Talk:Lawrence Taylor

MVP Award

The entry said that Taylor was one of only two defensive players to win the AP's Most Valuable Player award. In fact, he was the fourth the entry listing the winners (NFL Most Valuable Player Award shows DE Gino Marchetti in 1958, LB Joe Schmidt in 1960, and DT Alan Page in 1971. I updated the article accordingly. Anson2995 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The information on Marchetti and Schmidt is false. Neitehr of them were teh NFL MVP. They were teh AP defensive linemen of the year.12.41.183.194 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Page was the first AP MVP that was a defensive player, L.T. was the second.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

the only defensive player to ever win the award unanimously?

I'd like to see the verification of this. Is this claiming he got all the votes in the AP MVP or that he was the only guy to win and MVP that year. Phil Simms won the NEA MVP, a recognized MVP award, recognized by the NFL record and Fact book. I think the word "consensus" rather than "unanimously" would be accurate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Film Credit

"In 2004 Taylor began trying to start a career in acting, appearing in the Oliver Stone movie, Any Given Sunday." How does this work if AGS was filmed in 1999.

Correct, changed in the article. Quadzilla99 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Drug Abuse

Similar problem: "After admitting to cocaine abuse in 1999, he was suspended from football for 30 days in 1988 after failing a drug test." This sentence doesn't make sense for obvious reasons. --Whit 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that LT changed the way that teams now pick a QB. They are now forced to pick QBs that are bigger and stronger vs. accuracy and arm strength. Note what LT did to Neil Lomax, Joe Theisman and Ron Jaworski.

Photo

I found a photo for him (that's complete crap) but we still need to find a better one. Quadzilla99 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat better photo was found. Could still use a better one. Quadzilla99 12:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

MSN Encarta source

I used MSN encarta as a source and I have two things to note about that:

1. Currently you can access MSN encarta for free if you come across it via msn search. So just go to msn.com and type encarta in the search bar and you can access encarta and this source for free. If this should ever change see #2.

2. A source that requires payment to be accessed is completely viable. All magazines, books, and newspapers require you to pay for them. Just because something isn't freely available on the internet doesn't mean it's an invalid source. Quadzilla99 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Colors

There should not be colors for past players (I was the one to make it eligible for use), because lets say Reggie White for example, whatt color are you going to use? It will create wars. --Phbasketball6 00:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as Taylor only played for one team. I'll wait for your response before reverting. Quadzilla99 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know and I thought of that too, but when other users will see it then they'll start doing it for everyone. (I already had to revert alot of former Bronco players that played for more than one team.) Thanks --Phbasketball6 00:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you put in a blue and white format, I personally liked the blue and red format better. Was there a discussion on this? Personally the blue and white looks a little drab to me. Quadzilla99 10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good point and I agree, good job so far on the article. Thanks --Phbasketball6 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Red on blue is very bad. The contrast is insufficient. The colors clash with each other. Bright red text on a bright blue background isn't conducive to reading anything. fethers 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can all three colors be incorporated? The blue on white is way too drab and bland. Quadzilla99 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the red on blue I just put on the article? The red doesn't pop as badly, and the blue is darker. fethers 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. If it's still a problem, maybe someone could come up with red letters with white borders. Quadzilla99 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean to put on top of the blue background of course. Quadzilla99 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding that combination very difficult to look at. I don't have the highest tolerance for contrast issues, so I'll leave the final decision up to people with better eyes, but we should probably take into account that a certain segment of the population will have trouble reading the text. -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, in a side by side comparison, the new shade of red is actually slightly worse than the old one, at least for me. And I see that the infoboxes for Mel Hein, Frank Gifford and Charlie Conerly all use a much easier on the eyes white on blue combination. -- Vary | Talk 16:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I removed it. It looks legible, but horribly bland to me. There has to be some way to put a white border on the red letters. Quadzilla99 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition it's inaccurate as the two main colors of the team are blue and red. White is probably the third most prominent color. There has to be some manageable way to incorporate red with blue. Quadzilla99 16:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that we don't even need to use colors. If we are going to use colors, "bland" is what we're going for, because we want everyone to be able to read it. I think white on blue is completely the way to go. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article, not design a webpage, right? Edit: Oh. I get what you're looking for. There's no way to border a font in a different color than it's using. It'd have to be an image to do that. Because of how infoboxes work we're limited to two colors. Like I said, white on blue seems to be the best way to do it. fethers 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooof, that looks worse than before. fethers 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LT- MJ Gambling

I was gonna add this but since it's so little known and died out so fast, it's basically trivia so I removed it. Anyway here it is all tabloided up and ready to go:

In the Summer of 1993 Taylor became a peripheral figure in the Michael Jordan gambling saga that rose up around the Chicago Bulls star during the 1993 NBA playoffs. Jordan and Taylor had developed a friendship and played golf together regularly often wagering on their games. Taylor admitted that gambling had taken place but disputed the amount suggested by Richard Esquinas ($150,000), in his tell-all book on Michael Jordan. Later a source close to the situation told the New York Times that the amount of the debt was closer to $1,500. Quadzilla99 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This article of Lawrence Taylor, in no doubt should be a good article. --Phbasketball6 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

removed sentence

I removed this sentence in lieu of a source, "Taylor has become a consumer of well-known health and wellness products and spends a good deal of time promoting good health and natural, toxin-free living." Quadzilla99 06:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WWF Career

I remember Lawrence Taylor sitting in the audience of WWF Royal Rumble 1995 and making fun of Bam Bam Bigelow because Bam Bam Bigelow was in a match against the 1-2-3 Kid and list and Bam Bam Bigelow slapping him resulting in Lawrence Taylor getting mad and wathing to fight Bam Bam Bigelow which resulted in the two of them in a one-on-one match at WWF WrestleMania XI. What is this not on his profile? gibsonj338 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to it in the article, where it says "engaging in matches with Bam Bam Bigelow among others", click on that. Quadzilla99 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the After the NFL and recovery section. Quadzilla99 06:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited this section for accuracy, since the "engaged in matches...among others" bit is misleading. LT wrestled only one WWF match, that being the contest with Bigelow which was precipitated by the Rumble encounter. In fact, the match was advertised by WWF using the slogan "First Time, Last Time, Only Time."Bgdddymtty (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Small original research concerns

I believe the following sentence is original research:

"Taylor's prominence on the team that year is witnessed by the fact that he appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated alone the week leading up to Super Bowl XXI"

How does one source this? This is a speculation on what were the reasons that led the Sport Illustrated editors to chose what would appear on the magazine cover.

On an unrelated point, we don't need to use the unfree magazine cover just because we mentioned the magazine issue. Although this is highly abused across Wikipedia, magazine covers should only be used when the cover itself is notable. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The cover is notable (obviously), and the wording has been changed to satisfy your NPOV paranoia. SI covers usually feature several people before the Super Bowl that year they only featured him on the cover. Maybe your not familiar with SI's prominence (especially in the pre-internet era) but it's common knowledge how prominent it is in America. Quadzilla99 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Used as a source

This article was used as a source in the Cornell Daily Sun.[1] Quadzilla99 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA

I don't see any reason not to pass this article, as it passes all the criteria no problem. I'd say take this to peer review as a potential FA candidate, as if nothing else it's close to that already. Actually at first glance, before you took this to GAC, I would've said just go straight to FAC with this.--Wizardman 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got one or two books on him coming in the mail that I want to read first to make sure I haven't left anything out and then I'll go for it. Quadzilla99 18:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sacks

If I have to be totally honest, I'm a huge L.T. fan. However, I can't see any legitimate reason for his official statistics section under his profile to say 142 sacks. The fact is, he has 132.5 sacks, period. That's the recognized total. To say 142 sacks is to editorialize on the NFL's statistical policy. It's enough to note in the article in several locations that he was noted as having 9.5 uncounted sacks in his career. But you can't say he has 142 sacks in the official stat section if he is just plain not officially credited with such a thing.President David Palmer (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as "editorialize on the NFL's statistical policy", I don't know. As has been brought up, the NFL's statistical policy is not the standard here. My underatanding is that if the New York Giants list Taylor as having 142, then that is verifiable, no?72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No one says his total is "official". It is verifiable, which is the wiki standard. It is enough to not that the 9.5 in 1981 are unofficial. If someone wants to get his official, NFL cetified number they can go to the Elias Sports Bureau. The fact is Taylor plaed in 1981, and he had 9.5 sacks. Further, there is no "official" stat section. It is an infobox with verifiable information. Who do you work for the NFL? Elias Sports Bureau. Buy a New York Giants media guide and see how many sacks they crediti him with. Just because the NFL did not officially count sacks until 1982 does not mean they were not recorded in the offical game records. You have a lot to learn about NFL stats.12.41.183.194 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Taylor's 142 sacks are verifiable, which is the standard for wiki. WHile his 9-1/2 sacks in 1981 are not official, they are verifiable and should be shown as such. As long as there is the asterisk showing that the NFL of recognizes 132.5 of those sacks then the Taylor bio should show the accurate number. WIki does not have to conform with the NFL for "official" stats in my opinion72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The official stat is the one everyone goes by, which is why Strahan was recognized as the Giants all-time leader when he recorded more than 132.5. Trevor GH5 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not everyone "goes by" the so-called NFL official stats. Get an offical New York Giants media guide, they list Taylor as having 142 sacks, but that 132.5 is official. There is a good New York Time article in 2006 about this when Strahan officially passed Taylor. It pointed out the problem. The standard ofr Wikipedia is verifiable and as long as the 142 sacks are verifiable, then you don't need to keep changing it, do you?72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The official stats are the one we recognize here, go to WP:NFL if you disagree. Marcus Taylor (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs fixing

There's a extra column that was unnecessary and it made a huge gap in the article as a result, someone please fix it.Iamhungey (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Iamhungey (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC?

Does anyone think this is ready for FAC?. It's a GA and has gone through2 peer reviews. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Lawrence Taylor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article is very good, currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is good, an 8/10.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• At least one reference is improperly formatted, take a quick scan through them.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Julius Peppers

I went ahead and deleted the end few sentences in Taylor's college days that relayed an anecdote about Julius Peppers. Basically the passages were talking about how Peppers was compared to Taylor and then it when on to say Peppers was flattered but was anxious to get out of Taylor's shadow. Frankly that has no business in this article. I can see putting it in Peppers's article but in what possible way is the anxiety that Peppers felt about being compared to Taylor significant for Taylor's bio? I could see putting Peppers in a list of linebackers at USC who were compared to Taylor maybe. But talking about how Peppers dealt with that, or how any linebacker dealt with that while at USC is completely irrelevant for this page. If you think I am wrong feel free to tell me why. I just don't see why such trivia, that's really about someone other than the subject of the article, deserved to be here.Jdlund (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.140.201.38, 6 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Now, accused for raping a 16-year-old girl 99.140.201.38 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Already done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ltaylormug.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ltaylormug.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsection for Legal issues; remove trivial drugs section

Great article, but needs editing to remove trivial drugs section. Also to highlight substantial legal issues in (sub)section that subject of article has faced, since there are a number of incidents, all with verifiable, reputable references. Any insistence on keeping the trivial drugs section, and not adding a very germane legal issues (sub)section points to a bias in editing that should not be a part of this article. 71.176.50.18 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this. I disagree. The info you want to add is subtrivial, like the specific dates and such and the bail amount. It just seems like you want to create a dumping ground section for negative info. All the stuff is already mentioned chronologically. I also don't know how on God's green Earth you can say all that info about his drug use is unimportant. And then to imply that someone is biased in favor of Taylor by putting in the fact that he was a crackhead is bizarre. I don't really understand where you're coming from. Trevor GH5 (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A subject who has had a significant number of legal issues throughout his life ought to have those mentioned in the article, in a subsection, at the very least. If one is to separate out drug use as a main section, why not, at the very least, note the specific of the legal problems that were alluded to the the lede/narrative of the article, if only to maintain a NPOV in this article. I mean really, a full section titled "Drugs and extreme measures", which is also prominently indexed in search engines such as Google is not prejudicial to the subject? C'mon now.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.50.18 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what in God's name you are saying about the Drugs section which btw has been there for like four years now. The legal issues were already mentioned. Its not like anything is hidden or not covered. What will creating another section do? Trevor GH5 (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)