Jump to content

Talk:Matt Birk

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Birk. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NFL award

[edit]

Is it necessary to mention Birk's receipt of 2011 "Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award" in the lead section? This is an award given annually to an NFL player for off-the-field humanitarian activity. We already mention the award in both the inbox and the body of the article. It does not seem like a crucial part of Birk's biography (how many secondary sources actually discuss it in any detail?) and I don't think there's any principle that requires us to recount every accolade one has received in the lead section. And I note that this award is not invariably (or even frequently) mentioned in the lead section of biographical articles. For example, the award is not mentioned in the lead section of Kurt Warner, nor LaDainian Tomlinson. Neutralitytalk 04:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: That statement is inaccurate. It says and I quote "In 2007, Birk was named Minnesota Vikings Man of the Year for the sixth year in a row." The key word there being "Vikings". The Vikings Man of the Year award and the Walter Payton Man of the Year award are two completely different things. Each of the NFL's 32 teams nominate a player for the Man of the Year award, see here. What this statement is saying he was the Vikings nominee 6 consecutive years. He won the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award as a member of the Ravens, not the Vikings. But if you want to randomly pick articles that don't mention it in the opening, I can play that game too: Chris Long, Charles Tillman, Jason Taylor all three mention it in the opening. Sure, some players don't have it listed, but it is still commonplace on Athlete articles to mention awards in the opening. Not to mention the "it's already mentioned in the body" argument doesn't make much sense. Besides the birth name and date of birth (in most cases) literally everything in the opening is mentioned in the body of the article. The entire purpose of an opening is to summarize the article's content.--Rockchalk717 06:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's "commonplace" doesn't make it "mandatory." An award may be lead-worthy for one person, but not for another. Some awards are invariably mentioned, and some are not. This is the latter category. And if the lead is a summary, then it summarizes the major elements of the bio. This award was not a major element of his bio. [Moreover, your edit summary misses the mark WP:ONUS for inclusion is on the person who is the proponent of the content - a Wikiproject doesn't get to decide what goes in the lead section of every article (nor does WP:NFL say anything about this anyway). Neutralitytalk 22:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Here's the thing, I see ONUS getting thrown a lot by people who insist on something being excluded from the article when they are quite literally the only person who's objecting to. And I'll say the same thing I've said the other times. A single objection doesn't equal a consensus for exclusion. You don't have a policy that says that shouldn't be in the article, just a sheer personal opinion. Your personal opinion is also based on a weak argument that commonplace doesn't make inclusion mandatory. Also, you're basing your opinion on it being excluded a the inaccurate statement that him winning the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award was already mentioned in the article. So what exactly is your problem with it??? You have yet to make a solid argument for exclusion based any Wikipedia policy or anything even being an accurate statement.--Rockchalk717 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it is in the article already, it's just for some strange reason in his post-career section which I'm about to move it because it makes no sense there but I do still stand by it needing to be in the opening.--Rockchalk717 05:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me to mention the Walter Payton award in the lead. Birk winning the award ought to be cited to a third-party source, e.g. https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bal-ravens-birk-named-walter-payton-nfl-man-of-the-year-20120204-story.html. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see there's already a citation to HuffPo there. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why: this wasn't a major part of his life. Neutralitytalk 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A relevant guideline is MOS:LEADREL:

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article.

Leads generally repeat information already in the body, so its presence in the body is not a reason to exclude it in the lead. There's no guideline that precludes mention in the lead of items listed in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: ...an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored...—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the separate section. I don't see any reason why it needs to be in the lead. Neutralitytalk 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Which you have yet to give a solid argument as to why it shouldn't be. Bagumba even provided a policy that indicates it probably should be included. At this point, if I don't see someone else object I don't think there's any reason not to include it. I know these discussions aren't necessarily a vote (but they kinda are at the same time, if that makes any sense) but a single objection is not a consensus for exclusion.--Rockchalk717 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't stating an opinion on that specific content, only citing the guideline, which leaves it to consensus to determine if its "relative importance to the subject" deems it worthy or not for the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three days without a comment even after posting a request for comment at WT:NFL and still only a single objection. I have added it back to the opening. And yes, I'm aware content discussions are not a vote, per se, but at the same time a single objection when two people support inclusion is hardly a consensus for excluding content.--Rockchalk717 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion request

[edit]

@Bagumba: I thought I had done that right. But anyway the issue wasn't a copyright violation. It was the first time I had ever used that template so I wasn't sure how to use it. It was trying to delete a potentially defamatory comment. If you check the revisions you'll see it. I was requesting it under reason number 2 at WP:CRD.--Rockchalk717 15:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockchalk717: You can refer to WP:REVDELREQUEST for non-copyvio options. —Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Birk&oldid=1212242542"