details recorded by broadsheets and the BBC at the time. Accordingly have reduced the information to that corroborated by police and LK himself.Tmol42 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You keep changing your reasons for deleting it. First it was uncited (it wasn't -- and in the same group of edits you reinstated other uncited material), then it wasn't a reliable source. Now you think 4 UK newspapers which all reported on it aren't reliable ? All 4 agree King was accused of assault and of racially abusing someone. All the information added is verifiable to published sources.

Before i even edited the page the incident had its own sub heading with 2 paragraphs dedicated to the apology and Redknapp's reaction. That it didn't reach trial is irrelevant. It was significant enough to attract large UK press interest, for King to be arrested, for Tottenham to fine him 2 weeks wages,for King to make a public apology the next day, and for his manager to comment on it.

I also added a citation request for the statement King was later cleared of all charges and you deleted that too. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="ot.90.60|talk]]) 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read policies on Biogs for living persons and WP:CRIME you will see that where no trial and determination took place as to gulit it is not appropriate for articles to include information which is has not been tested by criminal proceedings. In otherwords people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise and in this case as no charges were levied one is left with information provided by the individual concerned. This section has been there broadly as originally worded since 2009 and by dredging up and muck raking material and adding anew which has not been proven about a person is clearly a case of giving undue and unbalanced weight. Until concensus is reached here you should not continue to add such material. Please read WP:BRDTmol42 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The material I added was less than a paragraph, for an incident which already had its own sub heading with two paragraphs devoted to King's apology for said incident and Harry Redknapp's reaction to it. So hardly undue weight.

WP:BLP and WP:CRIME relate to people known primarily for a crime, not famous individuals accused. Wikipedia is anyway full of cited accusations against people which haven't been tested in a court. Just look at any prominent footballer's page. Also, WP:BRD is not a policy and nor is it a justification for reverting back to your favored version.

Furthermore, the additions do not assert innocence or guilt. They state the facts, that named witnesses made accusations against King, which were then reported in numerous UK national newspapers and were serious enough for him to be arrested and spend the night in a cell (and the allegations were also not later retracted in libel cases or followed by newspaper apologies).

WP:UNDUE is probably the best policy to keep minimal information on the subject, particularly after more than two years. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I should like to add that the additional references would not be incorrect to include. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The new material is now one sentence. I don`t consider that undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.91.242 (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary is disingenerous and comments above does not even provide a feeble argument to support your reinsertion of a previous edit. Regurgitating all that unencyclopaedic content as one sentance or several makes no difference to the fact that you have just re-added back in all the same inappropriate content about a person which do not meet WP:RS. I am going to remove again as you do not have any consensus here to re add all that information about an event which was never proceeded on. The police did not take if further so as Walter has also said it amounts to WP:UNDUE. This is an issue which occurred 3 plus years ago and content which has been stable indicating contentment amongst editors. So as nothing has changed one is left asking what you are trying to achieve here?Tmol42 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't have any consensus in your favor either. Consensus changes and judging by your actions you don't have an interest in building a new one. You just revert what you don't like. Whether it was 3 years ago or 300 years ago is immaterial. So is the police not taking it further. It happened, he was arrested and it received ample coverage in UK national newspapers. Previous editor(s) thought the incident important enough to have its own sub heading with 2 paragraphs dedicated to King's apology and Redknapp's reaction. You have been unable to refute this point.

So you think 4 national newspapers are unreliable when most of this page is already sourced from UK newspapers and the BBC [do you consider the BBC a reliable source in light of the revelations about Jimmy Saville ?]. Walter Görlitz also seems to agree with me on the reliability of the sources -- You can't have it all ways. And now its unencyclopaedic and inappropriate !!??

What are you trying to achieve here ? My guess is you just don't want unflattering information in an article about an individual you like and you're clutching at straws to justify it. i look forward to the next obscure wiki legalese you pluck at random to try and justify your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.88.213 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am ensuring we have a well-written encyclopedia, for the reasons stated above which have been repeated backed up by WP policy. As a WP:SPA your edits stick out as having one purpose in mind, to follow a personal agenda in relation to one individual.Tmol42 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am ensuring we have an encyclopedia that doesn't just include information their number 1 fan wants in the article. Speculation about my purpose here is irrelevant [particularly coming from the self-appointed guardian of the article] Everything i have added here complies with wiki rules and you have been unable to challenge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.91.22 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

2002-2005

Uh... why is there absolutely no information in here about his club career from these years? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fastest ever Premier League Goal

He scored a goal in less than 10 seconds 2A00:23C8:7631:5601:B0F9:EB34:1EFA:B3FE (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)