Talk:Billy Bremner

Category

Hang on about that category! Wasn't Billy Bremner Scottish?.--Arwel Parry 00:38, 22 June 2004 (UTC)

May I add that there is little or nothing about the subject's early life. Surely this would be expected of a GA candidate-article and should come before his career Billsmith60 (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Feet, not guitar.

Our man Billy never took up the guitar professionaly. However, there is a Wikipedia-link from Rockpile-member and studio legend of same name. Cut William loose!--83.108.26.251 18:18, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

Copenhagen Incident

What exactly was this mysterious incident in Copenhagen?--Drella Melmoth 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it was a very large night on the tiles and involved insulting a barman, something else in a night club and eventually overturning a bed as a prank. see - [1] [2] [3] and [4]. The ban seems to have been lifted in October 1976. --Chappy84 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Racist

When Scotland played Zaire at the 1974 World Cup, Billy Bremner called two of the opposition niggers and spat at their players. ref.S.Kuper, Football against the enemy.

Moreover, i seem to remember Pele calling him the best player in the world at the same time. Any references anyone?

I think both of these should be added to the page. The first comment i edited onto the page but was rejected! Come now wikipedia, you shouldn't hide racism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.230.41.197 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I removed the racist bit as it was a rather controversial statement to make without adding a correct full reference for people to find (Book references should contain the ISBN) and also the <ref> tags hadn't been implemented along with the info being signed which it shouldn't be on an actual article. It was also seemed from what was added to the main article to be speculation and wikipedia isn't the place for that. I will not remove the information if it is fully and correctly referenced and is definitely not speculation. The other reason I removed it was that I thought it might be vandalism as negative comments about billy were added on the day he would have been 64. Chappy84 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not referencing it properly. S.Kuper, Football Against the Enemy, p.101 ISBN 0 7528 0044 2. Definitely not speculation. --Ct280 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the information then if you want to, I wasn't stopping you from doing it, as I said just simply trying to prevent vandalism. I apologise for removing your edit. Please don't however sign your additions on the article page. This isn't what the article is for. And please do as you did last time put accused, as from what I've found on the subject it was never proved. Chappy84 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Captaincy/Final 1973/Death

Hi,

I need some help on three different topics concering this article. 1) According to this the Torino games took place in 1965 - not 1966. Does this mean that Bremner was given Collins' captaincy already in 1965? 2) Is there any evidence that Milan bribed the Greek referee in 1973? I know that he stopped taking part in UEFA games for the rest of life. According to Christos Michas he was sentenced because of the events in the final. Btw: Are details here worth to mention? It is a final, Bremner himself didn't take part at (because of his yellow card versus Hajduk Split). 3) What was the cause of his death? The article says heart attack. On the other hand I have some references that talk about pneumonia (examply in "When Saturday Comes: The Half Decent Football Book"). Can anybody tell me what is correct? Thanks --Vince2004 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, open to contributions from everybody. Anyway, whenever you refer to a subject under law controversy (such as sports'law), you have to demonstrate proof evidence for that. You can't say ..."a referee had been bribed by someone..." unless you are able to give official proof for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.71.253 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlton and Bremner appearances

According to Leeds' official club website, both played 773 matches for the club. [5] Vitorvec (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy Bremner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK - will jot notes as I go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd meld the lead into 2 or 3 paragraphs with no standalone sentences

The club also finished second in numerous competitions, finishing second in the league five times and runners-up in seven cup finals, including the 1975 European Cup. - could rejig this to use the word "second" (or "runners-up") only once....

religion based - needs a hyphen I think...

The 1967–68 season had a slow start but soon picked up... - the season or the club had a slow start?

despite the player wanting the move to go ahead as he desperately wanted to return to Scotland to be with his fiancée - could try to trim this. "despite the player wanting to return to Scotland to be with his fiancée" (middle redundant I think)

He made the club more professional for the 1979–80 campaign, introducing massages and changing the canteen and the team kit - let facts speak for themselves --> "He introduced massages and changed the canteen and team kit for the 1979–80 campaign,"

NB: I've merged some short paras - keeping them strictly season-by-season makes the prose a bit too choppy. Have merged some but check for flow.

Overall an engaging read. GA status is feasible once some fixes are done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: 40 days have passed since this review was placed on review. Are there outstanding fixes to be made? Thanks, C679 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

whoops, I completely forgot about this one! ok, now just needs 2 tags need citing and I think we're done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, done that, thanks.--EchetusXe 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billy Bremner. 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/20160304125716/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/doncaster-rovers/1984-1985/table to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/doncaster-rovers/1984-1985/table

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Leeds or Bremner?

Much of the acticle on Bremner's Career at Leeds reads as a history of Leeds United under the Revie era rather than a synopis of Bremner's contribution. For example: Jimmy Greenoff said it was the most memorable trophy Leeds won. It looks like someone took a section from some book and posted it here. What Jimmy Greenhof thought about a particular trophy has little to do with the subject of this article: Billy Bremner. It would be more appropriate to have quotes from or about Bremner. The entire section about the 1966/67 and 1967/68 seasons contains no reference to Bremner himself.

86.165.186.201 (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Billy Bremner/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Issues

Starting with MOS:LEAD as part of GACR#1b. The lead has several issues beginning in the opening sentence, which states that Billy was "known for his strength, skills and compact constitution". None of that appears in the narrative and so it is unsourced POV, perhaps OR. The word "skill" is used only once in the article, in the context of him having negotiated a transfer deal as a manager. There is no style and technique section to outline his assets as a player, which were considerable.

The second sentence of the lead says: A midfielder, he played for Leeds United from 1959 to 1976, and captained the side during this time, which was the most successful period of the club's history. That is misleading. The career dates are correct but Bremner became captain of Leeds from the end of 1965 (the date is unclear in the narrative) and, by then, Leeds had already become highly successful under Bobby Collins, who was Bremner's predecessor as captain. As for his early years there, Leeds did not become successful until 1963–64 when they won the Second Division.

GACR#1 requires the article to be well written. It isn't. There are numerous grammatical and contextual issues. These are just a few examples only, and all from the lead only:

• Billy's surname appears only once in the entire lead. There are a dozen or so sentences driven by "he". The reader needs to see the surname much more frequently.

• Throughout the article, there is excessive and unnecessary use of words like also, however and though. These are often used out of context and disrupt the flow of the narrative. There is an example in the second paragraph of the lead. The second sentence is entirely about Leeds and their many runner-up finishes with no mention of Bremner. Then, the third sentence begins: He was also named as.... That use of also is out of context because the subject has changed and it is unnecessary anyway because this is the first mention of an individual achievement – the things Billy won with Leeds were team achievements. The first use of also, if desired, should be later in the sentence where it could be said he was also included in the PFA Team of the Year.

• The third paragraph in the lead begins: He spent the period from 1976 to 1978 at Hull City. What did he do there? Why not say: Bremner played for Hull City from 1976 to 1978 – after all, he was a player and he did play in 61 matches for Hull; he didn't just spend time there.

• Later in the third paragraph, why use a phrase like He spent seven years at the helm? That is tabloid-speak. He was managing a football team, not sailing a ship.

• He could not get the club promoted back into the top flight is bad English. You could say: He failed to gain promotion to the top flight which is simple and meaningful, although a term like "top flight" might confuse some readers.

GACR#3b requires the article to stay focused on the topic. For 1965 to 1968, there are two large paragraphs occupying half the screen and using five citations which say nothing at all about the topic. I entirely agree with the IP editor who wrote Talk:Billy Bremner#Leeds or Bremner? in September 2018, but received no answer. If you look at those two paragraphs, there isn't one single mention of Bremner or even a hint that he might just be the subject of the article. From the end of 1965 to summer 1968, then, what was Billy up to in those two and a half years when Leeds were one of the best three teams in England and he was their best player? As the IP says, who cares what Greenhoff had to say about winning the League Cup? Billy used to talk to the media so what about quoting him, or at least quote Revie on the subject of Billy's value to Leeds at that time.

GACR#2 deals with verification. The piece about The Damned United is unsourced. Until we reach Billy's death in December 1997 and go online thereafter, there are 122 citations and all but ten of them come from a single source about which one reviewer has written: "I was somewhat disappointed with this book, namely because it tells you so little about Billy Bremner the man. We learn barely nothing about his private life and there is no in depth analysis on his relationship with his team mates". Indeed, the article is more about Leeds during Billy's time there than about Billy himself and so, as well as 3b above, it also fails GACR#3a because it omits several main aspects and thereby doesn't adequately cover the scope. As mentioned above, there is no style and technique section and that is necessary for a player like Bremner who was noted for many aspects including his industry, his team play, his passing, his ball winning, his will to win, his leadership and his fiery temperament.

If I were to select this article now from the GAN queue, it would be an instant WP:GAFAIL because it is a long way from meeting both GACR#1 and GACR#3b while there are also doubts about GACR#2 and concerns about the article being largely reliant upon a single source which may not be WP:RS. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question Wouldn't it be better if you took your time to improve the article instead of critique it? Govvy (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Govvy, I'll try to refrain from giving a stupid answer to a stupid question. The process here is WP:GAR which you should first read and attempt to understand. The process requires interested parties to discuss the article's suitability for GA status to establish whether it should remain a GA or be delisted. As for my being able to improve the article, the short answer is that I can't because I haven't got the necessary sources. What a waste of time. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

First of all, I would have to agree with Govvy. Point 1 of the Good article reassessment states "Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems." The points you raise seem rather minor and easily fixed by yourself.

Well written is defined by the Good article criteria as "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". Note the essay What the Good article criteria are not, which states: "the meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently". Your contention that "excessive and unnecessary use of words like also, however and though" does not, therefore, mean that the article is not well written. Note, that the good article criteria is NOT of the same standard as Featured articles, the criteria of which being "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". You are requiring much too high a standard for GA reassessment. However, as you have taken the time to review the article then I will respond to your concerns below and edit the article accordingly.

I have changed "known for his strength, skills and compact constitution" and added in sources for the new sentence which describes his great skill. I have reworded the second sentence to make it clear at what stage he was appointed as captain but find your claim that it was misleading as bizarre. You state that the club were already "highly successful" under Collins pre 1965, but that Leeds "did not become successful" until 1964. I don't believe it is necessary to break down the statement in such a way as to make clear that the club weren't particularly successful from 1959 to 1963, then were successful after that stage. Can we not have some common sense here? I think it's particularly pedantic for someone to dispute the statement by saying that the club were not hugely successful for the first four years of his seventeen year playing career. Anyway, I have specified the starting point for his captaincy in the lead now.

I will continue to work on this later.--EchetusXe 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you will have a lot of work to do and that you will need to use a lot of common sense to accomplish it. I only pointed out the contextual, grammatical and illogical issues in the lead. I didn't perform a full review of the narrative which is just as bad, if not worse. I am not applying too high a standard at all. Bad writing is bad writing and must fail a good article review. Anyway, the poor grammar and excessive howevers are the least of the issues.

Where is the style and technique section to bear out what the lead said about Bremner's ability? Why is there only a single source for such a high percentage of content, and a source which has attracted unfavourable reviews too? Why is there so much about what the Leeds team did when the article is a biography? Those are hardly minor errors that anyone can fix in a second or two, so your claim about simple problems is nonsense.

If you were the main author and you can't accept constructive criticism, then that's your problem.

The purpose of GAR is to ensure that articles with GA status are fit for purpose. This one is way below the standard. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so to continue from where I left off. "The reader needs to see the surname much more frequently" - any particular reason for this? Well, I've added Bremner into the lead a few times for you. "excessive and unnecessary use of words like also, however and though", Ive already addressed this earlier by clarifying that the article is clear and not confusing. Good article's well written criteria does not require articles to be rewritten in a style which you personally prefer. Listing trophies a player won in a team sport seems rather reasonable to me despite you trying to somehow divorce Bremner from these team achievements. I'm happy to make minor improvements that you suggest to rephrase sentences, but as it stands the article clearly meets the Good article standard as being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience".

"there are two large paragraphs occupying half the screen and using five citations which say nothing at all about the topic". Forgive me, but those paragraphs appear to be describing the performances of the team of which Bremner was a part. Bremner played in those matches for Leeds so that makes them somewhat relevant to an article section about his playing career for Leeds United would you not say? If you have any quotes from or about Bremner during that period then please feel free to add them in, but the lack of them in those seven sentences does not make the article unfocused.

You seem to be arguing that a published biography written about the subject does not count as a reliable source because "one reviewer" has written a slightly critical review? That does seem to be your arguement as you blithely cite the good article criteria, which for the record states: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". So that does seem to be your arguement does it not? That "one reviewer" wrote a slightly critical review of the biography so therefore it cannot be considered a reliable source?

I would suggest that you could have spent the time you spent looking at reviews of the book in writing a playing style section yourself, the absence of which, does not cause this article to be a WP:GAFAIL. As for the tags, if you can convince one other person that "the article taken as a whole may lack a single, central point of focus or appears to be about more than one topic" then I will be very surprised. As for "relies largely or entirely on a single source", well, a single source with 25 other sources. That is not an appropriate use of that tag.--EchetusXe 01:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

EchetusXe, you are being obtuse and trying to twist everything. You began your "defence" by saying Point 1 of the Good article reassessment states "Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems." The points you raise seem rather minor and easily fixed by yourself. I suggest you read the entire guideline, especially the introductory statement which says: Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment (my italics). Point 2 says: Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages.

Concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are serious policy issues. You say I should create a style and technique section, but I have already said above that I haven't got the necessary sources. Or do you want me to create the section based on my own memories of Billy Bremner as a player? I rather think that would be a major breach of WP:NOR, don't you?

While you have focused on GACR#1 as applied to the lead, you seem to be overlooking the narrative which, as I have said, is just as bad if not worse. I haven't written a full review of the narrative but it would be as long as your arm.

You ask me to convince "one other person" about the point of focus issue. Again, please read everything I have written above and you will see that I am endorsing the complaint made by the IP editor in 2018 who rightly pointed out that the article is a biography of Billy Bremner and not a summary of Leeds United's performances, especially the years 1966 to 1968 when, for all the reader knows, Billy might not have played at all. The one other person you require is in fact myself, because I am in agreement with the IP editor who raised that issue first.

You say you have "already addressed this (however, etc.) earlier by clarifying that the article is clear and not confusing". You haven't clarified anything. In any narrative, there are aspects called context and flow. A good article is one that retains context and enables flow. Nearly every time a word like however or though or also crops up in this article, the context is lost and the flow is interrupted. You say the subject's surname is unnecessary after the first three words. Well, the reader likes to be reminded of who the subject is in case someone else has been mentioned. Again, this disrupts the flow if the reader has to pause and ask if the "he" in this paragraph is still Bremner.

You need to read WP:GAFAIL which says (relevant bits only): An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria (or) it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid.

As I have pointed out, if this article were in GAN now, it would fail immediately because it is a long way from meeting certain criteria and it needs cleanup banners. It would fail GACR#1 because it is not well written. The prose is not clear because it does not flow and it loses context. You say it is understandable to an appropriately broad audience but it assumes the readers are all football fans – for example, I can understand everything easily enough and so can my son-in-law who supports Blackburn Rovers, but my wife and daughter are not football fans and neither of them understood the article or could make much sense of it. They both commented on the lack of flow. On the other hand, I asked them to read Bill Shankly as a comparison and they both said it is easily readable and just needs a bit of housekeeping here and there. My wife is a former lecturer who specialised in something called the English language and she says the Bremner article lacks focus and is too technical. She agrees that the club career section is essentially about Leeds and, interestingly, her view (as an English expert) is that the section largely uses Bremner as an example of a Leeds player – I must admit I never thought of that and she's absolutely right.

As well as GACR#1, there are the issues about POV, OR, scope, single source and loss of focus. There is no way it would pass a fresh GA review and, unless it is considerably improved to meet the GACR within the next six days, I as the GAR assessor will delist it from GA. With any GA review, it is the reviewer's opinion that counts and you are hardly likely to gain any sympathy by being so defensive and refusing to accept criticism.

The purpose of both GAN and GAR is to improve the article. I am not trying to demote the article because I don't support Leeds or some idiotically petulant reason like that. I actually met Billy Bremner in the course of my work and I would like to see Wikipedia honour him with an appropriately good article.

I'm diarising this for next Thursday and taking it off my watchlist in the meantime. I'll come back then and decide if it has been sufficiently improved. I particularly want to see a style and technique section citing multiple sources. Everything else should be easy enough. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with NGS here. The cleanup banner makes it eligible for delist. In addition, the "Leeds United" section could use stronger focus on Bremner himself and sectioning for readability. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary

It's now a whole week since this was raised at WP:GAR and little has been done to improve the article other than the relatively minor points I raised about the lead. The article is supposed to be a biography but, as Buidhe has rightly pointed out, it needs stronger focus on Bremner himself. Also, as I've said before, a multi-faceted player like Billy Bremner needs a style and technique section to present an analysis of his skills, his combative approach, his temperament and his leadership.

I've decided to delist because, in my opinion as reviewer, the article is start-class only. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting trivia?

This article from 1997 provides the following bit of trivia, that Bremner scored the winner in three FA Cup semi-finals but finished up on the losing side in each year's final - in 1965, '70 and '73. Not sure where it would fit in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)