Talk:Jimmy Clausen

message: I know, it has already been discussed whether Clausen is noteworthy or not. But he definitely is! He was featured in Sports Illustrated, he won prestigious awards, millions of football fans know his name. --Bender235 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Speedy Deletion this time! 

message: I wasn't sure where to place this so I chose here.  Clausen did NOT lead Oaks Christian to their 3rd staight State Title.  Region Titles yes.  State titles were only re-established last season in Cal.  Making the 3 straight titles impossible.  —Preceding unsigned Robertplant 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply be WP:BOLD and correct the article with a reference. -- KelleyCook 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 State Titles is wrong 

message: *KelleyCook deleted the paragraph noting criticism of the Jimmy Clausen recruiting period hype.  I've added it back to the article as 1) it balances out the article's numerous preceding references to Jimmy Clausen recruiting hype, and 2) the skepticism and doubts about the hype were notable and sufficient enough to attract the referenced New York Times article discussing them.  I removed the line about Clausen's having been outplayed by Ryan Mallett in the Army All-American game because despite it being a widely voiced opinion (the announcers at the end of the game ranked Mallett's performance ahead of Clausen's), the only reference for the opinion cited was from a biased source. -- TexasDawg 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skepticism about Jimmy Clausen Hype

message: Is it really necessary for this bio to contain every single article and or criticism that is written about the kid?  He has yet to take a single snap at the college level and if the current trend continues, he's going to have the longest bio in college football because every time there's an article, people extract junk from it and post it here.  Can we all relax a little?Fuhreeus 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Obsession... 

message: While recent edits may be viewed as being not having a NPOV, they are indeed true. As the quarterback, Clausen would indeed 'preside' over the team, and would indeed be at least partially responsible for the offensive drought. ALL of the statements are well sourced, and while it may APPEAR to be lacking NPOV, I dont believe that it is. Criticism in an article isn't a bad thing. Mientkiewicz5508 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not specific or direct criticism of Clausen. It is innuendo, conjecture. Find specific criticism that states due to Clausen's play the team is 0-4, and then you've got something worth mentioning. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why it says that Clausen 'presided' over ND's 0-4 start. It doesn't say he was responsible, it simply states that as the team's leader and quarterback, he oversaw an 0-4 start. It's not far fetched or lacking NPOV.Mientkiewicz5508 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that's why it is irrelevant conjecture. The fact he "presided" over it is meaningless without a direct and specific reference to his particular performance/contribution to the losses. This is a sneaky way of getting some POV attacks into an article. Not enyclopedic at all. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are going to have a page about a quarterback, you have to talk about his on-field accomplishments.  That includes a win-loss record and an offense's accomplishments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.16.68 (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, while mentioning that ND has yet to win a game with Clausen as QB might be a neutral and relevant fact, inclusion of rhetoric such as "Clausen presided over a historic offensive drought" is unnecessary POV posturing. Relate the facts, leave the fluff out. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Further, the statement is inaccurate in that Clausen was not QB for all of those scoreless quarters, nor all of those 4 losses. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are clearly obsessed with making Clausen look as good as possible.  He is on wikipedia because he is a quarterback, so his performance as a quarterback should be freely mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.16.68 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith - I merely am trying to create an accurate and unbiased encyclopedia article. Please don't accuse me of anything, let alone a 3RR violation, which has not occurred. Yes, his performance as QB should be included, so feel free to post actual statistics on his quarterbacking. But suggesting via innuendo that he is responsible for 13 quarters of scoreless play, and an 0-4 start -- especially when he didn't start all four games or play in all 13 quarters -- is at best, inaccurate, and at worst, POV. Please stop. --ZimZalaBim talk 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now added actual statistics. Please cease your reverting or you will likely be blocked for violating 3RR. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical tidbits

message: I see a third opinion request was rendered for this article.  Can the two parties involved place short, succint and neutral statements noting the issues involved beyond what is stated above?  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This inclusion is inappropriate as it is inaccurate (noted above), non-specific to Clausen, and suggestive in a non-neutral tone. My most recent addition of stats is neutral and specific to him. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third Opinion - I have read both entries listed within this string.  Both entries, to me, have issues.  From here forward, accuracy and WP:NPOV is our best route.  The article as it stands right now has several issues with weasel words and superlatives that may or may not help the NPOV that should be maintained.  My opinion is that at this time, the article and the QB stats should be left static.  If after several weeks there is addtional information to add, perhaps a discussion and revisit of the article and the section in question could be accomplished at that time.  This is just my opinion.  I hope it helps.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion Request 

message: I changed his birth date he was born in 88 not 87  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.232.65 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. Clausen was born in 1987. He is in fact a 20 yrs old true freshman. ––Bender235 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Birth year of 1987 confirmed here. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date

message: 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 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I just erased the entire Early life section because it was vandalized. Can someone please fix it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.91 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I thoroughly believe this section violates WP:BLP privacy policy namely:
:Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
:When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
The young man is known for being a football quarterback.  This article devoted approximately a third of the article to section entitled "Alcohol-related incidents" regarding two seperate events from years ago (getting a citation for driving an overage person to an alcohol store when he was not drinking and a picture with him holding what appears to be a beer cup) that happened two years ago and ended up having no legal consequence and regardless of third party sources is clearly not Germain to why Jimmy Clausen is deemed Wikipedia WP:NOTEworthy.  On the second issue, the legal system properly dropped it as pointless, It is not Wikipedia duty to carry it on forever. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is properly sourced and gained national attention.  When the quarterback of Notre Dame gets arrested for alcohol-related incidents, national attention tends to be garnered.  Given that there are two separate incidents, there's not really any bias or special weight being given to this section of the article.  You may want to re-read BLP, if you insist on using it as a crutch. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, if indeed the first charge was dropped, instead of deleting the mention, you would make note that the charge was dropped.  This leads to a more neutral article, rather than just erasing, as you seem content to do. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah.  Just took the time to read some of your contribs and talk page.  Looks like we've got a "domer homer" here folks.  The situation suddenly makes more sense. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alcohol-related incident" un noteworthy and violates [[WP:BLP]]