Talk:David Carr (American football)

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) 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: appears to be pushing an agenda with this article, trying to add undue weight about Carr. The tweet by Patrick Willis should not be included here, it is clearly not notable in relation to Carr, and Carr's making the Fox Sports list of busts is certainly not notable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Fox Sports article should NOT be used here on Wikipedia. It is only the opinion of the writer(s). I also agree the tweet by Patrick Willis should NOT be used either. Its just another players opinion, no facts at all. Rocketmaniac RT 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing by User:Edday1051 

message: If a backup QB that didn't play a single snap who gets a super bowl ring based on only the fact that he's on a roster is included in the intro, then his status as one of the biggest draft busts is certainly far more relevant and should be included in the intro. This is absoultely undeniable if that is the case. If you agree that David Carr's draft bust legacy is more relevant than the fact that he won a Super Bowl ring as a back up QB where he literally did not play a single snap the entire year, then you agree that his draft bust legacy belongs in the intro. Otherwise neither belongs in the intro which is what I'm fine with, which is why I removed it and User:Crash Underride and several other users have continuously reverted my edits. Otherwise, if you insist on keeping it there, then I should be allowed to place his draft bust legacy in the intro as well. Crash, you will be banned if you continue your disruptive editing Manning954 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have told you this already, everyone who works for a Super Bowl winning organization the year they win it, gets a ring. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 11:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated for the 10th time. Keep the super bowl information there. I'm cool with that AS LONG as the draft bust legacy stuff is kept there as well. That is far more relevant than Carr winning a super bowl ring as a backup QB. Again, you either remove both or keep both. I'm fine with either option. I removed the super bowl information when the draft bust legacy was removed. When the super bowl information was re-added, I added the draft bust legacy. Apparently that is "disruptive editing" according to you. Why do you keep bringing up this argument "that everyone gets a ring." Yeah were aware of that Oprah. That has very little meaning to the actual discussion here of deciding whether we should include or remove both pieces of information. Manning954 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: John, "draft bust" is pretty common NFL phrasing. I don't see that as "provocative." "Bust" is the common lingo for an athlete that doesn't live up to the hype. Manning954 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually verbiage here on Wikipedia regarding "draft busts". Also CBS Sports has called Carr a bust: . The wording however in the lede should try to be as neutral as possible I'd agree. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  "Common" doesn't make it any less provocative or insulting.  It merely makes it common.  The exact same idea - that Carr's professional career fell far short of original expectations - can be stated neutrally and without the baggage of the common NFL phrasing, using only a few more words.  That's what I've done above.  Your version was repeatedly removed by a variety of editors, which suggests to me that they find it objectionable; let's see how my suggestion fares.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could just say his career was disappointing instead of extremely disappointing. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Man do you follow football. I'm guessing not. "bust" is used as commonly as "first down." It's the word used in each of those sources. It's THE word in the sports world to describe, generally speaking, a high draft pick or an athlete that was hyped up who didn't meet expectations. It's silly to think that word is provocative. When they make these "bust" rankings, do they go, who are the top 10 most disappointing players. No they go who are the top 10 BUSTS. Manning954 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the new "neutral" form and it actually sounds more provocative and degrading than the original "draft bust." If the goal was to make it sound less neutral, you've succeeded. Manning954 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text:   Wikipedia isn't an NFL chat room.  It's an encyclopedia, where editors try to avoid jargon, industry lingo and other colloquialisms wherever possible.  The very fact that I'm not a student of NFL terminology, and object to the phrase, argues in favor of softening it, not the opposite.  In any event it is not a matter of whether you persuade me or not, but instead whether other editors prefer a more manifestly neutral phrasing, or not.  So let's give it more than 20 minutes and see.  Oh, and stop edit warring.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where Manning added "and he is widely considered to be a "draft bust" sounds good. It doesn't say one of the biggest in history. It just says bust, which is neutral enough. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes do help.  How about we let it air a bit, for objections, and add it back if no one disagrees.  Thanks for that.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Let me know what you think of the edit I just made in the lede. I'm of course welcome to change to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've laid out my view - "draft bust" is NFL and sports radio speak, not common English parlance.  It sounds harsh to someone who isn't on top of the jargon, plus, for those who are unfamiliar with the NFL draft procedure, it fails to convey the actual underlying point, which is that his career dismally failed to live up to high expectations.  So I prefer my version, or something like it; and I really don't think "biggest draft bust in history" belongs in the lead.  (FWIW I am not as Manning insinuated, some sports naif, or - you know European or someone else for whom the NFL is a complete cipher.)  But I cared more about the edit warring than the substance in the first place, so if I'm not being persuasive - well, I'm not going to keep changing it to the way I liked it!  JohnInDC (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: When I typed this I was referring to this version of the page, and my original argument in May was toward this version. Lizard (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I moved Rick's sources to the body and tweaked the lead sentence. I think this is as neutral as we can get while still including the phrase draft bust. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we move one of the sources to the sentence you added just to have it sourced? Also, thanks for the input Lizard, I was trying to find a way to not have it dominate the lede while being mentioned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated the legacy sentence. Not really a reason for them to be different. Also, realistically, everything that's in the lead should be cited in the body somewhere. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great actually. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, placing only one reference behind it in the lead gives off the impression that it's the only reference for the statement, whereas not including a footnote tells an educated reader it must be cited somewhere else in the body. Of course, citing in the lead isn't unheard of for controversial statements anyway. But I'm just glad we're getting more input here. This has been a silly back-and-forth affair for months now. Lizard (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Comment - re David Carr (American football)#Legacy "Legacy" seems to be a very non-neutral section title due to it currently only containing "draft bust" content. He opened the Carr Elite training facility if anyone is interesting in flushing out a post-football section. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that Dawg. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm standing down on this minor point -I misread the section level as being at the root rather than scoped to his "Professional career" section.  It may not be the best, but isn't being used as a broad stroke of his life. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: inclusion of bust legacy to intro