Talk:JaMarcus Russell

message: JaMarcus isn't dating a relative of Fats Domino. Jamarcus Russell is the biggets bust everrrrr!!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9180309/
"The 77-year-old R&B singer and his family are friends with the family of Russell’s girlfriend, sports information director Michael Bonnette said."
Someone edited this page and stated that in JaMarcus' first game, the Raiders lost. The game hasn't been decided yet. It is currently being played.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrliang (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship

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 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Please replace "By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds, as well as received his first recruiting letters and became more adapt with the playbook." with "By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds. He also began to master the playbook and started receiving his first recruiting letters."   
Lasomething (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to suggest the following compromise: By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds, had received his first recruiting letters and was becaming more adept with the playbook.. This corrects the spelling mistake (adapt -> adept), and is grammatically more pleasing. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Word usage/Awkward sentance

message: Showing up @ 290 pounds is false, and the reference is a rumor site any way. It was reported he showed up @ 271 pounds, still 11 pounds over his listed weight, but not 290. Mikesd (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 Season

message: Though the statment below lists an article cite, it is not accurate:
However, initial reports say that Russell had a good first minicamp and is in great shape.  Candid Cam: Raiders' Russell stuns world, looks capable of 'competing'
The article says that Russell had a good first DAY of minicamp. Further, the 'cite' is a columnist's take on the first day of a Spring mini-camp. It is an editorial article, not a statment of fact, and does not merit inclusion in the Wiki. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt to mitigate the preceding paragraph's statements.
Penngulf (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded both paragraphs I changed it from "initial reports" to the exact source, which is more appropriate, I think. RF23 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Penngulf, 2 May 2010 

message: Perhaps its too soon to add that sort of comment (I think it is), but I also think it's good to keep track of articles like this since --in about a season or so-- we're going to know whether or not its official.  This ESPN article does have some interesting info for now and the future like:
*"owner Al Davis finally lost patience with the immensely talented but unproductive player he drafted first overall in 2007 against the wishes of former coach Lane Kiffin."
*"Russell will now likely be considered one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history, joining Ryan Leaf, Ki-Jana Carter, Akili Smith and others on that list. He will have been paid more than $39 million by the Raiders, while producing only seven wins as a starter."
*"Since the start of the common draft in 1967, only one other No. 1 pick was released this quickly in his NFL career. Indianapolis cut 1992 top pick Steve Emtman after three seasons but that was more because of injuries than production."
*One of their analysts separately wrote: "The Oakland Raiders can finally move on from what must be considered the biggest all-time draft whiff."
Anyway, if people want to add stuff now or later, I thought I'd keep this noted here. --Bobak (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's too soon. You can't call someone the the biggest bust until AFTER they retire. If it was to have the label "biggest bust" on the article, I think it would need to have more than just 1 reference, I'm guessing around 4 or so that all distinctively call him the worst bust. RF23 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantheon of draft busts? 

message: An editor tonight made a fancruft type edit that deleted two citations. Lede paragraph was restored. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's "neutral rewrite" deleted the citations again. They are well reported by many sources. Please don't delete citations. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't delete them.. i moved them to the proper section. Please don't be an idiot and blindly revert. Pay attention.RF23 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please observe WP:NPA policy, comment on edits and not editors as in your previous statement. WP:LEAD allows controversy in the lede paragraph and it can be repeated in subsections. Please don't delete citations again. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The way it's written (the way you keep putting it back in) it doesn't follow WP:NPOV. Don't try and be a policy hound. The people who edit the NFL articles on Wikipedia generally know what they are doing, and there seems to be a consensus among them for shorter leads then normal, anyways. RF23 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: plus, 2 sources is not "many sources". If it's in there, it needs at least 4 definitive sources or so. RF23 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. The edit has been and doesn't nee four sources. Please see WP:RS. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get this settled before anyone gets blocked. Morenooso, the lead before had many POV problems that Ringerfan tried to fix. Even though it was sourced, it did not belong in the opening paragraph. Further down, in a different section, fits better. Ringerfan, leads are brief summaries of the entire article. While the "NFL editors" like to keep consistency with the general 3-4 sentence leads, they are allowed to be longer. Just look at the lead for Javon Ringer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree but if you would do a "neutral re-write of the paragraph with the sources it had, I'd be open to see what you come up with. WP:LEAD allows controversy in it. It says verbatim, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. I follow a number of college articles with worst controversies than this one. Unfortunately the subject of this article is being discussed in this manner and . . . wait for it, I am a Raider fan but I park my fanship because I have to be a Wikipedia editor first subject to WP:V. An editor should write from the heart but what is available through reliable sources. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't really like pointing to WP non-article pages on stuff, but: WP:BLP & WP:NPOV are far more important than WP:LEAD and WP:V. Note the Differences between policies and guidelines. BLP & NPOV are policies. Lead is a guideline. WP:UCS & WP:IAR apply here. Also, make sure to brush up on WP:NOTVAND just to be safe.
But really, the whole main thing that applies here that over-rides any other guideline or policy is WP:WELLKNOWN. The initial IP edit were wrong, in the fact that it simply removed the material. My edits were putting the material in it's proper place and re-writing it to follow policy properly.
Specificality (if that is even a word-if not- i just made it up to describe something- i think everyone can figure out what i meant) is more helpful in articles. For Example, if you say "Some people say [Person x] is [thing x]" and only have 2 sources, people who read that and don't put to much thought into it may think that many many people hold that theory. It's very vague (some people could mean 2 people or it could mean 2 million people) and leaves the article up to interpretation. The correct alternative to clean up any possible confusion would be "[Person X2] and [Person X3] have described [Person X] as [thing x]." Unless it's considered a consensus (ie, they do a poll of 25 sports writers or something along that lines) it really doesn't belong in the lead, nor does it belong in the article at all in it's previous spot.
Let's look at it another way, in some relation to this:
Let's say some two obscure sports websites (we'll call these hypothetical websites Thebestsportingnewsever!!!!.com and ultra-sports-monthly.net ) (also for this situation- assume that both website are considered WP:RS) both give an NFL player the award "Best WR - NFC East- Week 8".
Instead of saying in his article:
"Some sources state he is the best WR in the NFC"
it would be better (since it doesn't imply any sort of vague un-particularity (Am I making words up again?)) to say:
"Thebestsportingnewsever!!! and utlra-sports-monthly labeled him the best WR in the NFC east for week 8.
That is much more specific and prevents the article from being overtly vague. The reader can't make guesses because it's a explicitly stated. 
I don't consider this an edit war, nor is there any vandalism. Specifically, this is just a couple of editors who aren't seeing on the same page. Maybe we're reading different books? RF23 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of POV fancruft type edit: 2010-05-14

message: Details from each season, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are mostly trivial; such as accounts of the games, which could in fact violate copyright laws with the NFL, unless Wikipedia has express written permission to do so.  I suggest that the sections on the three seasons should be removed.  Also, rumors on Russell's weight are potentially libelous, other than saying that Russell has been criticized for weight problems.  The "quickest release" story is also trivia meant for sports dweebs, not pertinent information  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A. You can't copyright stats or numbers.. there's nothing to copyright.. it's a stat. I suggest you do some reading about copyright laws, this shows a vast misunderstanding of them. The Quickest released thing is not 'trivial" it's extremely relevant to the article. I changed the weight references to read so they say exactly what the sources report- which is what wikipedia is basically. You claim that the things you are removing are "potentially libelous" but the edits you keep putting in are much more potentially libelous. Read my above long-drawn out comment about different policies and such, most of which apply here. See also WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and the links I mentioned in the above section. Your edits will keep getting reverted if you keep making the same mistakes. You can't just make shit up and throw it into an article. You gotta source it or it's gone. RF23 (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, after viewing your talk page, you seem to have another vast misunderstanding that you need to come to terms with before you can properly edit wikipedia. This is actually a very very basic life thing, the difference between fact and opinion.
Fact: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.
Opinion: An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts
direct quote from you on your own talk page:
"Simply stating that Russell has not succeeded in the NFL and has been harshly criticized is all that would count as fact."
I can't believe I have to tell people this, but the above statement is not a fact. The above statement is an opinion. 
"Russel had a record of x-x" is a fact.
It's a proven thing. There's no interpretation. Nobody can claim otherwise without lying. It's in the record books.
Stating 
"Russell has not succeeded in the NFL and has been harshly criticized at all" is
AN OPINION.
Notice the adjectives, which leave things up to interpretation, MAKING THEM OPINIONS. 
For example, to one person, "Success in the NFL" could mean simply signing with a team. to others it could mean winning 4 super bowls."
I'm so dumbfounded, I should add in "Movies are not real life. That's something you should know because it's the only thing that can express the sheer disbelief I have right now.RF23 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Please see no personal attacks. I may have a USC box on my userpage but I will be first to say Kiffin would NOT be my coach. I could care less about who coaches the Raiders. In fact, he wasn't there when Russell got released. "Comment on edits, not editors." ----moreno oso (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a WP:SYNTH argument. Doesn't hold weight. My record of contribs is clear. I don't play favorites. Interesting that the same statements about removing material was made by another editor elsewhere and now here. I wonder who made those statements?----moreno oso (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I advise the above editors and everyone involved in this insanely stupid edit war to re-read wikipedia's key policies, talk page guidelines, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION 
(quick examples: Saying "apples are fruit" is a fact, saying "Apples taste great" is opinion.)RF23 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007, 2008, 2009 Seasons; Weight; and "quickest release" 

message: I recently joined Wikipedia and after only a few edits, I have not been welcomed.  Instead, I have been harassed.  I took an interest in this edit war going on and reviewd the edits made by users Ringer, Moreoso, and silverandblack.
I decided to reiterate a few things in a new section - feel free to remove the redundancy in the other sections.
Direct accounts of NFL games and the stats involved (when used in relation to accounts of the game), do fall under copyright protection.  Any accounts of NFL games fall under copyright protection, due to an anti-trust exemption given to the NFL in the early 1960s.  The NFL has the sole right to give permit the reporting of its games.  For instance, that is why the NFL can blackout games.
Moreover, the reason that the Raiders released JaMarcus Russell after only a few seasons is a fact loaded with debate and debate is subjective.  For one, Russell was replaced by Jason Campbell, while other teams have held on to top picks because they lacked a replacement.
Why is is relevant to state that Russell had the shortest-tenure of a first overall pick?  The point of draft selection is merely loaded with expectations and expectations are opinions. 
JaMarcus Russell has started 25 games thus far.
References from nfl.com:
The 6th pick in 1992 by the Bengals, David Klingler, started in only 24 games over 6 years with the Bengals.  Akili Smith was the 3rd pick in 1999 and started fewer games with the Bengals than Russell did with the Raiders.  Andre Wadsworth with the Cards was the 3rd pick in 1998 and spent roughly the same amount of time with the Cards as Russell did with the Raiders.  The 2nd pick in 1998, Ryan Leaf, spent about the same amount of time with the Chargers as Russell did with the Raiders.  The FIRST pick in 1996, Ki Jana Carter, started only 14 games with the Bengals, while, as I said, JaMarcus Russell has started 25 with the Raiders.  
CLEARLY, references to the quickest release is just subjective trivia - just seeing what you want to see.  The ESPN writer that made that observation may have done so merely as an innocuous comment to pad the length of his or her article.
Reports about Russell's weight are rumors.  Some articles had Russell's weight at 270, others at 290, and some at 300.  To put a number on the weight is just gossip.
"Legacy" is a loaded term that insinutes an indelible mark has been made, when Russell's career is on-going because he has not officially retired.  "Criticism" is an abstract and neutral term that captures the scientific concept that people debate and disagree, yet silverandblack did not suggest which side was right.  Dominic Rhodes for instance, criticized JaMarcus Russell on Outside the Lines, thus it is a fact that teammates have criticized Russell.  That however, does not state whether the criticism is sound or valid.
Silverandblack made a few references to turmoil that could be seen as orginial research, but all in all, the edior merely refined an atrociously written article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're failing to see, we're going with "EXACTLY WHAT THE SOURCES SAY". That is what wikipedia is. We're an encylopedia that lists information on topics that is sourced. You keep making claims, but you have not thrown out a single SOURCE. If Dominic Rhoades criticized Russel on OTL, SOURCE IT We can't go just off Word of mouth (or made up stuff) You continue to not recognize the core wikipedia policies. If you want to put something in an article "IT MUST HAVE A SOURCE" otherwise it will be removed. RF23 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, an argument about an article being poorly written isn't very effective when the argument itself is poorly written. Just a head's up. RF23 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Criticism is not neutral. Criticism is distinctively negative. "Legacy" is neautral because it can be either positive or negative. Plus, it's the manual of style for NFL articles.
Let me state it again, (I've said it about 6 times now) the things in the article DIRECTLY QUOTE WHAT THE REFERENCES SAYS. Notice it does not say "Critics say Russell is the biggest bust ever" it says "Steve Wyche claimed that Russell is the biggest draft bust in NFL history" And it is sourced with a source. There's absolutely no issues with the article in it's current state, your just arguing for the sake of arguing, bringing up points completely irrelevant to the article. You keep making claims that the article is "Horrible written" and "has many issues" but have only been specific on several issues. We're making progress, but we're not quite there yet. If a user who can't edit the page wants to put something in, make an edit request (see above on the talk page for how to do so) and an editor with proper privledges will do so.
Direct quote from you: "What source has claimed that Russell now has the "legacy" of being the biggest bust?"
Funny. I don't seem to see a single line in that article that says "Russell has the legacy of being the biggest bust", because it's not there. To remove the section would not be neuteral, as it would be toning the article in favor of Russell, despite what the sources have said. If you can list some sources (which nobody on this discussion has done yet, which is why any edits will get reverted) saying his weight is disputed, then list them and we'll work them in. The two sources in the article right now claim he weighed x amount here and gained weight to x amount here. That is what the sources say. The sources don't say anything about the weight being. I am going refusing further comment because this is a giant waste of time. The sources are reliable sources (NBC Sports, ESPN). If you want to add something else in "INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING IT PROVIDE A SOURCE SO IT CAN BE ADDED IN OR YOU WILL BE REVERTED AND IGNORED." 
I don't know how to drive this point across any harder, because I keep repeating it, but in you 'counter arguments' you keep ignoring it.
The article (or any article about a player with press about negative performances) will have a negative tone "BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE SOURCES SAY". IF there were sources saying, "ESPN the magazine named Russel one of the top 15 Raiders quarterbacks of all-time" then we would put that, with the proper sourcing, in the article. But NOBODY HAS PROVIDED ANY SOURCES THAT STATE THAT (probably because there aren't any reliable sources that state such. But if you can find them, we'll put them in, but I am going to repeat myself again until this registers with something, "WIKIPEDIA GOES WITH WHAT THE SOURCES SAY.SOME ARTICLES MIGHT HAVE A DISTINCTIVE NEGATIVE TONE BECAUSE THE SOURCES HAVE A DISTINCTIVE NEGATIVE TONE." it's very wishy-washy, but editors try their best to keep it neutral and STICK WITH WHAT THE SOURCES SAY (hence my re-wordings of phrases such as "Many critics say this" to "[name of critic) say this" For the weight issue, I looked, and I could only find those 2 reliable sources, everything else was not a RELIABLE SOURCE. Those two were reports from major journalism publications (what we call here: sources) and the text in front of the report is what the source says.
This is my final comment on the matter, and If people haven't gotten the point yet, then you have all miserably failed as human beings:
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU, MORENO, I, OR ANY OTHER EDITOR THINK ABOUT RUSSELL OR HIS CAREER OR WHETHER HE IS A BUST OR WHAT THE DEFINITION OF BUST IS OR WHAT THE DEFINITION OF IS IS. THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR ORIGINAL RESOURCE- AKA PUTTING STUFF IN THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SOURCE. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S A GENERAL CONSENSUS OR WHAT IT NEEDS A SOURCE. WE CAN'T GO ON YOUR WORD OF MOUTH. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS WEBSITE WORKS. » WIKIPEDIA GOES WITH WHAT THE SOURCES SAY. END OF DISCUSSION. THE WAY THE ARTICLE IS, IT SIMPLY STATES WHATS THE SOURCES SAY. THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. END OF STORY. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU CLAIM SOMETHING ABOUT RUSSEL UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SOURCES SO FAR SO THAT IS THE FINALITY. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SOURCE, IT DOESN'T GO IN. IF IT IS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A SOURCE ("by 'a source' I mean, a hyperlink that links to a published reliable source that states the words that are put before the reference here on wikipedia  THEN WE CAN ADD IT IN. «
If you haven't understand what I'm trying to tell you, you shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia because it shows a misunderstanding of the core policies that are the backbone of the website. I'm not being uncivil, i'm just trying to get my point across (SINCE I'VE SAID IT AT MANY TIMES) RF23 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Should be Unprotected: References to weight, games, "quickest release" and "legacy" should be removed 

message: I decided to create a separate section on this issue.  The section on "Impact" is loaded with subjective trivia, such as stats which are stated in the right column under the photo.  There is no need for the redundancy.
There is also no consensus for the title of the section.  "Legacy" and "impact" are loaded terms that imply a narrative that Russell is the biggest "bust" in draft history.  I suppose the same could be said about "criticism."  Nevertheless, the information contained in that section is subjective trivia about first overall picks, and not only first picks but 'quarterbacks taken with the first pick.'  It's nothing more than micro-trivia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Section on "Impact" should be removed or consolidated with Future in Football

message: The reference to the acquisition of Jason Campbell is relevant to this page.  Had the Raiders not acquired Campbell, the Raiders would likley have retained Russell.  I provided more than enough citations for the fact.
I believe that RingerFan23 is merely vandalizing the page, as there has been an "edit war" involving him.  I added legitimate citations, which he deleted and has continued to delete.  RingerFan23 has also made incendiary remarks about editors of this page such as "you have all failed miserably as human beings."
I suggest that Ringerfan23 has been the root of this "edit war" and should be blocked.
:First off, my name is Eagles247. Ringerfan23 and I are two different people. Please do not assume that he and I are the same person. You violated the three-revert rule after I revised the lead here with these edits: here, here, and finally, here. Changing something in the lead is not considered vandalism, please see what vandalism is by viewing WP:VANDALISM. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Acquisition of Jason Campbell is relevant / vandalism by Ringerfan23 

message: I read the story from the Oakland Tribune about Russell's weight.
"But opening week is four months away, and Russell won't stick around just because he can show up under 300 pounds (estimate: 270 pounds) and fire spirals toward the sidelines. Then again "...
Clearly, the references to the number of 300 were taken out of context.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_14996315?source=most_viewed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to weight are clearly taken out of context 

message: Someone wrote "a high weight for a quarterback" after the reference to Russell weighing 300 pounds.  That seems more like commentary than true fact.
Various sources have reported Russell's weight at 270 pounds.  Why does this page even mention the issue?  Clearly, his weight is an issue of dispute, not fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyoyo4567 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: About the claim "slightly upwards' that the "reports of Russel's weights were taken out of context" you gave a link, but the link did not say the previous reports were erronious. NBC Sports and national football post have not corrected their previous stories, and would have done such if a major error had accured.
the Can Inman report that you linked to "slightly up" from here is already sourced and in the article. (from the article: "Cam Inman of The Oakland Tribune said that Russell had "a good first minicamp" and "is in great shape" in the team's first training camp in late April."
The source you provided, even though you claim that it "clearly states reports of 300 pounds were taken out of context", a CTRL+F search of the exact article you claim gave no results for the words "Context", nor did the article mention anything about previous reports being wrong. The article, word for word, opened with: 
"An out-of-shape Raider staggered off the field and vomited behind the end zone. Bulletin: It was not JaMarcus Russell.
Rather, it was an undrafted rookie lineman, as it should be at an opening minicamp."
That simply states that the Oakland Tribute reporter was surprised the player out of shape was not Russell, and states that "it was an undrafted rookie lineman, as it should be"
You're Making shit up and putting words into things that aren't there.
Even though you claimed so, the article does not state:
"There was an out of shape player who weighed 300 pounds. Last Month [I don't understand the logic here- maybe Time travel's involved] there was reports that this player was JaMarcus Russell. (Which again, is physically impossible for a reporter in March to misreport an event that happened on April 26th] Those reports were wrong.
You keep claiming things, but you refuse to show a source that backs any of it up. I can make stuff up to:
"Sources state that JaMarcus Russell is an alien from Mars. His real name is Galaxtron and he's made of cardboard."
I just made that up on the spot. that's some good ol' Original Research.
But do you claim that that should be put in an encyclopedia entry on Russell? No. That would be ludicrous. Because I've not shown a reliable source about it.
If the new york times, NFL.com, or any other "RELIABLE Source" had an article that said
"A shocking development today. After several scientific studies, we were amazed by this, we have come to the conslusion that JaMarcus Russell is actually an alien from Mars. Geaneology reports show that his birth name is Galaxatron, and a study of hairs left in his room has shown that he's compowed of cardboard" then we'd put it in there (But this isn't fantasy land- this is the real world- so that wouldn't actually happen)
Should it be in the article? Is it important? I don't think so, but that doesn't matter what Editors think. Multiple Reliable sources have discussed his weight (and these are reported correctly in the article), so whether or not it's actually important is irrelevant because It been reported by major news.
Example:
If tommorow's Denver Post headline read "Someone's shoes were lost" It's important. Does it sound important? No. But If it's being reported by a major reliable source, they in turn make it important. Don't take this out on an encyclopedia, take it up with the people reporting it.
IF there's a report saying "Russell 290 pounds"
and then there's a comment at the bottom by an anonymous user saying "you're wrong, he's actually 230 pounds. I heard it from him>" do we put it in? Of course not, Wikipedia doesn't just make stuff up and throw it in, Sources must be reliable, and things in articles must be Verifiable.
Moving on,
*the phrase "a high weight for a quarterback" I removed because I couldn't find a definitive source that says "300 pounds is an unusual weight for a QB" (the only thing I found was a source from ESPN that said that 285 lb QB Jared Lorenzen could be the heaviest QB in NFL history. But after reviewing WP:V & WP:OR, I can't put that in, because the source has nothing to do with Russell.
Now, the thing about sports journalism, is sometimes things conflict. Reporter A asks general manager A what he thinks about something, it goes down in the report as "I Like player X". Later that day, another reporter might ask the same question, and in his report, the quote might read "I love Player X. He's my absolute favorite player on the team." Sources will contradict themselves sometimes (for example, I saw a source 2 hours ago saying Jason Campbell was way ahead of schedule on learning the Raiders playbook. From another source, which was just as reliable, I heard that he was having struggles." Does that mean that
"Jason Campbell is going insane. one day he has a hang of it and the next day he's hopelessly lost. It's an ongoing internal battle."
No. It doesn't. That's not what the sources said. One source at one point said one thing, and another source completely unrelated by separate thing said something else. Now, you'd have some merit if the same sources contradicted themselves. (Example, If on date x we see a report saying "Russell Weighs 300 pounds" and then a day later from the same source, we see them say "Russell Weights 200 pounds." without mentioning an update to a previous report or mentioning a correction, then they aren't a Reliable Source. But I shouldn't have to say this, that's not the case here.
From here on out, I (and i'm guessing other editors) will apply the "IGNORE, REVERT" policy that's been floatin' around for quite some time until you can show understanding of the points I've made here and "slightly up" from here.
These points I'm making are not points that I should have to be making to anyone.
Fin. RF23 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ringerfan, the above user is a sockpuppet of Silverandblack and has been indefinitely blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  People should be allowed to edit this page / A high weight for a quarterback? 

message: "In March, NBC Sports reported stated described Russel as..."
I can't fix this as the article is semi-protected.
In the section describing his codeine arrest it says
"at his July 20, 2010 arrangement"
I believe that is supposed to be "arraignment".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.130.178 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: typo

message: In the section on his codeine syrup arrest, "arrangement" should be "arraignment".
71.8.194.139 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.8.194.139, 29 August 2010 

message: I don't see the relevance of having this much information on a marginal figure in pro-sports.  Being a famous bust is hardly worthy of attention or use of space on Wikipedia.  Few (if any) players with Wikipedia pages have sections dedicated to specific seasons.  Sections 2 and 3 on College and Professional Career are highly trivial.  The section on Impact could be merged with Personal.67.169.25.132 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your changes. Please see Wikipedia:About. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be winnowed - far too much trivia 

message: I have a problem with the fact that this article tries to include opinions about whether JaMarcus Russell is a "bust."  It is not a objective statement to make--no matter how you cut it.  It might seem obvious that JaMarcus Russell's time in Oakland was an embarrassment, but that is still an issue of opinion.
For instance, some have claimed that Russell was a bigger bust than Ryan Leaf because Russell was the first pick.  Yet, at the same time, people called Todd Marinovich one of the biggest busts of all time--and he was selected in the 20s.  Thus, where a player was selected is not objective criteria in determining whether a player is a "bust."
I don't see the relevance of the section on "Impact," and the ESPN writer that is cited has made contradictory statements about Russell's status as a bust.  As I said, it is an opinion and trivia.  The most that should be stated is that Russell has generated consideration as one of the biggest busts in NFL history, rather than try to include subjective opinions to point readers to the conclusion that Russell IS the biggest bust of all time.67.169.25.132 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements about being a "bust" are subjective--not objective / Section on "Impact" is subversive bias 

message: I see this conversation has been going on for some time about whether Russell is considered to be one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history. It is absolutely crazy, at this point in October 2013, that the line "JaMarcus Russell is considered to be one of the biggest draft busts in league history" isn't in the lede. That is one of the first things most people think about when they hear his name. And the key words in that being one of the. It doesn't sat he is the biggest one, it says he is one of the biggest ones. When you have multiple sports writers from around the nation saying this, I'm pretty sure there are enough sources confirming this. It needs to be added.Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: "Due to his inconsistent play the Raiders released on May 6, 2010". 
First off the grammar is wrong here. Second, this sentence should be changed to something like: "Due to his poor performance throughout most of the 2009 season and lack of commitment and work ethic in the subsequent off-season, the Raiders released him on May 6, 2010"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.110.37 (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate description 

message: jamarcus russell is a Tennessee Titan
Shades1234 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  (t • e • c) 01:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014 

message: The correct URL is http://dnn.ahsaa.com/Sports/IndividualSports/Football/Records/IndividualRecords/tabid/396/Default.aspx along with the retrieved date  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B822:4180:B011:AD81:652E:BF45 (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update Citation #8 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on JaMarcus Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106042415/http://www.nfl.com:80/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1 to http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_PASSER_RATING&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531173413/http://nbcsports.msnbc.com:80/id/37389149/ns/sports-nfl to http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37389149/ns/sports-nfl/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709022110/http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com:80/id/38113855 to http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/38113855
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on JaMarcus Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203034317/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071120/ai_n21113587 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071120/ai_n21113587
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on JaMarcus Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927191254/https://webspace.utexas.edu/ckl94/www/2002_Post_HS_Football.html to https://webspace.utexas.edu/ckl94/www/2002_Post_HS_Football.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206122821/http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20071202_DEN%40OAK to http://sportsline.com/nfl/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20071202_DEN%40OAK
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104051131/http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080101/SPORTS/801010359/1015/SPORT0502 to http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080101/SPORTS/801010359/1015/SPORT0502
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926104245/http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Source-JaMarcus-Russell-is-tipping-the-scales-at-300-pounds.html to http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Source-JaMarcus-Russell-is-tipping-the-scales-at-300-pounds.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Retarget the link from grievance to grievance (labour) per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. 62.165.227.102 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retarget [[grievance]] 

message: There is a grammatical error in the first sentence of the second paragraph under "Junior Season". The sentence ends with "...in the end the game" which makes no sense whatsoever and needs to be corrected. 2601:844:4001:56B0:3542:701D:AE6C:32FF (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 23:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019