Jump to content

Talk:Sammy Watkins

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

Notability

[edit]

There is really only one source used in this article that demonstrates significant coverage of Watkins. Sources like stat pages from ESPN or info at Rivals.com are fine for verifying facts and stats, but they aren't really significant coverage. A few good, third party sources that show significant coverage of Watkins will show his notability without question. Instead of just subjectively saying you think he is notable and removing the template, why not 'demonstrate that he is? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misdemeanor charges

[edit]

In regards to a player's misdemeanor charges and the WP:NOTNEWS policy, I feel it is not necessary to list the minor infractions of Watkins or other players like Jadeveon Clowney. Consider this, and apply the WP:NOTNEWS policy when you do: Years from now when we're compiling the collegiate and professional accolades of these athletes, how are these misdemeanor charges going to be noteworthy? Is a list compiled of misdemeanor charges for all notable people who have pages on Wikipedia. If not, why? I know some may say Watkins is notable because he was arrested and missed games, but A. Clowney was arrested (a traffic ticket is an arrest) and B. there was never an opportunity to suspend Clowney. It's got to be one or the other. Either we record all one-time misdemeanors, or we record none.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one in their right mind equates a drug arrest to a traffic violation, no matter the technicalities involved with a speeding ticket, or whether both are called misdemeanors. If a brush with the law results in an impact to a person's career in some manner, then I'd say it reaches the threshold of notability. Watkins was suspended by Clemson for his transgression, so I'd say that they felt it was notable enough to warrant punishment. Clowney could have been suspended for the bowl game, or for a half, a quarter, even a series, but this didn't happen, indicating that USC administration didn't feel his speeding ticket was serious enough to merit missing playing time. Likewise, Clemson's head football coach was not punished by the university for his speeding ticket while on his way to do his radio show, and therefore that incident fails to meet the level of notability as well, in my opinion. I do agree that some consensus for legal troubles needs to be reached, and I feel that the threshold I've suggested is a reasonable one. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clowney wasn't found guilty before the bowl game. Watkins was before the season. Universities generally withhold punishment until that happens, so we'll never know with Clowney (he's awaiting a jury trial). The issue is not equating the crimes. The issue is whether we should note every first-time misdemeanor charge for notable people. Honestly, GandB, that's a LOT of Gamecock players. I personally think it's unnecessary. I can understand if Watkins were committing several crimes or showing a pattern of transgressions, but he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served PTI community service. And I feel it fits in with the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Clowney's received as much media attention over his ticket as Watkins did for his arrest. I feel you and I are on the same page that this opens the door to a lot of petty sniping between fan bases.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not on the same page, as my threshold of notability of these legal troubles is demonstrable impact on a person's career. Clowney and Dabo Swinney had none, Watkins most definitely did. Wikipedia doesn't deal in hypotheticals, and we'll never know if Clowney being found guilty of speeding would have resulted in a USC suspension, but I think you and I can both agree that it is highly doubtful he'd have missed a single snap over a traffic ticket. However, if it is revealed by a reliable source after this year's draft that an NFL team passed on Clowney because of his lawless pattern of driving over the speed limit, then the threshold I've mentioned would be reached. And I'd point out there are also a LOT of Clemson players, coaches, etc. that could have similar incidents added to their articles, but that's not at all what I'm suggesting here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what are we going to define as "impact"?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For college athletes, I'd say suspensions/dismissals, for pro athletes, suspensions/fines/etc. Obviously, significant jail time would qualify as an impact. Nothing that Stephen Garcia did ever rose above the level of misdemeanor offenses, but the number of offenses and the fact that it cost him playing time and ultimately his college career make those petty crimes notable. Also, to pretend as though all misdemeanors are created equal just isn't reasonable. For instance, there is a clear demarcation between a misdemeanor traffic violation and misdemeanor assault. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that not all misdemeanors are equal. Are we going to factor in that Clowney recorded two speeding tickets over 25 mph within close proximity to each other?--LesPhilky (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not going to factor that in, because the end result was the same, no suspension, no punishment by USC of any kind, and therefore no impact to his college football career, which is what makes him notable for a Wikipedia article in the first place. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe we should include both rather than nothing. First of all we don't have space problem. Second, the decision whether some incident was noteworthy is better done in hindsight rather than advance. --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the notion of all get included or none get included is flat wrong. Every charge and the circumstances differ and that is part of the decision process. Second, this whole "traffic ticket is an arrest" thing suffers from some misrepresentation. Yes, a ticket is technically an arrest. However, the traffic charge is not a criminal charge. It is a civil infraction. In other words, if found guilty, you can't go to jail. South Carolina law might be different, but it really doesn't matter. The crimes Watkins was charged with were actual crimes, without a doubt. Third, is a misdemeanor relevant? Ask my congressman who was recently charged with a drug misdemeanor. It is most assuredly in his BLP and will stay there. (BTW, like Watkins, his drug charge would have been a felony had either of them been back in their hometown) Lastly, unlike Clowney, Watkins' actions effected the entire team, having him suspended for 2 games. Sorry, this is relevant. It's not a NPOV issue. In fact, I'd argue removing it causes a NPOV issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic tickets in SC are criminal offenses. I think the slippery slope we're possibly dancing on is the perception of what is a notable offense and what is not. This produces a lot of gray area between opposing fans when documenting on Wikipedia these offenses. You sort of bring it up yourself by mentioning how some offenses carry more weight in other states. For example, if Daquan Bowers had a gun in SC, it wouldn't have been a blip on the radar. But since his offense happened in New York, it's considered notable. You state that Watkins would have been charged with a felony in his home state, but in some states now, he wouldn't have even been committing a crime. As Bender235 says, it may be best to determine the noteworthiness in hindsight rather than advance. Perhaps the safer route is to list them all. A traffic ticket for going 10 over? Probably not worth mentioning. Should it be if it's 30 over and worthy of losing a license like Clowney and Swinney? What if it happens more than once? Maybe Swinney's should be in there based on the controversy with the ticketing officer.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that if Daquan Bowers had carried a handgun into an airport in SC, or any other state in the Union, that it would have been just as big a "blip" to the authorities as it was in NY. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Speeding tickets are trivial in the overall category of "criminal offenses", and they should be treated as such by an encyclopedic project such as this one. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me say that I think the whole group here as come to a pretty good consensus, so I don't think it's necessary to debate it any longer. However, you are incorrect about Bowers and his handgun. The reason he was arrested was because he broke a New York law. Bowers even told security ahead of time that he had the firearm because he thought he would be complying with the law.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are criminal or not doesn't change the rest of the argument. We decided what is or is not notable on an article by article basis. This notion that what we decide here about a couple of football players should be applied on a broad basis to other BLP's is really not realistic. If you want to use this "all or none" mindset, then you need to start a discussion at BLPN. This is a notable event. It had consequences beyond the event itself, particularly on his playing, which is the source of his notability. I can give you example after example of BLP's that include misdemeanor arrest incidents. Using these two guys as a barometer is myopic. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this active discussion when I stated my opinions on Clowney's talk page, but apparently GarnettAndBlack saw it, as he basically stated my first point above. There were two main issues I had. I think the majority here agree on my first point, but I don't think my second point has been brought up yet. Here is a copy since this is the active thread - Brinkley32 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments make sense. I think we can move on from this point as it appears a consensus has been reached.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in the previous editing of this article, but I know this is on ongoing debate/discussion on numerous articles. I don't think there is specific policy to argue here, but rather a blend of separate policies. From my basic knowledge of policies, I would argue that in general, legal/academic/etc incidents aren't automatically noteworthy. In most cases, the decision on whether to include such incidents depend on the impact. It isn't a clear cut line though, and takes a little bit of due diligence. For a couple of examples: Clowney's ticket really isn't notable by itself, but could be worth including if there are further implications. As it is currently in the article, I would remove it. If there are reliable sources that say the ticket could impact his standing in the upcoming draft, then that could be worth including. In the cases of other players, like Watkins, and DGB, I would say the incidents are worth noting in regards to the impact. The incidents resulted in suspensions and should be noted in the section for that season or college career or whatever for that particular article. Another problem is listing these arrest/incidents under the catch-all "Personal Life" section and especially creating these separate "Legal Troubles" sections. It is the same as a "Criticism/controversy" section in BLP policy. Isn't the policy to incorporate controversy/criticism where notable in the article body, not make a separate section? That is usually brought up for political/public figures, but translates easily over to these college athletes. If player is involved in legal/academic/etc incidents with a notable impact, incorporate such impacts in the body of the article where the impact is made. In summary, I see two main issues at the moment:

  • Legal/academic/ect incidents are only notable if there is a notable impact from the incident. Clowney's ticket isn't notable in and of itself, but reliable sources might show that there is a notable impact, such as possible NFL draft implications, that could be incorporated in the draft section.
  • Just as "Criticism/Controversy" sections are avoided for public figures, listing these type of incidents for college athletes under the catch-all "Personal life" section or especially creating these "Legal troubles" sections, should be avoided. If an incident has a notable impact it should be incorporated in the body of the article where the impact is made. (Certain circumstances/incidents are obviously going to be exceptions and merit specific sections/detail. I haven't reviewed how his particular article has been handled, but Johnny Manziel comes to mind.) Brinkley32 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 14 (UTC)
  • I disagree and that doesn't fit the definition of apologetic. A person must be a first time offender to serve pre-trial intervention. It could serve to inform someone reading this article as to why Watkins was not convicted and didn't serve time. You state that it's not Wikipedia's job to publish court decisions. Yes, it is. Countless pages thoroughly explain court outcomes. Pointing out that Watkins was eligible for PTI because he was a first-time offender is not POV or apologetic. It's a well-documented fact in several media sources I can provide.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside any original research that may be at play here, if the only way for them to be eligible is to be a first time offender, then stating that is completely unnecessary. It would be redundant. Second, I didn't say Wikipedia doesn't publish court decisions. that is false. I said it's not our job to EXPLAIN them. It's not. that is the job of reliable third party sources. Third, you claim I opposed putting the outcome in. Not only did I leave the outcome in, I thanked you for it and I commented here that your addition of them was an improvement. So I'm not sure where you get that nonsense from, but it's ridiculous. your first version is ideal. I'll defend it all day long. Your second version comes off as trying to apologize or minimize. It is POV. Why not see what others think before you revert some more? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to get upset. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your exact words. We can leave it as is, but my version was not POV, apologetic or minimizing. It's a clear, documented fact. You stated earlier that removing the incident was a problem with NPOV. Now you say fully explaining it is as well. It's not, but it's a trivial debate, so I'm fine leaving it as is. I do thank you for your contributions to this overall discussion, however.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a member of the Bills

[edit]

He has been DRAFTED by the Bills. He is NOT a member of the team yet. He hasn't even started to negotiate his contract yet, let alone sign one. Stop inserting the false statement (sometimes called a lie) that he is now a member of the team. Quit worrying about being first and worry about being accurate. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whom are you talking to?--LesPhilky (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Maybe state his name. You kind of sounded like a raving lunatic here talking to no one.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 season

[edit]

Wiki, I made edits to the 2015 season injury controversy, which was misrepresenting Watkins being critical of football/Bills fans. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Sammy Watkins without a redirect. (non-admin closure) Rockchalk717 19:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Watkins (American football) → Sammy Watkins – There are two BLPs of a Sammy Watkins, one a musician, one the wide receiver for the Kansas City Chiefs. The musician page is a stub of a relatively unknown musician that is rarely edited (35 edits since 2006 vs 35 since March on the football player). I couldn’t get the page views tool to pull up but I’m guessing there’s a substantial difference in number of weekly views too. I believe Chad Johnson’s page underwent a similar move for similar reasons a few years ago. I believe this page should be simply Sammy Watkins, the musician should stay as Sammy Watkins (musician) and the page titled Sammy Watkins should be moved to Sammy Watkins (disambiguation). Rockchalk717 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)--Rockchalk717 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support as primary topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help

[edit]
@Eagles247: I tried to do the move on my own and failed (facepalm) could you this for me? I moved the dab page but it I can’t move this one over the redirect page I know admins can do that. I did a non admin close since it’s been more than 7 days and we have 2 supports.--Rockchalk717 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sammy_Watkins&oldid=1208226045"