# Talk:Billy Cannon

how come there is nothing about his punt return verse ole miss in 1959?(it supposedely won him the heisman)

Feel free to put somethign about it. Sf46 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that needs to be covered (but not by me). It's the one thing Louisiana sports fans still talk about when it comes to Billy Cannon, and it gets replayed on TV probably once a year in Baton Rouge. --Michael K SmithTalk  14:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Image:Billy Cannon at LSU.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing edit war over whether or not to keep or delete the crinimal category tag in this article.  As someone sugegsted maybe this needs to be discussed and consensus gained on the subject.
Neutral While I do agree that Billy did get caught in criminal activity, I don't think it is what made him notable.  I think his football career is the main focus of his fame.  If the criminal category is replaced, I think the information about his criminal activity needs to be expanded to justify it.  Sf46 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete criminal category tag.  After seeing the definition of the category, this perosn clearly does not belong in it.  This is the same for many others being erroneously put into this category by User:John celona.  Sf46 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already something going on at Category talk:American criminals. Someone has filed a request for comment, and we are currently waiting for a response. J.delanoygabsadds 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record this article was placed (by another user) in the category 2 years ago so there is no "controversy". The conviction is well-sourced. John celona (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As stated by David in DC on the category discussion page: "Here's what the Category description says: "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime [emphasis added], or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed."
That demonstrates to me that this person does not fit the category as per the definition. Sf46 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I took out a couple of sections for several reasons.  1) They needed heavy editing, 2) One section really needed some references, 3) They should be integrated into the later life section; and finally 4) The fan cheering for Billy at homecoming, does that really equal him being forgiven?  Also, why would it be necessary to include it in the encyclopedia article (especially in its own section)?  Carface (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In the article it states that Mr. Cannon ran 4.12 in the 40yd dash. It lists [2] for the foot note. I read the article indicated there. It doesn't mention the 4.12 time. Where is this time written or verified. I woould like to reveiew it if possible.Flip6608 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The high school shot is 12 lbs., not 16.  So if Cannon put the 16-lb. shot 54 feet in high school, it was not in high school competition.Uniquerman (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked the entire article, with citations. The Times-Picayune newspaper sources aren't linked with URLs because I forgot to copy them down and they're subscription-only. I tried to support info from these newspaper sources with additional sources where possible. Lizard (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy Cannon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon.  JAGUAR  22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"and he was named the game's most valuable player" - not sure if this needs to be capitalised as I've seen it capitalised before
" played linebacker for Texas A&M" - played as a linebacker?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This article is well written, comprehensive and well-referenced. I couldn't find anything wrong with it, so promoted  JAGUAR  14:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that went smoother than I expected. I'm also not sure about "most valuable player." I'll just leave it as is for now. Lizard (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've started looking at this and copy-editing as I go. If I mess anything up (especially changing US spellings, which I sometimes do accidentally!) or you are not happy with anything, feel free to revert. I generally try to take it out of "sports-speak" to make it accessible for the general reader. I'll note any queries here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"He set a state scoring record of 229 points, even though he often played only in the first half of games": I've also tweaked this to "at the time" as it's not clear if this remains a state record; I suspect it isn't.
I've rephrased that sentence, but I managed to get a glimpse on kindle of the source and noticed we have a little issue with close paraphrasing here. This would certainly be an issue at FAC:
Article (before copy edit): "He set a state scoring record of 229 points, even though he often played only in the first half of games."
Source: "and setting a state scoring record of 229 points, even though he often played only the first half of games."
It might be worth having a check through the sources as well to see if there are any similar issues. Spot-checks are required for new nominators at FAC, so if you could point me towards other sources, or provide scans or something similar, we could get that out of the way before nominating. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I ordered the book for Kindle so it's on my mobile phone. I could provide an Imgur link to a screenshot of the text on a page in question. Although I now have access to Newspapers.com, which I didn't when I wrote the article, so I could probably provide additional sources. Lizard (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I might not have explained this very well. The thing we are checking is that our article on here does not resemble too closely the sources that we have used, mainly for reasons of copyright. Every new FAC nominator has close paraphrasing and copyright checks. But we can get to that further down the road. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"Cannon was heavily recruited out of high school": I'm not too sure of the best way to rephrase this, but it will be meaningless to many non-sports fans and almost all non-US readers. Would "courted by college teams" or something similar have the same meaning? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh. I don't really feel it would be worth sacrificing such a familiar (to sports fans at least) term for the sake of catering to non-sports fans and non-US readers. The term is so much a part of US college sports it would be like swapping "scored a touchdown" with "crossed the goal-line with the ball in his possession." Not to mention it's wiki-linked. But if you really feel it's a deal-breaker I can change it. Lizard (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think it is worth doing. In my view, FACs should be the absolute best and should be fully accessible to the general reader. It is better to sort it now than have it torn to shreds by disgruntled readers when it is TFA! (That has happened a few times) I also feel that "courted by scouts" or "Several colleges tried to entice" would be better prose, leaving the issue of jargon aside entirely. However, I would not insist on anything as you have done the heavy lifting for this article and it is your call in the end. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"completed two of four passes for 31 yards": I think this language is standard in a few football articles, including a couple of FACs, but I think it is sub-optimal for FAC (where we need "professional prose", which is often the biggest hurdle for sports articles). Is there a simpler way to phrase it? The obvious one would be to miss out "of four" but I'm not sure what effect this would have on the sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose we could take out "of four." He threw the ball to a receiver on his team 4 times and it was caught twice. But the purpose of the sentence is to illustrate Cannon's large body of work for the game, which it would still do effectively if we dropped "of four." Lizard (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that makes more sense to me, I wonder is there a way we can say this in the article as it would tell the general reader a little more as well. One way that works quite nicely in sports articles is to use notes; perhaps retain this phrase in the main body (I'd be inclined to replace "for 31 yards" with "to gain 31 yards" or something a little less jargony, then add a note (or even use parenthesis) which states something along the lines of "i.e. he threw the ball to a receiver on his teams four times. It was caught twice". Then we can use the jargon later in the article without having to worry. Just a thought! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"had 36 yards rushing on thirteen carries": Similar issue: I think this would be meaningless to the general reader. Is there a way to simplify without over-explaining? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Is "carried thirteen times for 36 yards" better? Lizard (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Again, I'd prefer "gained" or similar but I suspect "for" works perfectly well here. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"after being picked to finish last in the conference": I've reworded this as "predicted" but I might be missing something here if there is a different meaning. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That's better. This was one of my earliest articles so it might contain a few more such informal phrases. I literally face-palmed when I saw there was a contraction in the prose of the college career section. Lizard (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry. There aren't any glaring issues that I've found so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
-

"to give Cannon more playing time on offense": I cut "on" here, if that works, but would prefer "to give Cannon more offensive playing time". Does that work? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"to give Cannon more playing time offense"? If that's what you mean by cutting "on" that wouldn't really make sense. But your second suggestion works fine. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, but I'll leave it to you to decide which version you want. Feel free to revert what I did. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"LSU entered the season with talent and depth on both sides of the ball.": A bit jargony. I'd prefer a rephrase of this. Something like "LSU began the season with talent and depth in offense and defense"? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that's better. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"The following week the Tigers were ranked first in the AP Poll. The team remained there as it finished the regular season undefeated and was named national champion by the AP and UPI.": Hmm. I had to follow the link to understand this, and the second sentence is a little unclear. How about "After their victory, the Tigers were ranked first in the AP's weekly poll to rank football teams. It remained top of subsequent polls, finishing the regular season undefeated and was named national champion by the AP and UPI." Does that work? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, but wouldn't "It remained atop of subsequent polls" be better? Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That sounds a little odd to me, but I think that's simply WP:ENGVAR, so feel free to change it to "atop". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"He had 598 rushing yards and scored six touchdowns in total.[13] However, his performance on Halloween night and his defensive play throughout the season was enough to convince voters.": I'm not quite sure what we are trying to say here. Does this mean that his stats were not really impressive, but his defensive play was what persuaded the judges? It also made me think that we perhaps need a sentence earlier on to say what the Heisman Trophy was and who judged it. It is usually best practice at FAC to provide the reader enough information so that they can understand without having to follow links. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'll include some background and explanations. Those stats (especially to a modern reader) seem paltry, but I didn't really explain that very well. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"Contract dispute": I feel like we need a bit more here. Is there no commentary on this other than the judge? Did deGravelles say anything about it in his biography? Did Canon himself talk about it? Were the Rams trying to trick him? Did Canon know he was breaking the contract? I think this needs developing a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll see what I can add. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"The AFL's victory against the established NFL helped bring legitimacy to the fledgling league": Again, a little more would be good. Could we say earlier that the AFL was newly formed? Did they deliberately try to sign Cannon in an attempt to bring this legitimacy, or was that just a side effect? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Again I'll try to add context. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"Cannon fully bought-in to the Raiders organization and game-plan by 1967": I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to say here. He was reluctant before but now decided to believe in it? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've re-worded it to convey that the reason he fully bought-in was because he believe a championship was imminent. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"including one of 48 yards in the second quarter of the infamous Heidi Game": I'm aware of this game, but I'm not sure we should be calling it infamous, as that suggests a POV. Unfamiliar readers might wonder what this was, but I think the link is sufficient in this case. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, there certainly were people who wanted to watch Heidi that day. How about just "famous"? Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Famous works fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"Cannon was an honorary pallbearer at the funeral of former Teamsters Union business agent Edward Grady Partin, whose testimony in 1964 had sent Jimmy Hoffa to prison for jury tampering.": Did Cannon have some connection with him? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This was one of the very few sentences I left in from a previous editor, and I wouldn't be opposed to excluding it since it's kind of a non sequitur. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If we can't find the connection, my inclination is to cut it, but I'll leave that to you. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: I believe that's everything. After any responses you may have I'll go over all that was discussed here and make changes accordingly. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If I haven't replied to a point, it's fine with me. I haven't made any changes based on this, and I'm happy to leave the last bits to Lizard. If you ping me just before you nominate this for FAC, I'll have a last look through for anything unclear or jargony, but I think this is pretty close to FA standard now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times says Friday (May 18th) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/obituaries/billy-cannon-dead-football-heisman.html http://archive.li/T6xEy
LSU Football's twitter feed says Sunday (May 20th): https://twitter.com/i/moments/998226104627449856
Which is the correct date to use in the wikiarticle? --PFHLai (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times seems to be alone in saying Friday 18th. Every other source I've seen says it was Sunday morning. I think we should go with the majority and assume the NYT made an error in this case.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I find "Cannon holds the NFL record for the most yards from scrimmage in a non-overtime game (330 against the New York Titans in 1961)[83] and is tied with four other players for the most touchdown receptions by a running back in a season (nine in 1961)."
Perhaps add a note about inclusion, in NFL records, of things actually happening in AFL before the 1970 merger?

Carlm0404 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Billy Cannon statue-crop.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)