Talk:Spice Boys (footballers)

This article is a mess

While the 'Spice Boys' was a real phenomenon (or at least a media one), this article seems to have got a bit out of control: right now, it's little more than a place to list the scandals and misbehaviour of various Liverpool players of the 90s, in a way that would be removed for violating WP:BLP if added to their articles directly. I've removed some of the more egregious (and unsourced) claims, but this article could do with a more serious cleanup so it looks more like an encyclopaedic article about the term than a gossip column. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

can we put the wheels in motion to get this removed

Not an encyclopedic article. No place on wiki. Gossip

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I'm entirely in agreement with the comments above and have given this article a much-needed WP:BOLD EDIT. It's around 90% shorter in length and concentrates on the term itself and where it originated, rather than listing endless 'scandals' and specualting about the impact on Liverpool FC. That may be mildly interesting to fans on a blog, but doesn't belong here. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Revisionism

The major rewrite of 8 Jan 2016 is possibly hugely revisionistic. The article dated to September 2015 was far more comprehensive and interesting- and highlights major sociological, cultural and significant factors surrounding why the Spice Boys were controversial. All the issues raised were backed by sourced articles and gave a very raw yet real authentic and revealing precis of what these players actually got up to that warranted their nicknames. Removing details like how players had threesomes in hotel rooms, and sleeping with the manager's daughter is what I would define as revisionist, especially because these are incidents which are in the public domain and have been published in major news sources and in biographies with ISBN numbers and official publishers' approval. Also, the article was a cracking read (to use contemporary parlance). Now, it is a fluffy piece that looks "treated". This goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and the pursuit of truth out of a clash of ideas ala Huntington, and a huge move away from big money public relations power meddling- a foundation stone of Wikipedia. The edit of 8 Jan 2016 strikes me as revisionist- a PR move probably by someone pro-Liverpool or with their vested interests. I think someone needs to re-insert salient bits.

To be fair, there are things that were listed that were more appropriate on a tabloid or blog, but the overall gist, weight and punch of the article has been lost somewhat. Removing issues that were key to establishing the credibility of the players' actions - as well as showing their vulnerabilities and reflections, hurts and depression as a result- are central to why they were given the label and central to the cathartic element of the article last seen in September 2015. It was one of the reasons why the article was the basis for several main press articles re-investigating the whole Spice Boys phenomenon last year. Finally, removing and "censoring" details on issues like the 1998 Christmas story or "Pass the Pound" game and so on, are just blatantly PR revisionism, especially when the sources listed for that include video evidence, and several mainline press articles. To simply state in the revisionist article that the 1998 party was a rumoured party is absolutely ridiculous- there was photographic evidence and press stories/clippings. Someone is doing some pro LFC retroactive spin doctoring on Wikipedia and this is not what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.154.72 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The rewrite was mine and, far from 'not being what Wikipedia is all about', was designed to make the article encyclopaedic, rather than a blow-by-blow account of literally every story about Liverpool players in that period - no matter how much of a 'cracking read' you consider it to be. I have no connection with Liverpool FC and am not a fan, so have no interest in the public image of the club or its former players. Terms like 'fast cars and fast women' do not belong in an encyclopaedia - save this for a fan page. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You could've at least checked through to see if there were any edits that should've stayed instead of reverting wholesale to your version from over 1 year ago. You really don't think any "good" edits were made at all during that time? A quick glance and I found two: fixing the incorrect dead link (mine) and a misplaced comma. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a job.Smurfmeister (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Then please don't make rash reversions if you're too busy to even spare a few more seconds. I reckon obvious punctuation errors in the opening do more damage as far as giving the impression of being "unencyclopedic" to the average reader than trivia content in the subsequent sections. The version after yours corrected the typo (and even says so in the edit summary). It would've taken a few seconds at most to read that and revert to that version instead of your previous one. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Then if it's such a quick job I don't know why you're making such a fuss.Smurfmeister (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the courteous thing to do is to take particular care when making a bold reversion. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spice Boys (footballers). 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/20120227131530/http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/rockngoal/archive/2009/04/22/how-football-became-the-new-rock-n-roll.aspx to http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/rockngoal/archive/2009/04/22/how-football-became-the-new-rock-n-roll.aspx

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) 02:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)