Talk:JaMarcus Russell

Relationship

JaMarcus isn't dating a relative of Fats Domino.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9180309/

"The 77-year-old R&B singer and his family are friends with the family of Russell’s girlfriend, sports information director Michael Bonnette said."

Someone edited this page and stated that in JaMarcus' first game, the Raiders lost. The game hasn't been decided yet. It is currently being played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrliang (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Word usage/Awkward sentance

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace "By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds, as well as received his first recruiting letters and became more adapt with the playbook." with "By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds. He also began to master the playbook and started receiving his first recruiting letters." Lasomething (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to suggest the following compromise: By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds, had received his first recruiting letters and was becaming more adept with the playbook.. This corrects the spelling mistake (adapt -> adept), and is grammatically more pleasing. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 Season

Showing up @ 290 pounds is false, and the reference is a rumor site any way. It was reported he showed up @ 271 pounds, still 11 pounds over his listed weight, but not 290. Mikesd (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Penngulf, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Though the statment below lists an article cite, it is not accurate:

However, initial reports say that Russell had a good first minicamp and is in great shape.

The article says that Russell had a good first DAY of minicamp. Further, the 'cite' is a columnist's take on the first day of a Spring mini-camp. It is an editorial article, not a statment of fact, and does not merit inclusion in the Wiki. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt to mitigate the preceding paragraph's statements.

Penngulf (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reworded both paragraphs I changed it from "initial reports" to the exact source, which is more appropriate, I think. RF23 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pantheon of draft busts?

Perhaps its too soon to add that sort of comment (I think it is), but I also think it's good to keep track of articles like this since --in about a season or so-- we're going to know whether or not its official. This ESPN article does have some interesting info for now and the future like:

• "owner Al Davis finally lost patience with the immensely talented but unproductive player he drafted first overall in 2007 against the wishes of former coach Lane Kiffin."
• "Russell will now likely be considered one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history, joining Ryan Leaf, Ki-Jana Carter, Akili Smith and others on that list. He will have been paid more than $39 million by the Raiders, while producing only seven wins as a starter."
• "Since the start of the common draft in 1967, only one other No. 1 pick was released this quickly in his NFL career. Indianapolis cut 1992 top pick Steve Emtman after three seasons but that was more because of injuries than production."
• One of their analysts separately wrote: "The Oakland Raiders can finally move on from what must be considered the biggest all-time draft whiff."

Anyway, if people want to add stuff now or later, I thought I'd keep this noted here. --Bobak (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC) He is excellent at eathign fried chicken and watermelon. And more chicken.

I agree that it's too soon. You can't call someone the the biggest bust until AFTER they retire. If it was to have the label "biggest bust" on the article, I think it would need to have more than just 1 reference, I'm guessing around 4 or so that all distinctively call him the worst bust. RF23 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert of POV fancruft type edit: 2010-05-14

An editor tonight made a fancruft type edit that deleted two citations. Lede paragraph was restored. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's "neutral rewrite" deleted the citations again. They are well reported by many sources. Please don't delete citations. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete them.. i moved them to the proper section. Please don't be an idiot and blindly revert. Pay attention.RF23 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NPA policy, comment on edits and not editors as in your previous statement. WP:LEAD allows controversy in the lede paragraph and it can be repeated in subsections. Please don't delete citations again. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The way it's written (the way you keep putting it back in) it doesn't follow WP:NPOV. Don't try and be a policy hound. The people who edit the NFL articles on Wikipedia generally know what they are doing, and there seems to be a consensus among them for shorter leads then normal, anyways. RF23 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

plus, 2 sources is not "many sources". If it's in there, it needs at least 4 definitive sources or so. RF23 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. The edit has been and doesn't nee four sources. Please see WP:RS. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get this settled before anyone gets blocked. Morenooso, the lead before had many POV problems that Ringerfan tried to fix. Even though it was sourced, it did not belong in the opening paragraph. Further down, in a different section, fits better. Ringerfan, leads are brief summaries of the entire article. While the "NFL editors" like to keep consistency with the general 3-4 sentence leads, they are allowed to be longer. Just look at the lead for Javon Ringer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree but if you would do a "neutral re-write of the paragraph with the sources it had, I'd be open to see what you come up with. WP:LEAD allows controversy in it. It says verbatim, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. I follow a number of college articles with worst controversies than this one. Unfortunately the subject of this article is being discussed in this manner and . . . wait for it, I am a Raider fan but I park my fanship because I have to be a Wikipedia editor first subject to WP:V. An editor should write from the heart but what is available through reliable sources. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like pointing to WP non-article pages on stuff, but: WP:BLP & WP:NPOV are far more important than WP:LEAD and WP:V. Note the Differences between policies and guidelines. BLP & NPOV are policies. Lead is a guideline. WP:UCS & WP:IAR apply here. Also, make sure to brush up on WP:NOTVAND just to be safe.

But really, the whole main thing that applies here that over-rides any other guideline or policy is WP:WELLKNOWN. The initial IP edit were wrong, in the fact that it simply removed the material. My edits were putting the material in it's proper place and re-writing it to follow policy properly.

Specificality (if that is even a word-if not- i just made it up to describe something- i think everyone can figure out what i meant) is more helpful in articles. For Example, if you say "Some people say [Person x] is [thing x]" and only have 2 sources, people who read that and don't put to much thought into it may think that many many people hold that theory. It's very vague (some people could mean 2 people or it could mean 2 million people) and leaves the article up to interpretation. The correct alternative to clean up any possible confusion would be "[Person X2] and [Person X3] have described [Person X] as [thing x]." Unless it's considered a consensus (ie, they do a poll of 25 sports writers or something along that lines) it really doesn't belong in the lead, nor does it belong in the article at all in it's previous spot.

Let's look at it another way, in some relation to this:

Let's say some two obscure sports websites (we'll call these hypothetical websites Thebestsportingnewsever!!!!.com and ultra-sports-monthly.net ) (also for this situation- assume that both website are considered WP:RS) both give an NFL player the award "Best WR - NFC East- Week 8".

Instead of saying in his article: "Some sources state he is the best WR in the NFC"

it would be better (since it doesn't imply any sort of vague un-particularity (Am I making words up again?)) to say:

"Thebestsportingnewsever!!! and utlra-sports-monthly labeled him the best WR in the NFC east for week 8.

That is much more specific and prevents the article from being overtly vague. The reader can't make guesses because it's a explicitly stated.

I don't consider this an edit war, nor is there any vandalism. Specifically, this is just a couple of editors who aren't seeing on the same page. Maybe we're reading different books? RF23 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)