Talk:Ken Anderson (quarterback)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Low-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

I'm curious to know about Anderson's college career at Augustana.

He actually was recruited by Augustana to play basketball and baseball. He wrote the football coach a letter after his senior year of high school asking if he could try out for the football team. Good thing that coach said yes.

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WPBiogaphy 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rejected contribution[edit]

Having just experienced instant deletion of all my expository details about an athlete (Ken Anderson, pro quarterback) before finishing them (mine were additions, not modifications, or changes), I can see that a judgment finding some of the wording "personal," "subjective" and therefore "non-original research" would apply (though perhaps not to every word), but the quickness of the action suggests a violation of the "potentially libelous" charge. If so, I'm clueless without some indication of the words that might provoke litigation against Wikipedia or this author. (For my own protection, maybe I'd better learn what they are.)

  • My question concerns whether Wikipedia itself can be considered and used as an acceptable source in some instances. (For example, my comments included some links to other entries in Wikipedia that would have supported the substance of certain claims and/or assumptions.)
  • A secondary question would be the appropriateness of citing Wikipedia precedents as justification for the author's additions. (For example, the intact sentence by another contributor--"The media did not like [the athlete in question]"--is a very general and possibly subjective assertion that would seem to call for explanation (which I provided before the deletion of my words only.) I realize that this sort of "he did it--why can't I?" kind of argument could become an ultimately thankless, inexhaustible sort of "game" between contributor and the patrolling, or monitoring Wikipedia volunteer, ultimately trying everyone's patience. (Consequently, I can accept the deletion of one of my entries on the grounds of its not meeting the "noteworthiness" test even though I've encountered individuals who actually "boast" about their inclusion in Wikipedia when my familiarity with the individual testifies, unmistakably, to the contrary.)

In conclusion, I'm humbled by my assignment to "Start" status, especially at my age, and will read the recommended pages of regulations, requirements, criteria carefully. At this stage, I wonder if the "Original Research" prohibition, while understandable in the whole, might be overly astringent and counter-productive in some cases. I'm not a historian (literature, the arts, rhetoric are my areas). Still, the close, extensive, personal observations of an individual--or the revelations and discoveries possible only through "oral history"--can contain knowledge and truth (not merely "information" and "facts") leading to a depth and breadth of understanding not possible through reliance on the most "objective" secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caponsacchi (talkcontribs) 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR for your answers. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)