Talk:Tim Tebow

American football player vs. American football player

American football articles typically gloss American football in the introductory sentence, rather than calling someone an "American football player". This was was the subject of a lengthy discussion at WP:NFL a while back; the gist of it was that just linking "football" is insufficient to disambiguate which sport is intended. While WP:MOSBIO recommends that an individual's nationality be included in the intro, that doesn't have precedence over the reason for their notability, which is their sports career. Every player good article I checked (Cato June, Mark Bavaro, Bob Chappuis, Joe Delaney, Tai Streets, Scott Zolak) do it this way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should state the sport (American football) rather than the nationality (American football). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I will simply point out that this is inconsistent with how every other sport identifies their players by nationality, more or less consistently, and is also inconsistent with the WP-wide standard. I suggest we remember that Americans are not the only contributors to English Wikipedia, and not all athletes who play American sports are American citizens. Moreover, the disambiguation argument is somewhat disingenuous when the "American football/football" piped link leads directly to "American football." This is just one of several purported WP:NFL "standards" which are inconsistent with WP-wide standards, most of which are eliminated when NFL bios are critiqued during the GA or FA review processes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That last part isn't true: as I said, every American football biography GA that I checked does it this way. Of course Americans aren't the only ones who read Wikipedia, that's why we can't assume they'll know what we're talking about when we say someone plays "football", which means different things in different places. Tebow doesn't play soccer, Canadian football, or Aussie rules football after all, and the readers shouldn't have to click a link to see that. And since his athletic career is the thing he's notable for, it's more important to make that clear than to clarify what his nationality is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The "last part" was a reference to WP:NFL's eccentric habit of including the birthplace in the lifespan parenthetical in the lead and several other non-standard formatting quirks. At one point, several WP:NFL editors and at least one administrator were deleting the persondata template from NFL bios; they seem to have more than their share of eccentricities. As for the actual piped link vs. nationality question, the same argument could be made with regard to virtually every WP bio. E.g., is it more noteworthy that Bill Gates founded Microsoft or that he is an American? Clearly, the former; however, the two discrete items of information are not incompatible. Perhaps the solution is to include some reference to "Smith is a native of Virginia," by way of example, which would at least permit us to put the subject NFL player in a national context without repeating the word "American" twice in visible text. Please note, in the better-written Canadian football bios, American players are identified as such. Many NBA and MLB players are not Americans. As for Tebow, his lead would require more subtle distinctions, such as "He is an American/United States citizen who was born in the Philipines to American missionary parents." Both purposes can be accomplished, with some creative solutions, if our administrators and better writers attempt to adhere to WP-wide standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As you note, the difference between American football players and players of other sports (and indeed Bill Gates) is that in those cases the nationality does not clash with the name of the sport. There's no dissonance in saying "Derek Jeter is an American professional baseball player" or "Bill Gates is an American business magnate", but we can't very well say that "Tim Tebow is an American American football player." And unlike many other sports, the great majority of American football players have been Americans. This format isn't perfect, but I think it works as well as any other I've seen.

"American Canadian football player", and "Canadian American football player" (for the few that there have been), are not as problematic. If they played both I've seen them called an "American and Canadian football player" or an "American/Canadian gridiron football player" (I personally prefer the latter).

Tebow's birth in the Philippines is already discussed in the bio section; it doesn't need to be said in the introductory sentence. At any rate I don't think any of this is sport-wide issue is going to be resolved at the this one article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest "an American player of Canadian football" or "an American player of gridiron football?" The construction "American Canadian football player" will probably leave most readers confused as to what sport the subject plays and whether his nationality is American or American-Canadian. English is a very flexible language, and in the hands of a skillful user, quite precise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

crying photo

A couple of users keep trying to insert a (purposely) unflattering photo of Tebow on the sidelines during the 2009 SEC Championship Game. I recommend that he, er, I mean, they check out wikipedia's policy on photos in biographies of living persons, which explains why the photo is inappropriate. Also, let we add one more item to the "what wikipedia is not" list: wikipedia is not a college sports smack board. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the file for deletion (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 7#File:Tim-tebow-crying.jpg). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Univoxone, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Tim Tebow's degree is in "Family, Youth and Community Sciences".. not "Services" I know this because I have the same degree from UF.

Univoxone (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Filipino America, or not?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_Filipino_Americans#Tim_Tebow. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

94 Million People vs 94 Million Hits vs Most Searched Term

In the "Tebow Rule" section it mentions that '94 Million People' googled a verse after he wore it on his eyeblack. I checked the site used as reference- http://espn.go.com/blog/sportscenter/post/_/id/31088/tim-tebow-rules-according-to-the-ncaa - which says "94 million people" and links another site. This site - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2009/09/tebow-draws-more-attention-for-eyeblack-messages.html - says 94 Million hits. This is a huge distinction since obviously one hit does not necessarily mean one person. I'm highly dubious of the 94 million people figure since this would mean about a third of the US's population googled it. 82.0.16.12 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this number is dubious. According to Nielson, only about 30 million people watched the BCS National Championship. So unless all 30 million people all told 3 of their friends to go search 3:16 and everyone did it, 90 million people and 90 million hits is way to high. 9.0 million is possible but not also not likely. This should probably be changed to unverrified reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeb90 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should just say Millions of people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeb90 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Within the article under subsection "The Tebow Rule" the following is listed "During his college football career, Tebow frequently wore references to biblical verses on his eye black. In the 2009 BCS Championship Game, he wore John 3:16 on his eye paint, and as a result, 92 million people searched "John 3:16" on Google during or shortly after the game." I'm extremely doubtful that there would be any definitive way to link search results of 92 million people to the actions of one man. The very statement itself is vague stating during or shortly after. How shortly after? An hour, a day, a week? This seems to be nothing more than bluster and there is no way in which it can be corroborated. This just seems like a silly claim to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.31.183 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like a large number, but it was reported by multiple news outlets all over the country, including the NY Times, USA Today, and many many others. You can't remove facts just because you personally think they're unlikely, especially facts with a half-dozen or more good references. That's just basic wikipolicy.

Anyway, I reworded the sentence to clarify timing concerns and to account for slightly different Google search estimates. Zeng8r (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I moved up my comments from further down the page on this topic. Again, I understand what you're saying, Joeb90, but that number is well-sourced (over-sourced, actually) so that's what we have to go with. Zeng8r (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Zeng8r, thanks for being fair about this. 90 million is not as well sourced as it appears. The 87-91 references are not all consistent. The USA today article says that Tebow was TOLD 90 million people searched for the bible verse, not that the 90 million claim had been verified. The NY times article says that it was the most popular search on google that week, nothing about absolute numbers. The Christian Science Monitor, says 100 million, but it has questionable bias. The modesto bee article was written a year after the fact, and hardly has the verification resources of the NY times. The Boston Herald article is currently unavailable. So, the NY Times is the only article written within 6 months of the event, and they only felt comfortable saying that 3:16 was the most searched term that day. This 90 Million claim is weakly verifiable at best, urban legend at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeb90 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tim Tebow Rules! (According to the NCAA) - SportsCenter.com, currently ref #84, is another source, which itself has a link to another article which supports this as well. I had moved this out before due to WP:CITECLUTTER, but it can be added back. May I suggest removing Christian Science Monitor source if its independence is in question. We dont need this many sources. Also note that a source requiring a subscription, like the Boston Herald article, can still be reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The ESPN article is also an interesting one, but it also has a hole in it. Looking at the ESPN article, it actually cites a blog post on the Orlando Sentinel as the source of the 94 million claim. There are 2 problems with this blog post. The blog post is an opinion article which does not go through the same editorial process as the NYTimes. 2. It is a blog post written by Jeremy Fowler who has had run-ins with the University of Florida and Urban Meyer. I would question it's independence. This 90 million claim needs to be scaled back to a more verifiable claim such as what the NYTimes chose which is "most searched term" with no absolute numbers. A simple link to the google trends on that day would validate this simpler claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeb90 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of imprecise wording throughout the various sources does not make something true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeb90 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be clearer if you provided a proposal for wording you would like changed along with suppporting excerpts from reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose deleting the words "generating over 90 million searches" and leaving it as simlpy the most searched term on google. Suppporting excerpts from a reliable source include the NYTimes article "Tebow Returning to Florida for Final Year". A close read of the article shows that an absolute number of searches is never stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeb90 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As you well know since you've been beating this same deceased horse for weeks, there were a half-dozen (or more) citations from good sources for the "over 90 million" number at one point. Some were removed per WP:CITECLUTTER because all those little numbers made the text hard to read. Should we put them all back?

Again, you can't remove well-sourced facts just because you personally think they're unlikely. Zeng8r (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

NFL Magazine

It was just announced that Tebow will appear on the front cover for the first issue of NFL Magazine. Where in the article do we want to add this? Even maybe in the main paragraphs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.97.42 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we also might need to find a reliable image of the front cover. 74.88.97.42 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Left handed

It's unusual for a quarterback to be left handed. My note on this was deleted here. Perhaps that's not the right spot but it's notable and should be in the article.Americasroof (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now in the article. Thank you.Americasroof (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now been moved from the lede because it does not belong there. The lede should contain a brief statement of the reasons for the subject person's notability, and include a summary of the article's major points. The lede is not the proper place to include trivia about his lefthandedness, any more than it is the proper place to state his eye color. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tebowing

Tebowing is NOT a neologism...it does not meet the definition, please remove that. Also, should it be mentioned that it is disparaging in nature? The way it is written now gives the impressoin that they are mimicking him out of adoration, not mocking him in derision. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• "A neologism is a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language." I think Tebowing meets that definition. No comment on the rest of your point. --B (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a relevant link from today's Wall Street Journal: [1]. I won't try to speak for all of Tebow's detractors, but the guy who coined the phrase "tebowing," Jared Kleinstein, clearly intended for the term to have a positive connotation, even if he was having some fun with it. FYI, Kleinstein is a Jew who admires Tebow for his public expressions of faith. That sounds pretty positive, in a very ecumenical sort of way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The sub-section on 'Tebowing' looks good enough to me, (the world 'neologism' is not known to most WP readers but they can assume what it might mean, and to suggest differently, please suggest a different term), but the verb and action has become a worldwide social phenomenon and Tebowing deserves its own WP page! . . .Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It would need enough sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a fad that will probably fade in the offseason, so I don't think that a separate article is warranted. Redirecting to the relevant section in this article is still appropriate, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is good to wait and see (about a separate article), BUT I see a movement that is not related entirely to QB Tim Tebow. It reflects a return to faith and prayer in America. You may not understand that, but many of us do, including more than his many fans. Let's see how it continues. 'Tebowing' may prove popular only in football season. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC) . . .

PS: Further, it has more reader interest than many WP articles, including, perhaps, Tim Tebow's. . . . We'll see. And what about historical reasons? Why wait? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Popularity is not a reason to keep or delete.—Bagumba (talk)

18:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. Namely, "it does not need to have ongoing coverage." However, is there consensus that it "has been the subject of significant coverage" already per GNG. Another article or two that discusses its impact would help. If it was deemed already notable, it wouldnt matter if it died today.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true. However, I don't see what more could be said about Tebowing that would justify moving back to a separate article. It would need some context and history, all of which would be redundant to this article. Besides that, it would become a hard-to-maintain collection of pop culture references, trivia, and general cruft, none of which make for a good wiki-entry. It's best to leave it as a redirect to a Tebowing section in the main Tim Tebow article, imo, so that interested visitors can learn about the term and its origin with one click and a bit of scrolling. Zeng8r (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

February 3, 2012 . . . Interest in Tebow and Tebowing continues: [2] reports a poll where if a top quarterback were president, Tebow wins the poll. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The source wouldnt count toward meeting WP:GNG for a standalone article as it's a trivial mention IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 December 2011

He was the first underclassman to have ever won the Heisman Trophy.[19] This line should be deleted. Please look at the reference at http://www.heisman.com/index.php/heismanWinners For example, two time winner Archie Griffin is the most obvious evidence and argument to delete the above line.. Kobetiha (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In collegiate sports, the term "underclassman" signifies a freshman or sophomore in eligibility. Tebow was indeed the first underclassman to win the award. (Oddly enough, he started a streak of 3 straight sophomores winning the Heisman. He was still the first, though.) Zeng8r (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Griffin was a junior and a senior when he won the Heisman. Juniors and seniors are usually considered "upperclassmen," and freshmen and sophomores are usually referred to as "underclassmen." Tebow was the first sophomore to win the Heisman. Fir the sake of clarity, I will change the phrase from "first underclassment" to "first sophomore" to win the Heisman. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it was better before. Saying "first sophomore" implies that a freshman had already won a Heisman when that has not happened at all yet. Using "underclassman" covers both classifications. Zeng8r (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That works, too, Zen. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So why is the Article back to "sophomore" ? . . . Hmmmm? ... 69.108.137.151 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Homeschooling Movement

In this section, it says "New York Jets Defensive End Jason Taylor" and he now plays for the Dolphins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.164.220 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculously long entry

Johnny Unitas' Wikipedia entry isn't this long or detailed. Let's put this guy into perspective: he's a second-year QB, hasn't set any NFL records or been elected to the Hall of Fame. Unitas was one of the best who ever played. This entry is ridiculously long and tedious. Seriously - each year of his college career needs at least six paragraphs? This entry could be slashed in half. Sd31263 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer here is notability. Tebow is notable and folks want to hear about him. I like football, but do not care for the broncos and wanted to find other info about Tebow. I have not read Unitas' wiki page and do not know about his fath, but this is something Tebow is noted for. If he were hurt tomorrow and could no longer play football, Tebow is the type of person that would continue to set an example with his faith. His notoriety serves as an example to others. There may be better exaples of faith and good acts out there, but right now Tebow is the most notable. The most any of us can do is try our best with the talent God gives us. Tebow isn't even the best QB or football player and that is not the point here. Football is very insignificant. This isn't even about Tim Tebow, but rather his example and the glory of God shown through him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The unsigned response is invalid. This is an online encyclopedia, this article is far too long for one person that has actually had very little impact on the world stage. Some 0.1% of the world population (some football fans, gator fans, and christians) thinks he is great. The college career is over stated severely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.117.36 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fat Head

The last paragraph of the page links to Fat Head the movie, not to the stylized adhesive company. Just sayin'...

Change it to point to the correct thing or remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.200.107 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request: People.com article with his former lab partner saying he believes in evolution.

I'm not sure on whether this is appropriate but considering his growing stature among christians this article seems significant.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20555024,00.html

He says that Tebow believes in "microevolution" Possibly could be added in the "In The Media" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esw116 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly important. The memories of a football player's former biology lab partner regarding Tim Tebow's supposed beliefs about such a topic isn't really important to this article. --Jayron32 05:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Article quality

Is "skillset" a word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.234.117 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to Wiktionary and Oxford and several other dictionaries, though several prefer to put a space in the middle, and spell it "skill set". You are allowed to fix any errors you find. --Jayron32 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tebow's personal names

Question: Is Tebow named for Timothy Richard, the 19th-century Baptist missionary to China? Thanks. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.168.121 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits

There have been a lot of edits and additions to this article over the past couple of days, but imho, pretty much all of the new text needs cleanup if its going to stay, and some of it really should be cut.

To wit, Tebow's philanthropic pursuits are certainly notable enough for inclusion. However, the tone of that new section is far too promotional and peacock-y, to the point that somebody might feel the urge to remove it altogether. Also, some editors have caught a bad case of "recentism-itis" and feel the need to add every trivial quote, event, or youtube video that has anything to do with Tebow. It seems to be well-intentioned, but most (if not all) of it doesn't really belong in a Wikipedia article.

I won't have time to work on anything until tomorrow, so perhaps one of the many excellent editors who have this article watchlisted could take care of these issues sooner than that?... Zeng8r (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012

The second to last sentence of the second paragraph, under the section titled "Early Years" reads:

"Tebow's preferred position was quarterback, but Trinity football team's offense did not rely on passing the football, so he moved into an apartment in nearby St. Johns County, making him eligible to play for the pass-oriented offence at Nease."

The word "offense" is misspelled as "offence"

Ryanfinnegan (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! It's British English spelling, but he's an American and American English is used throughout (including many uses of 'offense'). Dru of Id (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

Please change to "construct" a hospital, not "contruct" a hospital" under Philanthropic Work 75.107.64.56 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing and notifying. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion

Why is Pam Tebow's dubious claim that she was advised to have an abortion (despite being in a country where even giving said advice would be enough to get the doctor a 6-year prison term) being uncritically cited in this article? It's not like there's a lack of commentary to cite that questions her claim.[3][4][5][6] - 24.214.230.66 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

Create a section about "Tebowing". This term is used to describe Tim Tebow getting on one knee during key situations in a game. The term Tebow has become a verb, meaning 'to tebow' and has gained National Attention.

JaceAlbin (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Already done: Tim_Tebow#Tebowing Zeng8r (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the small orange box at the very top of this talk page explains that the term already redirects to the article, and provides a link to the discussion where the term was deleted as a separate article. Dru of Id (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

I have uploaded the photo to the commons. I would like to add it to the following page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Tebow and placed at the top of the "Tebowing" paragraph. The Commons location is

File:Tebowing.jpg

Tebowing

Clemed (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is good; looks like 'Tebowing' includes a brief thoughtful prayer. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent shot, but watermarked images are not usually allowed in the Commons, and they're almost never allowed on Wikipedia's servers. You can read the relevant policies here (Wikicommons) and here (Wikipedia). I'd hate to add the photo to the article only to have it deleted later.Zeng8r (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will remove my watermark and re-upload it to the commons. Ill let you know when I am done. - Thanks

We can use the photo, but it should be noted in a caption that Tebowing typically implies placing head on hand as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Photos for Tebow Page

I made the mistake of uploading the Tebowing photo with my company signature, I have now corrected that. I have uploaded the photo to the commons as well as another photo of Tim. I took both photos at the Denver vs KC game on 1/1/12. I would like to add both photos to the Tim Tebow page. The photo of Tim “Tebowing” should go to the top of the Tebowing paragraph. The photo of Tim throwing the ball would be a great profile page photo. I understand the page already has a profile photo but this one is more current. File:PNS 2707.jpg File:Tim Tebow Tebowing.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemed (talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I recieved a message about a permissions error on the two photos. Below is a copy of the email that I sent to :permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby affirm that I, Ed Clemente is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Photo of Tim Tebow Tebowing and Photo of Tim throwing in pregame warmups. File:PNS 2707.jpg and File:Tim Tebow Tebowing.jpg I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Ed Clemente of Ed Clemente Photography.com [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (copyright-holder)] 1/24/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemed (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are excellent shots; thanks for your contributions! I'll insert them in appropriate places. Zeng8r (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You! --Ed Clemente Photography 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples of Media References and Parody:

Tebow Steak example.com/link_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudleyz03 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy section

Many non-believers, like me, do not consider spread of religion a positive thing in the world. The part where he "assisted in medical care" is one thing, but the next sentence—"In the United States, he has shared his Christian faith in prisons and schools, to church and youth groups, and at meetings and conferences"—says absolutely nothing positive. To people like myself, that sentence simply says he's trying to poison the minds of the young or encourage poisoning of the minds of the young.

I'm not saying he's not doing good, but in my opinion, the stuff that's about spreading religion and faith does not belong in a philanthropy section. DarkPhoenix (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Preaching one's religion is not an inherently philanthropic act, just like campaigning for your Congressman does not constitute a charitable act.

Since nearly a month went by without anybody disputing what you said here, it appears as though we have a consensus on this; therefore, I went ahead and moved "Evangelism" to its own section.

Things like giving medical aid to children still need to be removed from the Evangelism section and placed under Philanthropy, but I'm at work right now so somebody else can handle that part. =) Sir kris (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2012

Tebow is no longer the starter for the Broncos, due to their acquisition of Peyton Manning. Please remove the 'starting' qualifier at the beginning of the article describing his current role with the team:

"...currently the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos of the National Football League (NFL)."

should become:

"...currently a quarterback for the Denver Broncos of the National Football League (NFL)."

72.37.244.76 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There definitely will need to be some changes to the article, but with the wheel still spinning on possible trade deals, maybe we should wait a few days to see how things settle out. You would think that Tebow will be moved soon. Zeng8r (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New York Jets

According to Jay Glazer, Tim Tebow has been traded to the New York Jets in exchange for a Fourth-Round Draft Pick in an as of yet unspecified draft (likely 2012) --Boston Burkenation (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The trade is not finalized!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmarcantonio (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I will switch it back now. --Boston Burkenation (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that trade is not final by any means so it's speculation at best. Remove the see also "List of New York Jets players", re-add the appropriate templates, fix the lead template and paragraph and remove the Jets categories and completely remove the Jets section. Revert to [7] this previous revision where all of that is removed. 24.129.38.231 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for being cautious, but it is done[8] (in addition to the reference that's already in the article). You are getting worked up over nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I see where you're coming from now, no objections. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I removed it from the lead, as there appears to be a hangup in the deal.[9] Let's just leave it out, at least from the intro, until it's sorted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why we should wait for official team announcements not sports blogs as sources for these kind of deals. Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 20:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7718133/tim-tebow-trade-hits-snag-contract-language-source-says

Per ESPN (above); trade's not official, Broncos and Jets now disagreeing on who's responsible for 5mm in future salary paid to Tebow. --Madchester (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As I commented yesterday, in fluid situations like this, it's best to wait to change an article until things settle themselves out. Notwithstanding the eagerness of editors trying to be helpful, Wikipedia isn't a breaking news site. Zeng8r (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Trade becomes official Saturday!

Due to contract language, and other procedural things, Tebow is a Bronco until Saturday. It's all sourced right here in this article: http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7725082/procedural-issue-delays-tim-tebow-trade-new-york-jets-saturday

Fur further reading, he is also listed on the Broncos roster: http://www.nfl.com/teams/denverbroncos/roster?team=DEN

And last but not least, WP:Crystal

Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NCCA QB Rating

I was looking into the NCCA QB Ratings, and in the Tim Tebow post it claims that he had a QB Rating of 176. This is false as his QB rating is only 172.73340101522842 or 172.7. It is also inconsistent to have him be rated at 176 when the highest NCCA belongs to Sam Bradford at 175.6. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Sivadas (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The official NCAA record book (p. 29 in this PDF) actually lists the number as 170.8, which is indeed an SEC record and 2nd to Bradford's NCAA record. Thanks, I'll fix it. Zeng8r (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim Tebow's biggest fan

A message from the Almighty was delivered Friday at the funeral of Russell Francis, the Jets superfan who predicted on his death bed that Tim Tebow would join Gang Green.

“God told me to tell everyone here that Russell was on the winning side,” said the Rev. Mark Taylor at the Open Door Church in Brooklyn.

Before succumbing to lung cancer last Saturday, Francis peered into the future and declared that Tebow, the righteous but left-handed NFL quarterback, would soon be a Jet.

Francis, who was 44, did not live long enough to see his prediction come true.

But Francis knew, the preacher told his flock, that Tebow has what it takes to lead Gang Green to football’s Promised Land, the Super Bowl.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jets-fan-predicted-deathbed-tebow-coming-memorialized-brooklyn-article-1.1049903#ixzz1q3ffJVXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.161.19 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tebow Notoriaty

This article is larger and more complete than the Margaret Thatcher article. Is this really appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.103.174 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a reflection of the interest of the volunteer editors. It wouldn't be appropriate to intentionally make it incomplete at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What Bagumba said. The ultimate goal of the Wikipedia project is to make every article as complete and informative as possible. When you see other entries in need of assistance, please pitch in! There are a few million incomplete articles to choose from. Zeng8r (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of first paragraph

"Commenting on Tebow's play and the attention he has garnered, many football players and observers have said that they 'have never seen anything like it.' "

I think this sentence could use a tweaking. Nothing has really been all that special about his play, it's been mediocre at best. The only thing that is unprecedented about Tebow is the attention. 76.27.139.167 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

<Exasperated sigh> The manner in which he and the Broncos won games was something that people had never seen before, you could say that. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Maybe someone with editing power could add that he suffers from dyslexia. some sources - [10] and [11] Thank you. 72.152.138.243 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)