Jump to content

Talk:Craig James (running back)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two Entries for Craig James

[edit]

Are these the same guy? I think so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_T._James

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_James_%28American_football%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.76.121 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

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) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boise State, et al entry

[edit]

I added this because, according to several sports sites (Bleacher Report, CBSports DFW) it is a current possibility that James is going to be removed from the AP voting list after formal complaints were filed by other voters. I almost put a "current events" tag on this section, but the entire content is relevant to why James is so controversial and his job at ESPN and his voting status are at risk. Please don't delete an entire section without some feed back. I can put a lot of WP standards tags in my deletion as well, but that needs to be discussed and a consensus reached before someone axes an entire section. And since when are major newspapers and sports sites unreliable sources? The Moody Blue (Talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share similar concerns as Arxiloxos. A Facebook page and thebiglead.com do not seem reliable. Bleacherreport is not generally reliable as it takes user-generated content, unless the author is reputable outside of BR, which I'm not sure if this one is. The reference "Pundit interviews" is unspecific and needs a full citation to identify the source. We must consider due weight when exposing "great wrongs". Biased statements should be attributed to avoid them being misinterpreted as majority opinions.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arxiloxos and Bagumba. In addition to being unreliably sourced and undue, it is poorly worded. It reads like an editor's commentary rather than an encyclopedia. I am going to restore Arxiloxos's version. Themoodyblue, based on the BLP implications, you will have to get a consensus before reinserting any of this material, and even a consensus doesn't trump policy, depending on what you want to reinsert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the burden is on editors who add material to justify their inclusion. Reverting is a normal part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle and I probably should have done it again myself in light of the WP:BLP concerns Arxiloxos raised in the orig revert.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Let's see if a consensus develops. The main reason I posted it in the first place is that a voter for one of the two major football polls having their voting privileges revoked, or even discussing it, is very noteworthy. The Moody Blue (Talk) 14:10, 02 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 December 2011

[edit]

The claim that Craig James "was named Offensive Player of the Year by the Vince Lombardi Committee in 1985" does not contain a source or citation. I have found no evidence of the existence of a "Vince Lombardi Committee", in 1985 or any other year, except for in identical references to James's alleged reception of this recognition. References or citations should be provided, or else this statement should be removed. Gristly482 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the origin is from ESPN. See here. Is there any reason to question ESPN? I'll insert it in the article, but if you want to elaborate more here, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the quick response, but I'm still very skeptical. An exhaustive Google search of the phrase "Vince Lombardi Committee" results only in reference to two awards, and both from 1985: Offensive Player of the Year (Craig James), and Coach of the Year (Raymond Berry), both of the New England Patriots. There are no descriptions of this committee, its activities, or its history; neither are there any references to any other years when it bestowed awards on other players or coaches. Ideally, the award claim should be omitted altogether until there is some verification of this award and awarding body. At minimum, I think the following should be added: 1) a citation of ESPN's Craig James bio; 2) a note mentioning the lack of verification of this awarding committee. -- Gristly482 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation, of course, has already been added, but we can't add a "note" to the citation. Who normally names players Offensive Player of the Year (I don't know a thing about football). Is it the Associated Press ([1])? Anyone else? Is there a list somewhere by year?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Associated Press names NFL offensive and defensive players of the year. Pro football reference ([2]) has a full list, as does Wikipedia itself ([3]). In 1985, the AP Offensive Player of the Year award went to Marcus Allen, and certainly not to Craig James, which is why it caught my eye. -- Gristly482 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That helps enormously, thanks, I'll remove the sentence from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in his autobiography also. I think its fair to have an independent source before adding this back in.—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 December 2011

[edit]

Please delete the following:

"In the 1985–86 season, James rushed for 1,227 yards, becoming the last white player to rush for more than 1,000 yards in a season, until Peyton Hillis reached that mark in 2010. This achievement has garnered him the nickname "The Great White Hope".[4]"

This is clearly a racist statement. Why should anyone care about the race of a running back? Some may argue the statement gives insight into the nickname. I suggest the nickname is also racist and any reference to it should be removed.

198.182.56.5 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it but not for the reason you gave. I don't think it's racist, although I can see that some might view it that way. The problem was the "nickname" was something James said his fans called him ("Fans write me all the time calling me 'The Great White Hope'"). I don't think that's something that rises to the level of a nickname for a sports figure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He had a nickname when with SMU and the Pony Express, but it also didn't really become popular. The "Great White Hope" is far too generic and has been used throughout history for unexpectedly successful Caucasian athletes (James J. Braddock, Rocky Marciano, Primo Carnaira, etc). I agree that it should be removed as being non-specific to this individual and not being a designation that rises to the level of a sports nickname. The Moody Blue (Talk) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Bias Tag

[edit]

I added the bias tag as this article, especially in light of Mr. James' stated candidacy for the United States Senate, has a tone of advocacy rather than the objectivity of a neutral and factual article about him. Especially in light of his candidacy, and in looking at the edit history of this article, it seems that most information that is critical or non-positive in its tone regarding the article's subject has been consistently removed for no real logical reason. While it is always appropriate to remove pejoratives from any article about a living individual, information about legitimate concerns, events and other expressed opinions regarding Mr. James have been repeatedly censored from this entry to show Mr. James in a biased and inappropriately positive light. This entry needs to reflect all sides of opinion and history regarding this individual, who is a particularly controversial individual in his field. Now that he is also entering politics, this entry should necessarily contain information from all points of view regarding Mr. James, and not just those that are complimentary to him. The tendency towards being overly and inappropriately complimentary that this entry exhibits lends this article a bias that makes it inaccurate. Editors should not remove entries simply because they do not agree with the information. Some of the positive information here is undocumented in any way, while some well documented negative information, especially regarding how he used his position of influence with ESPN in the Texas Tech episode, was removed with no real reason or discussion.
In short, this entry needs balance and documentation of any and all information provided to comply with WP:BLP, both positive and otherwise in its nature. Especially now in light of the changed circumstance that Mr. James is now a candidate for high federal office, presenting an accurate, well documented and balanced article is essential to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia's reputation as well as maintaining a reliable record of information about this individual. This is not the place for either campaign literature supporting or opposing any politician - this is the place for information about the individual to be presented in a neutral and balanced way so readers can make up their own minds. This is not currently possible with the article as written.
The Moody Blue (Talk) 02:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam James deposition: primary source

[edit]

Not sure what that means, but hard to imagine how you get a more accurate source than a sworn deposition. Everything I posted was accurate and supported, so quit editing it out unless you can show how it's inaccurate.75.142.58.143 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposed description of Adam's deposition is not written from a neutral point of view, and is a misuse of a primary source. See WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. . . . Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what the BLP is referring to. The concern is in using what person X asserted about person Y in a primary source. That's why it says "to support assertions about a living person." That's obvious. Here, this is not an assertion ABOUT a living person, it is an assertion BY a living person. Completely reliable, especially for the proposition that "IN A DEPOSITION, ADAM JAMES STATED..." If you think the point of view is not neutral enough, suggest an improvement. But don't just distort the posting guidelines and remove it.75.142.58.143 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Na - please take the good advice of experienced contributors - you can't use that primary external - please stop adding it - Youreallycan 03:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the experienced contributors don't know the difference between hearsay (which WP understandably doesn't want) and first person statements reported by the New York Times. Like I said, if you think the POV is not neutral enough, suggest an edit.75.142.58.143 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Craig James (American football). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_James_(running_back)&oldid=1207786202"