Jump to content

Talk:Julian Edelman

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

Is Edelman Jewish?

[edit]

There's certainly been speculation (for example, Lenny Bruce when guest hosting on ESPN's Mike and Mike, and on a lot of message boards). That said, there is no reliable source, as required by WP:BLP, to answer the question one way or the other, so WP:BLP dictates that the question should be set aside until we have a verifiable answer. Samer (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not Jewish. He was raised Christian and mother was not Jewish. Enigmamsg 01:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He at most has a Jewish great-grandfather (see his ancestry here). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edelman does not seem sure about his own religious affiliation. Despite describing his own visit to Israel as "life-changing,"[1] he still seems unsure about his religious affiliation, even when directly asked about it an interview with E:60. He reportedly describes himself as "Jew...ish."[2] Patsfan2014 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/08/julian_edelmans_israel_trip_a_life_changing
  2. ^ http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/10/23/9602844/julian-edelman-jewish-e60-video-mazel-tov-bitches

Re: dropping of charges

[edit]

I added more detail from the statement; it goes a bit further than simply saying that they couldn't prove that Edelman was guilty of the crime with which he was charged, but that there wasn't enough evidence to establish that a crime happened at all. Samer (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is he didn't commit a crime at all,
"According to the district attorney's office, the review of the surveillance footage from the incident suggested that Edelman approached a woman on the dance floor and took her hand briefly. The review concluded that the physical contact was fleeting and did not meet the elements of any crime."
He was innocent. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Julian Edelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baby references

[edit]

Do we really need seven references for the birth of his daughter? Samer (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Edelman. 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) 11:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment allegations

[edit]

Greetings. Please discuss the dispute over the sexual assault allegations here, or take it to WP:BLPN. I've fully protected the page, and temporarily removed the content due to BLP considerations; as it's disputed negative information on a BLP. That is not to say the content definitely can't be included, but a consensus is needed to resolve if and how it should be included. Please let me know if you have any questions about dispute resolution. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 20:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'd made earler, on the editor's talk page, is that this falls under WP:BLPCRIME. Edelman isn't "relatively unknown", but the same principle applies; it was a one-time allegation which was not sustained by evidence, and was dropped. For Wikipedia's protection, we don't include such allegations in biographies of living persons, unless they have massive coverage from other reasons (e.g., allegations against Cosby). This one didn't qualify. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 22:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsaun100: Tarl has explained his position reasonably, would you like to respond? Swarm ♠ 22:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N.: @Swarm: My main point is that if a similar allegation is allowed on Peyton Manning's page, why is it not allowed on Julian Edelman's page? There was a consensus a while back that content of that nature would not be allowed on either page, so why has that changed now for Manning? It seems as if different standards are being applied, which is wrong. Manning's allegation was a one-time situation as well. He wasn't convicted. There was national coverage of Edelman's incident when it occurred. If you don't want to include the allegation of Edelman on his page, then fine. However, you need to remove it on Manning's page as well, yet, I was challenged on that earlier. A double standard is clearly being applied here. Dsaun100 (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsaun100: Thanks for commenting. Nothing is black and white, and the sole fact that similar information is included on another article does not mean it must be included in this article. Uniform standards aren't ever enforced between articles flawlessly; this project is built on local compromises and consensuses that differ from article to article. As an uninvolved administrator, I am telling you that this is a gray area. There is no clear cut "right" side. Your content is disputed, in spite of the fact that similar content is included on another article. Understand? You've given your opening rationale, and it's been disputed. You have to move forward, rather than repeatedly reinsert it with the same rationale. Now, you have the opportunity to make a counterpoint, propose a compromise, ask for a third opinion, take it to the BLP noticeboard, start an RfC, or let it go and move on. Just forget about the other article for a minute and focus on this specific dispute. Swarm ♠ 08:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: That same logic could be used for removing the content. Taking it out has been disputed. Instead of repeatedly removing it with the same rationale, move forward, and move on. Bringing up the other article is important for context, so it shouldn't be ignored. Here's the compromise I offer: I'm willing for the allegation pertinent to Julian Edelman be removed, so long as the allegation pertinent to Peyton Manning be removed. If you disagree, then I'll go to the BLP noticeboard, given the shifting consensus on this topic. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD. When you make a BOLD change, and it is REVERTED, you then DISCUSS. The change remains out while discussion is in progress. It is not wild-west of making any changes you want and then fighting off all opposition. There is a clear presumption that the status quo ante is held until consensus is reached. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N.: You also don't continue to make reversions to make a point. This wasn't a case of a wild-west of changes, so please spare me the hyperbole. You didn't address my compromise either. Do we have a deal, or do I need to go to BLP noticeboard? Dsaun100 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsaun100: That's not how this works, and now you're getting into WP:IDHT territory. Articles are governed by consensus, and you can't form a local consensus on an unrelated page. You do not get to tie content on another article into this content dispute here. If you want the content on the other article removed, you go to that article and start an RfC, but here, you need to drop the stick and focus on what policy-based reasons the content here should be included. If you can't do so, I will place editing restrictions on you. Swarm ♠ 01:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: How am I getting into WP:IDHT territory? I simply offered a compromise, and now, you're taking this personally and making threats, which is bordering on WP:ADMINABUSE. You should be careful. I was giving a previous example that was agreed upon for both pages. That was my point. Also, what's this alert that I received on my page? Did you actually impose editing restrictions? Dsaun100 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsaun100: You're not listening to anything I or Tarl are saying, and instead you're still standing behind the ultimatum that this article be the same as an unrelated one, when that premise was disputed from the very beginning, and you're refusing to move forward in dispute resolution. That is unreasonable, and I assure you I am not "threatening" you, but warning you as an uninvolved administrator. The alert on your talk page is a mandatory prerequisite to imposing discretionary sanctions, just read it. Swarm ♠ 17:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: I've read it. For somebody who's taking this personally, I'd like to know what constitutes an "uninvolved administrator." You're the one not listening. I just offered a compromise, and instead of addressing it in a constructive manner, you decided to "warn" me. Talk about being "unreasonable." You, nor Tarin N., have offered a compromise. I opened a dispute on the BLP noticeboard, which you can view here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian_Edelman. Somebody offered a suggestion that I think is reasonable. Instead of creating a section for the allegation, due to WP:WEIGHT, how about putting the information in an already existing section? In this case, Edelman's "2011 season" would seem appropriate, given that's the year the allegation occurred. If you disagree, then offer a compromise of your own. Dsaun100 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thank you, this is all I was asking. Swarm ♠ 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of comparisons between other pages, so I'd like to point out other content exists. Julian Edelman is Julian Edelman. He's not Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, nor Bill Cosby. We should avoid comparing how similar info is presented in those articles, due to the wildly differing factors between their careers and cases. Lizard (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Julian Edelman had a 4 game suspension

[edit]

It just happened today. Bryce12o4 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source, and you didn't add the information to the article, then you have no one to blame except yourself. Get on it! --Jayron32 01:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As best I can tell, all the headlines say "he is facing", and in the fine-print, he's appealing, so it doesn't taken effect yet. So at this point, he is not suspended. If anyone has a better reference, please correct me. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see someone has taken an article saying those exact words, and replaced the title with "has been suspended". I'm going to remove that edit, because the reference cited does not support the assertion. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edelman surprised a young girl with Super Bowl tickets after he learned she was bullied for playing football

[edit]

Hi,
Can you please share any feedback you may have about placing this news item into the article?[1][2]
Vwanweb (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "New England Patriots' Julian Edelman surprises teen girl quarterback with Super Bowl tickets, tells her to 'take Brady's spot'". ABC News. ABC News Network. 31 January 2019. Retrieved 3 February 2019.
  2. ^ "Julian Edelman surprises young QB with Super Bowl tickets". SI.com. Sports Illustrated. 1 February 2019. Retrieved 3 February 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

[edit]

2018 season states JE11 is 4th all time post-season receiving yards. He is now 2nd all time after Superbowl LIII.

Reference: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rec_yds_career_playoffs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.175.155 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was correct at the time it was made (after the AFCCG). I'll fix if it hasn't been changed already. Samer (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Julian Edelman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 07:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to tackle this review. I hope to leave initial feedback by this weekend. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it took a few days to get back to this. I'll begin with some section-by-section feedback. I try to stick to the GA criteria; if I do note any issues that are very minor or would fall outside of the criteria, I'll try to mark them as such.

Lead

[edit]
  • This is written well; it may be a little bit short, but we'll evaluate that after we read through all of the prose.

Early years

[edit]
  • This section is really just ancestry and HS football. Do we have any information about his childhood? Did he play other sports in high school? Usually there is a little more available on early life for players who came up in the internet era.
  • "Originally raised as a Christian, his ancestry" - Julian, not Julian's ancestry, was raised as a Christian. Maybe "Edelman was originally raised as ... and his ancestry includes ..."

Professional career

[edit]
  • I think we are glossing over his switch from QB to WR. How did he decide to make that switch? I think I remember (from his documentary) that his height was a big concern at QB. See what you can find.

2010 season

[edit]

2012 season

[edit]

2013 season

[edit]
  • "Edelman became for the moment" - why for the moment? How long was the moment?

2015 season

[edit]
  • Looks a little odd having AFC Championship linked on the second mention rather than the first.

"however the Patriots" - but the Patriots

2016 season

[edit]

"including the 77-yard touchdown" - redundant

2017

[edit]

2018

[edit]
[edit]

Personal life

[edit]
[edit]

Thanks for the work on this entry. After this feedback is addressed, I'll take another look and do spot checks for referencing and copyvio issues. I'll also go through and clean up a few very minor things like extraneous commas. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lucky7jrk No, completely my fault. I noticed that you had addressed the feedback, but I forgot to come back to it. Once I have a block of time where I can devote some sustained attention to it, I'll take a good look. I hope that will be tonight, but it should certainly be this week. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky7jrk Okay, I reviewed the most recent changes, and I did some copyediting to address some grammar/tone issues. I think I only have one outstanding issue. In the 2018 season section, TB12 doesn't seem to be mentioned by the cited source, and it's not 100% clear to me why you bring it up in that particular section or paragraph. Did his affiliation with TB12 have something to do with a pledge not to use PEDs? Most of Edelman's affiliations are mentioned later, like in the Outside football section. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Thanks to the nominator for the responsiveness to the issues identified above. I'm finishing the review here.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Some edits were made to address this criterion during the review process.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig's tool returns only WP mirrors. Spot checks of references show no concern for close paraphrasing.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    One image was cropped from a Flickr file now marked "All Rights Reserved", but that original file had a CC-BY-SA license at the time the cropped image was created.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good work. This is a GA pass. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Lucky7jrk (talk). Nominated by Trillfendi (talk) at 21:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Confirmed ALT1 (in addition to GA status, etc). The main hook is not okay until "miracle" appears in the body of the article. But ALT1 is more interesting anyways, although I have also proposed ALT2 as a slight improvement. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Against Anti-Semitism

[edit]

The Meyers Leonard anti-Semitism incident is on Julian Edelman's Wikipedia page, but the DeSean Jackson anti-Semitism incident isn't on Julian Edelman's Wikipedia page. Could someone add it? JumperZ69666420 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wife

[edit]

IS JULIAN EDELMAN IN A RELATIONSHIP 2600:100A:B02E:77C7:BD2A:CDA0:E9AE:A6C9 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tylerobrien1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Edelman&oldid=1257716469"