Talk:Kevin Pietersen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleKevin Pietersen is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 10, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 23, 2013Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Neutrality[edit]

Has anyone updated the 2nd Test Match for the Ashes? He had 20 runs for the 2nd Innings, though I don't know what the 1st Innings runs were.

--- He made 75 at Cape Town, then at East London made an unbeaten 100 from just 69 balls. England lost, but Pietersen made sure it was a glorious defeat, smashing the last ball of the game for his seventh six to bring up his century. ---

--- He had a relatively quiet debut in the second One-Day International at Harare, scoring 27 not out from 47 balls with just one boundary, sedate indeed by Pietersen's standards, but an unbeaten run-a-ball 77 in the third ODI began to hint at what he could be capable of. ---

--- Pietersen was, unsurprisingly, selected for the full England one-day side at the earliest opportunity, for the tour to Zimbabwe and South Africa in 2004/05. ---

--- After England's 2005 Ashes triumph, the nickname "KP" is used to refer to Pietersen across the country. ---

--- NEUTRALITY, NEUTRALITY, NEUTRALITY, NEUTRALITY. this article is awful.

ALSO

pietersen was no "unsuprisingly" selected for the full england one day squad to south africa, and was, in fact, a last minute addition after the test series had finished.

Thorpe was not "struggling with poor form" - he was not dismissed in the Bangladesh series and had scored a vital hundred against the South Africans. I'm still at a loss to understand why Bell was preferred. It certainly wasn't on cricketing grounds. England has a history about this sort of thing (getting rid of your best and most experienced player because he doesn't get on with some of the management) - most notably the omission of David Gower from the 1992/3 India tour --- --- NEUTRALITY?? It's fine!

Neutral? This reads like it was written by KP himself, by far one of the most arrogant figures in sport, as much as I admire him.

I have removed the tag. Some of the points have been addressed and the others are incorrect. He average 22 in his last 6 innings against SA and runs against Bangladesh mean little. 62.31.55.223 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest 1000 in ODI matches[edit]

His 71 this morning means he has equalled Viv Richards record for the fastest to 1000 runs in ODI's. They both managed the feat in 21 innings. The record should be included and stats updated when the match has finished.

- Can we quanitify this in terms of number of overs/balls?

Certainly not overs, but you could possibly quantify in terms of balls if the the respective strike rates are known as of the 1000 mark. I had a quick look and not been able to find it yet. I'll have a longer loook sometime. As a matter of interest, if you just look at his performances for England, i.e. KP's innings for the ICC team are ignored, he did it in 19. --LiamE 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements[edit]

Is there any reason other than advertising for this section? KingStrato 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see it removed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is useful information. If ever hear Pietersen say anything about Woodworm I shall know he is being paid to say it. It is massively over-paranoid to regard this as advertising. Pcb21 Pete 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is useful information, yes, but it looks out of place...Nikevs 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

verification[edit]

What do you mean you can find no unverified facts? Given that there're five citations for the whole article I would suggest that the vast majority of the article is not verified. Have you ever read the verifiability policy? I am not going to go and put the {{fact}} tag on every unsubstantiated statement in the article, it's why we have the {{not verified}} tag for the whole article. Alun 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously want a source tag on every score mentioned or something? Please point out what needs verification that is not verified by the sources already listed and I'll do my best to improve the article. The article may err towards pov but not unverication in my opinion but thats a different matter. --LiamE 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cites given include the Cricinfo article, which contains a great deal of information. If you can't be bothered to add {{fact}} after every sentence, why do expect us to add a link to cricinfo after every one? Please indicate which information is unverified. Average Earthman 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why this is such a big problem, editors are responsible for verifying their own edits. It is not good enough just to give a list of sources at the end of the article, this does not tell us from which sources each assertion comes from. If unsourced edits creep in, then any reader will assume that these are verified from the list of sources at the bottom, when in fact they may not be. All statements should be properly referenced with in line referencing, this can be done in one of four ways, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation_styles. Personally I prefer the footnotes style as it is less intrusive in the text (like this [1] than the harvard referencing system, which leaves a partial citaton inthe text like this (Bloggs et al., 2006). If you have multiple citations to the same source then you can name the citation like this <ref name="bloggs" >Bloggs ''et al.'', 2006)</ref> then you can use the same source again like this <ref name="bloggs" />, which will point to the same reference like this [2][2]. For example the article states that Pietersen's mother is British and his father is South African, you can point this to one of the citations at the end of the article, so reader of the article know where to look for verification. I strongly recoment you read the three policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research, I have found them a great help. It's also worth having a look at the fact and reference check project and the reliable sources guideline. Personally I think this is a very good article, it might be worth sending it for a peer review and even try to get it up to the standard for a featured article. I am only pointing out ways in which I think the article could be improved.
You can then extract the citations like this <references/> and the citations will appear like this:
  1. ^ Bloggs et al., 2006.
  2. ^ a b Bloggs et al., 2006)

All the best. Alun 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suggest you do it yourself if you're so keen on it. Average Earthman 07:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. quote from verifiability policy, this policy is one of the three non negotiable policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There is no need to be so aggressive. Please observe the assume good faith guideline and the wikiquette guideline. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, surely we are all aiming for the same goal? Alun 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a collaborative effort. But it seems a bit of a one way street. You are happy to quote rules ad nauseam but I havn't seen a single edit from you improving the article. Every fact in the article is verified by the sources so far as I can tell. --LiamE 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And as you seem so fond of rules, try this one WP:AAGF. --LiamE 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So should there be an AAAGF page as well? (joke) OK, if I have caused offence, as it appears I have, then I am sorry, it really was not my intention, I was in actual fact trying to offer an olive branch earlier, maybe it was a lack of skill on my part that I didn't do it effectively enough. The reason why I haven't added any constructive input to the article is because, as I said earlier, it is a very good article, I'm not sure it needs any more than a bit of tweaking (and that is just my POV, other may disagree of course). I did actually think that the suggestions I had made about improving the reference style of the article was constructive, at least it was meant to be, again I am sorry that I expressed myself in an antagonistic way. I will take your suggestion and reference the article in the way I usually use (here's an article fact and reference checked a little while ago Rosalind Franklin. If you find that you don't like it you can revert my changes and we'll leave it at that. Alun 12:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Rosalind Franklin article goes a bit OTT on referencing for my taste - its begining to detract from the artcle - but thats by the by. If the same were done to any cricket article it would be the same ref over and over again which would certainly detract from the article. The cricinfo bio is cited in the first paragraph proper so what would be gained from citing it again after that? Most regular cricket article editors are meticulous with regards to facts and figures and this article in particular has come in for a lot of attention. Compare this article to other leading cricketers like Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting or Jack Hobbs for instance off the top of my head. If you feel that the style of referencing could be changed for the better on these articles and therefore cricketers articles as a whole the Cricket project would be the place discuss it rather than on one cricketer's page. The vast task of getting a bio up for all international cricketers is either complete or nearly so, so now might be a good time to look into what needs to be done next. Incidentaly the Donald Bradman, referenced silmilarly to this, article was denied featured article mainly on length and refs so things perhaps need to be changed/improved but across the cricket bios as a whole not just here. --LiamE 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I give way to your obvious superior knowledge of the whole Cricket project on wikipedia. All the best, Alun 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements again[edit]

I've taken out this text from the "Endorsements" section:

Pietersen and other Woodworm players. Pietersen is also endorsed by Citizen Watches.

There's no need whatever for the external link, which is pretty much pure advertising. The Citizen connection doesn't seem notable unless there's been some newsworthy (not just PR-worthy!) happening that's related to it. Actually I'm not that happy with this section at all: what bat Pietersen uses might be of interest, but since it's directly cricket-related (unlike what brand of watch he wears) why can't that just go in an appropriate place in the bulk of the text? Loganberry (Talk) 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you have a look at the Tendulkar article or the Dhoni article? Endorsing a product needs to be covered as an aspect though i agree that it should avoid sounding like an advertisment. Kalyan 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical updates[edit]

In order to contain the amount of on-going statistical updates, I request they be updated on a match-by-match basis, not run-by-run?

The stability of this article is an important factor of the FA criteria, so frequent changing to run totals etc will detriment this.

–MDCollins (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted one update already - please wait for the source, in this case the cricinfo link, to update stats first. Having 'stats correct to June 6 sourced to cricinfo' appearing "incorrect" will not help this articles FA candidacy. When cricinfo updates their stats at the end of the match, feel free to update the infobox and test match tables, but remember to update the source dates. –MDCollins (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned a bit about his lack of form in the ODIs hope that is okay re: your above comments. SGGH speak! 15:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - now it passed FA it isn't so much of an issue. I gave it a quick copyedit, unfortunately the 52 was Prior's not KP's so had to remove it! Seems a bit short now, sorry about that! –MDCollins (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP[edit]

Kevin Pietersen is often called KP (at least as much as Collingwood is called Colly), which is included in Collingwood's article so shouldn't it be included in this one?Monsta666 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look more carefully :-) –MDCollins (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse sweep six[edit]

Has the reverse sweep six (off Murali) video (and even its mention) been taken off from KP's article? What was wrong with it in the first place? - div333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.150.49 (talk) 10:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I was fiddling with my digital camera, and I managed to record the reverse sweep six. Unfortunately, as I was on the opposite side of the ground you can't see the ball on my video. KingStrato (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International cricketers of South African origin[edit]

I would vote moving this from the See Also section into the lead, perhaps as a wikilink under "moving to England" or perhaps somewhere in was called up almost immediately into the national side. It's just that a See also section with one thing in it seems a bit impotent. Any thoughts? It just occured to me when I was updating the Sri Lankan part, because the See Also was right there. SGGH speak! 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well all quiet on the answers front, I've gone ahead and done it. The link could just be removed as there are cats at the bottom for that sort of thing. --SGGH speak! 22:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief protection[edit]

Pietersens actions today (see here) are causing some serious uproar. I have protected this page initially. It will probably blow over soon so an admin can unprotect if they feel any backlash is no longer on its way. SGGH speak! 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captaincy[edit]

I have corrected the date of his appointment, but this information was placed at the end of the "switch hit" section. It should probably be somewhere else in the entry, perhaps in its own section, I don't know how to do it, can someone else do it? Si1965 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's been done; we now have the info in 3 sections! Si1965 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 times? I can see it in the lead (where it should be) and the captaincy section, where is the other occurrence, or has it gone now? Ged UK (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pietersen entry and bias[edit]

There is quite a lot of evident anti-Pietersen bias manifesting itself in the text for his entry at present - this is most evident in the last bit of the entries in the rundown about him in recent times (though it is not only apparent there).

Firstly, for example, in the entry about his 'switch hitting' (near the end of the text covering his recent performances) the emphasis is on a sceptical viewing of the legitimacy and acceptability of such shots. More coverage is given to those who voiced doubts about such shots than anyone who was entertained or amazed at the skill involved; and the views and arguments of those who have have reacted positively to them are either under-represented or left out (depending on which point one is considering). For example, the fact that the shots have been approved by the MCC - cricket's 'ruling body' - is something which is virtually swamped out by the prominence given to the sceptical voices quoted; and the arguments of those who believe in the legitimacy of the shots - including, importantly, the MCC's arguments which were quoted when they delivered their verdict, are, as I say, either omitted or downgraded. The MCC pointed out various things, such as, that the great amount of skill required to produce a shot suddenly like a switch-hit six, means the bowler has a good chance of getting the batter out when trying such a shot; such arguments in favour of such shots are swamped out in the current representation. There are plenty of voices around who could be quoted - in the same way that 'doubters' have been quoted in the piece as is - as approving of such shots, which would give a far more balanced picture of both what such shots entail and their reception (both generally and by cricket experts). Take Shane Warne recently saying that it was an enormously talented approach and one that KP had only just started with really; but there were plenty of big name cricketers who reacted in approval over the switch-hit six (including the South African bowler who delivered the ball!).

Secondly, in the most recent section that covers KP attaining the captaincy of England, this development is presented in a much-less-than-even way also. Again, prominence is given to the views of commentators unimpressed with KP (what about the views of those who look on his appointment either absolutely positively or, neutrally?). Instead of this recent piece mentioning, for instance, that he has scored highly (again) in this latest series (his five innings prior to this latest test included a huge hundred, and a 94) and putting the award of the captaincy in the context of him being (apart from anything else) England's star batsman and continuing good performances, which you would have thought would be an obvious starting point, the piece simply makes it sound like the appointment should have cold water poured on it, with no mention whatever of his batting for example (which cannot be left out of coverage of either this latest series with South Africa or the reasons why he has been made captain). Instead of a balanced piece of text, we have great prominence given to a single commentator's negative view of Pietersen's performance producing 94 runs in one innings - a view by Jonathan Aggers that was deeply controversial (making it sound as if KP had failed England and should be discounted from consideration for the captaincy because he had 'only' got 94!); not only that but the piece explicitly says that Pietersen was 'widely criticsed' for that innings (failing to give it proper context: a few people like Aggers criticised the manner of his dismissal but there was wider appreciation of the value of one of our batsmen getting 94 runs when the side were in trouble and no-one else contributed in that manner!). Anybody can be made to sound rather bad if you quote a couple of naysayers (whose views were pretty controversial - just look at the comments by readers of Aggers' piece criticising Pietersen for getting 94, on the web page where he did that) and don't add anything else in to your piece (which is what has been done here). Also, the piece is deliberately angled to try and make Pietersen sound 'egotistical' and not a team-player (something his competitors are desperate to try and bring up simply to try and find a flaw of any kind and 'knock back the opposition') - thus the line about how he gave tribute to two previous captains on being awarded the captaincy 'but said he would do things in his own way' (the 'but' is the operative word); why not just say 'he gave great tribute to two previous captains and said he was honoured to take on the job' which is a more accurate representation of what he actually said if you look at it (he said very little about his own approach and rather a lot in laudable praise of his predecessors).

Earlier parts of the entry are also inclined to present him in a light that is less than even (for example, the un-even representation of his time at Nottingham - he is made to sound a wee bit self-oriented by one or two details eg a quote attributed to him but if other quotes were used he would sound fine) but the recent entries are particularly biaised.

Wikipedia is hot on misrepresentation and bias - it would be good if someone could address that. England's most talented batsman (another 100 in the final test vs south africa, natch...quite an achievement in his first test and against his country of birth, after only 3 years of playing for England!...and more important than that there is the hope of the team winning which he would rank vastly more important than his own score) is getting a bad treatment - on the basis of what? innovation and unusual skill (the switchhit), jealousy ('how dare this man become England Captain'!), having had a funny haircut once (trivial and look at other stars who've been a wee bit colourful at some point - eg Warne), and 'the opposition's (ie Australia, South Africa, anyone who wants to beat England) attempt to dent his performances (failing so far) with any old accusation they can think of (eg, 'I don't think he's a teamplayer do you?'). People should go with a man of talent, it shows the remarkable small-mindedness around; but at the least, Wikipedia ought to be able to get a fair entry on the man (it doesn't have to be simple praise - just not the very negative biased entry at present!).

Hopefully someone who has permission can address some of these points!

from A fan, but also someone who simply likes even minded and fair repressentations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by cat10000 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat10000 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)PS apologies if I am getting the style for posting a piece wrong...as the poster of the above text who has now registered themselves, I just wanted to add, if the IP no is appearing at the end of it (?) then I would be grateful not to have any, er, 'complications' as a result of that (!): I'm not sure how this all works (being new to it) but didn't understand the IP no may appear at the end of the piece (my fault, to be sure, should have looked in to this whole Wikipedia discussion thing more, in advance! hopefully people can be understanding of a newbie to it). Apologies if the above duplicates anything else in this thread too, er, as a newbie I wasn't aware other people were posting in the way they clearly are now I see it. Also, I appreciate there are people who'll disagree with the above view and wanted to add it just happens to my view and I do think I've got some good points; but it's not meant as anything more than a point of view (if anybody seems what I mean). Doubt I'll be posting anything else, only thought the points in the above text raised some useful things for thought, I know everybody on here probably has useful perspectives. Another way to put it as that the text as it is that I was commenting on has valuable stuff in it, I just happened to think it could do with some balancing up. Enough whittering!Cat10000 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time in giving us your views. It is very difficult to maintain a neutral point of view, and it is something that the cricket wikiproject (group of editors specialising in the cricket articles) are aware of, and strive to achieve. I don't think this article is particularly bad, I'm sure that a lot of it isn't down to anti-KP bias, but that isn't to say that some of it can't be improved. I agree that there could be more information on his time at Nottingham (I couldn't even find any) but the article is getting quite long now and could be trimmed a bit. The switch-hit paragraph wasn't intended to be written in a negative point of view (I know, I wrote it) and the Aggers quote isn't there to be used in a negative way, merely that the MCC need to look at some of the issues that arise from the legalisation of the stroke, not that decision in itself. I'll have another look. The captaincy bit could be tidied up a little too, I'm sure it will get some attention after his century today (KP proves Aggers wrong...?), especially if England go on to win the Test. I will certainly keep an eye out for your concerns (the article can't be too biased as it needed to be neutral to become a featured article. Feel free to make yourself known to the cricket project (WP:CRIC) as we are always looking for new editors.–MDCollins (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Btw...KP is 6ft4.5 inches tall...article says 6ft2...needs changing —Preceding unsigned comment added by LolKP (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted to 6'4" as per cricinfo. –MDCollins (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the disagreement?[edit]

"his position as captain of the England Cricket team, in the wake of his disagreement with coach, Peter Moores."

But what exactly was the disagreement? The article says there was one but has no specifics as to what it was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.81.85 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited lead for FA main page on 8 July[edit]

Redrafting the shortened lead for the main page feature. Please edit/comment. Kevin Pietersen (born 1980) is an English cricketer. Born in South Africa, Pietersen made his first-class debut for Natal in 1997 before moving to England after voicing his displeasure at the racial quota system in place in South Africa, and to further his opportunities for playing at international level. He joined Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club in 2001 and qualified to play for England in 2004 making his One Day International debut in November, and his Test match debut in the 2005 Ashes series. The attacking right-handed batsman and occasional off spin bowler joined Hampshire County Cricket Club, and cemented his place as one of of the best players in the world. Pietersen became the fastest batsman to reach both 1000 and 2000 runs in One Day International cricket, and has the highest average of any England player to have played more than 20 innings of one-day cricket. In July 2008, after a century against South Africa, The Times called him "the most complete batsman in cricket". He was captain of the England Test and One Day International teams from 4 August 2008 to 7 January 2009 but resigned after just three Tests and nine One Day Internationals, following a dispute with England coach Peter Moores, who was sacked the same day. Pieteresen has the second highest run-total from his first 25 Tests (behind only Donald Bradman and was only the fourth player in history to score 1,000 Test runs in three consecutive calendar years. (more...)

—MDCollins (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, a few comments:
  • Is "and" needed in "...place in South Africa, and to further his..."?
reworded.
  • It should be mentioned in which year he joined Hampshire, although that sentence seems to imply that joining Hampshire was the cause of Pietersen "cement[ing] his place as one of of the best players in the world".
shuffled around so Hampshire is near the beginning.
  • "He was captain of the England Test and One Day International teams": I thought he was captain in all forms of the game, it's just that he never got round to captaining a T20 before his fall out with Moores. Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - forgot that. Changes below. Thanks...—MDCollins (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second draft: Kevin Pietersen (born 1980) is an English international cricketer who plays domestic cricket for Hampshire County Cricket Club. Born in South Africa, Pietersen made his first-class debut for Natal. In 2001, he moved to England, joining Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club, to further his opportunities for playing at international level after voicing his displeasure at the racial quota system in place in South Africa. He qualified to play for England in 2004 making his One Day International (ODI) debut in November, and his Test match debut in the 2005 Ashes series. The attacking right-handed batsman and occasional off spin bowler became the fastest batsman to reach both 1000 and 2000 runs in ODI cricket, and has the highest average of any England player to have played more than 20 innings of one-day cricket. In July 2008, after a century against South Africa, The Times called him "the most complete batsman in cricket". He was appointed England captain in August 2008 but resigned in January 2009, after just three Tests and nine ODIs, following a dispute with England coach Peter Moores. Pieteresen has the second highest run-total from his first 25 Tests (behind only Donald Bradman and was only the fourth player in history to score 1,000 Test runs in three consecutive calendar years. (more...)

2009 Ashes[edit]

The section on the 2009 includes a lot of speculation and in my opinion gives to much weight to the opinions of Nick Hoult. Pietersen may break down, but as Hoult is neither a physiotherapist nor a doctor and as far as I know doesn't have a crystal ball it's mere speculation. Headlines such as "Pietersen could break down at any time" are just intended to catch the eye. Concerns about Pietersen's ankle can be included, but I think the tone of the section needs to be changed to something more formal. Nev1 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one guy, and a lot of people get injured. Pietersen is hardly in the Watson/Gillespie/Sreesanth/Shane Bond echolon of frequently injured. Is the Yuvraj piechucking thing notable? As Dhoni likes to bring Yuvraj on when KP is batting YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100s/50s[edit]

How is it possible that he has 16 centuries but only 14 50s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.223.43 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think it through. I'm sure you'll get there... David T Tokyo (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A century counts every time he gets 100 or more. A 50 is when he scores 50 or more but is out for less than 100. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height conversion[edit]

The template isn't converting his height correctly into metric. 6ft 4in is 1.93m not 1.9m. Any way this can be corrected? Lost4eva (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - we can set the template to 2 decimal places, but I can only do it after the main page protection expires. An admin may get further, but I'll look into it tomorrow.—MDCollins (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA hit count[edit]

Thanks Julian, I think that's a pretty good rate. I think today's FA might get a few more though... Nev1 (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England or English?[edit]

Is the opening sentence correct? " is a South African-born English cricketer", should it be " is a South African-born England cricketer"? Bjmullan (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine. He is an England cricketer because he plays for England. He is also 50% English (his mother is English, his father Afrikaans), therefore he also has English nationality.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have 'English nationality' because 'nationality' is a legal status, and 'England' has no institutional or governmental mechanism for recognising or conferring nationality. It has no sovereignty and is not an independent State.

The correct, legally-recognised term for nationality is 'British'. 'English' is a cultural identification, not a legal nationality. Historically it was, of course, a legal nationality, but that ended centuries ago.

This cricketer plays for the England team. It is an English team, but only as an adjectival description, not as a nationality. There is no English nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.82.208 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KP's sexist remarks[edit]

I don't want to sound like an over-obsessed feminist (being a girl, and all that), but shouldn't KP's controversial sexist remarks about Test Cricket being "a man's game, and not a game for girls", [1] be included in this article? I know that whatever he says, ends up making the headlines, more often than not, but this one definitely needs a mention in the article. I know of plenty of male cricketers who are snooty about the women's game, but he must've been the first person to have come out in the open, and stated it in such a flamboyant and unapologetic manner (despite the fact that the England women's cricket team is one of the best in the world). 59.184.134.21 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you mention it. I do not think that he meant that women should not play cricket, he's saying that you need to be tough to play the game (hence saying "not for girls", not "not for women"). As it is, there is no controversy section, so I don't think this one quote is worthy of its own section --m@tt (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding such comments could be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, so be careful and use as much sources as possible. You may use the biographies of living persns noticeboard if you have any doubt. jfd34 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with referencing and general structure[edit]

This article has been Featured since 2007, and was on the Main page in 2009, but to look at it now, it is far from the best that this site has to offer. The lead is scattered with superfluous citations, while in contrast, the body of the article is littered with "Citation needed" tags. Most of this relates to his career since the main page appearance; and indeed during this time period there is further unreferenced material that has not been tagged (the England in West Indies paragraph in 2009 has no references at all). The level of writing in much of this newer section is lacking the professional-style required for FA status, and certainly needs improvement for the article to retain its current status. The tables in the bottom of the article do not meet MOS:ACCESS. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to make these improvements, but hopefully someone else does. If anyone wants to take on improving this article, I am happy to provide further feedback, otherwise I think it would be best to take this through a Featured article review, and see if anyone in the wider community is willing to help. Harrias talk 15:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kevin Pietersen. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kevin Pietersen. 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.

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) 01:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Kevin Pietersen. 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.

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) 10:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kevin Pietersen. 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.

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) 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teams and shirt number[edit]

So, I've just removed two teams from the infobox which he apparently never actually played for. I can only imagine how they got there and perhaps this is a lesson in why not to add a team before the player has actually made an appearance. I've also removed the club number field for MCC. Could anyone confirm that he actually wore 24 for every team he played for? I'm particularly concerned that he may not have done so for Kwa-Zulu Natal in the early years of his career - it appears to have just been added without any thought to all the entries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference date error[edit]

I think there was an error in reference 20 as the date of the source is given as 30 July 2018 (which is correct), but the date retrieved was 20 July 2009. I have been to the page today so have updated this to today's date to avoid confusion. Dunarc (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Pietersen&oldid=1209755607"