Talk:Matt Leinart

Football

• Is his arm strength best described as "adequate"? While he's not Brett Favre, it's better than adequate; Marc Bulger's arm is adequate, or Jon Kitna, or Chad Pennington. While there's a distinction to be made at the NFL level between "adequate" arms and the truly pop-gun variety (Jay Fiedler, Cade McNown when he played, etc.), I think Leinart stands out above Bulger, Kitna, Pennington, Warner, or maybe even Brady in terms of zip on throws, meaning he's "solid" or "above-average" in that department, not merely "adequate". -- Davis21Wylie September 10, 2005

I have to agree, although I think Jon Kitna does have an above-average arm. The likenesses between Leinart and Brady are uncanny, and Brady's got a solid arm, so I second the motion to have the adjective changed.Treima 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying Cade McNown had a gun? no he didnt thats why he didnt make it because his throws couldnt cut through the chicago wind. And word is the Jets didnt want to draft Leinart because they didnt think his arm was a Jay Cutler or a Vince Young.

---

Leinart did announce in Jan. 2005 that he was gay. This should not be deleted anymore and nobody should have a problem with him being gay. I do not understand the rampant homophobia on this topic. 65.103.208.149 December 29, 2005

Leinart never announced he was gay. It's not "rampant homophobia" to revert statements that are not true. Dude's dating a supermodel, plus YayCollege! even has a "Matt Leinart Bang-O-Meter" chronicling the number of starlets Matt has bagged this season! - Davis21Wylie (t) 14:50, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Matt Leinart is not gay. It's incredibly stupid that we even have to have this discussion.--Alhutch 18:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• To the anonymous user who removed the comments above:

1. It's contrary to Wikipedia practice to revert or remove content from talk pages except for cases of blatant vandalism. Discussion is discussion, even if it's banal.
2. They're not "useless comments" if the discussion, such as it is, keeps the same baseless assertion from being posted to the article again.

I put a temporary block on the editor who kept adding the gay comment. His "sources" were laughable. From available evidence, as if it really mattered, the subject of the article is gay only in the fantasies of that editor. Now let's drop the subject. — Kbh3^rdtalk 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Boy, don't I feel stupid. I actually believed he was gay just from reading it here. Just goes to show that sometimes you gotta check those sources...66.80.212.78 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because he is dating a girl doesn't mean he's straight. Ever heard of Elton John and George Michael, genius? User:218.101.64.126 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• You could use that argument for anyone. However, if the only evidence you have about anyone's personal life is that they are straight, their being straight is the only conclusion you can logically reach. Wahkeenah 06:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

abuse of power

An administrator (Alhutch) semi-protected this page as an abuse of power because he dislikes legitimate edits. Please un-protect this page immediately.

you have yet to cite your sources. Go ahead.--Alhutch 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Alhutch, for protecting this page... I was going to suggest it myself. This "Matt Leinart is gay" thing is becoming quite tiresome. "Sources"? Ha! - Davis21Wylie 03:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the support. the "matt leinart is gay" edits have come from several very persistent IPs. I'm not sure what's behind the whole thing.--Alhutch 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's ludicrous that this has gone on for as long as it has, thank you for the protection. IanMcGreene 20:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

unblock this page please

There are legitimate people that want to edit the article. Your petty squabbling over something so idiotic as this is ruining people's experience on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.12.114 (talk • contribs)

good point. on my way.--Alhutch 05:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy smokes!!! You're one of the IPs who kept putting in the "Matt Leinart is gay" thing. I previously blocked you for that reason! I can't believe I got tricked so easily. I'm reprotecting the page, and checking the contribs page next time an IP asks me to unprotect a page.--Alhutch 06:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so petty Alhutch, there are multiple people using the same IPs. Legitimate people want to edit this page. You are being petty because you disagree with arguably true edits. You are abusing what protected status was supposed to be for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldc19 (talk • contribs)

You are very smart, unsigned guy.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm more than willing to post sources for my edits. Alhutch is just being the prototypical power-hungry rude admin. I haven't posted sources because of Alhutch's abuse toward me and lack of respect for me as a human being and fellow Wikipedian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.12.114 (talk • contribs)

that's all well and good, but since you have the ability to edit this talk page, why don't you post the sources right here, right now? Please go ahead, I am watching the page.--Alhutch 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any sources. Stop wasting my time.--Alhutch 07:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See another example of your abusiveness. I will provide sources in due time. It takes a while to compile everything you buffoon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.12.114 (talk • contribs)

By the way, as you said when you were applying to be an admin: "if I have been rude to another user, I always make sure to apologize." You owe me and every other wikipedian on this page an apology for being so rude.

and you calling me a buffoon wasn't rude?--Alhutch 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have no such qualms about being rude to other (anonymous) users. You, IP 141.161.12.114 (and all the other IP's who have vandalized this page in the past few months), are disingenuous, arrogant, and infantile, and you are not a "fellow Wikipedian" in anyone's mind... you are a vandal. You will not "provide sources in due time," because you have no sources. Alhutch owes no one an apology; you, as you so eloquently put it, are the one who "owes me and every other wikipedian on this page an apology". This nonsense has persisted for months, and it needs to stop. Now. (Davis21Wylie now sits back and waits for massive amounts of vandalization on his user page...) - Davis21Wylie 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Too many a-nones are like al-Qaeda setting off car bombs, except unfortunately they don't die. Maybe that's a little extreme. Actually, they are more like crabgrass on your front lawn. Wahkeenah 18:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow what a bunch of ruffians admins seem to be. Comparing IPs to al-qaeda is really incredibly rude, not to mention stupid, and unbecoming of a true Wikipedian. I'll be sure to report you to the proper authorities for punishment. You my friend, are a rude rude person, and a sorry excuse for an admin. And to Alhutch, I am sorry I called you a buffoon but that doesn't change the fact that you were rude first and have continued to be rude. You should apologize just as you promised when you were running for adminship. User:141.161.12.114 23:05, 23 February 2006

I reeled in the al-Qaeda comment and instead compared you to crabgrass, which I notice you did not challenge. >:) Wahkeenah 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am not an Admin. I would not run if nominated, and if elected I would not serve. >:)

Boy, that edit war was fun, wasn't it, guys? Dude must have set up an account and waited four days to start vandalising again! Committed to this whole thing, aren't they? Wishful thinking on their part, maybe? - Davis21Wylie 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what he did. I don't understand this guy's motivations at all.--Alhutch 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

The article is now unprotected. Editors that have violated the WP:3RR rule, have been blocked for 24 hrs. I will be monitoring this article. Note that edit wares never produce any useful results. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I really don't think you fully understand the situation. Look at the substance of the edits that Cooldc19 and the IP contributors were inserting. We have been dealing with these people for some time on this article, and I believe the situation was quite under control already. Davis21Wylie was completely in the right in this situation, and should be unblocked immediately. I won't do it myself without your approval as I do not want to start a wheel war, but please do unblock him now.--Alhutch 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject of the article, but it is my opinion based on what I have seen in the history that it is not so black and white as you describe it. The fact that the editor is an annon, does not mean that he/she does not deserve the same courtesy extended to logged-in editors. My view is that this is a content dispute. You may want to ask an additional sysop for their comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it up on WP:AN/I.--Alhutch 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clearly vandalism. Familiarity with the subject matter is important here, I guess. While it's possible that Leinart could come out, it's incredibly unlikely, adding a claim like that would require a source to be cited. Anyway, sports articles frequently see vandalism like this... especially "golden boy" quarterback types. Totally fits the vandalism profile, it's not a content dispute until an actual source gets cited. --W.marsh 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

agree. The situation with Davis21Wylie has been cleared up. Hopefully the vandals don't return.--Alhutch 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

After we discussed the situation with Alhutch, the block of User:Davis21Wylie has been removed. I would want to draw the editors attention to the fact that if any one needs to revert what they consider to be vandalism, to do so without comments such as the ones made by Davis21Wylie in the edit summaries. That is just feeding the trolls. I would also remind editors that the official policy of no personal attacks, applies to all contributors of Wikipedia, including anons, and yes, even those that engage in vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Vindication!

Hey Alhutch, this IS a content dispute. There is clear evidence that Matt Leinart is a homosexual. Unfortunately because I have been so busy with work, I and the other IP have not been able to get around to posting sources but we WILL in the near future. There are many sources to dig up so please give us time. Luckily we have been VINDICATED by a third party who saw that your actions were highly inappropriate, excessive and a clear violation of Wikipedia's standards and policies. Alhutch, you and your friends should be ashamed of yourself for your extreme level of immaturity in this matter. Thank you to Cooldc19 (whoever you may be) for standing up for us and facing the consequences of your courage tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.237.65 (talk • contribs)

I have blocked 68.48.237.65 as a vandal (see main article edit history). Reporting this on AN/I too for full disclosure. --W.marsh 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the user too, plenty of warnings on user's talk page. These edits are not legitimate.--Alhutch 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Matt Leinart Homosexual Sources

Hey guys,

I finally got off early from work tonight and found a few of my sources. This is not a comprehensive list. I will post more when I have more time

http://boifromtroy.com/?p=4717 Scroll down to statement that "MATT LEINART AND THE REST OF THE TROJANS IN THE BATH HOUSE ARE GAY"

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lucero/050830 Matt Leinart winks at a freshman male, in a gay manner

http://www.mattleinartfan.blogspot.com/ Associated Press article stating that Matt Leinart came out. This in particular is irrefutable evidence of his homosexuality. Additionally this blog appears to be by a straight fan who is shocked that he is gay.

I hope this satisfies the people who continually REVERT our fully appropriate and sourced edits. Please do not revert any longer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.237.65 (talk • contribs)

Not to belabor the obvious, but the "sources" consist of A) an anonymous blog comment, B) a work of satire and C) a fake AP article. Weak trolling attempt, needs more cowbell. --W.marsh 05:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that clears up everything, doesn't it? (Sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell) You (or some other phantom IP intent on the same type of vandalization) already showed us the first two "sources", and frankly they're laughable. "Boi from Troy"'s posts are simply wishful thinking on that writer's part... the ESPN article is clearly to be taken tongue-in-cheek, as the "Do you think he's gay?" remark only serves to underscore the rampant Leinart-mania that existed on the USC campus at that time, especially among younger students. As for your third "source"... It's a blog that I'd wager you created yourself, a fabricated reference the likes of which would give even Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass pause. Oh, and that "AP Story" is fake. Whoever they are, "Jamaal Lanson" and "Jessica Lakeson" do not write for the AP (or any news service, for that matter). A google search for their names returned no results. If this is the best you've got, you should just give it up. It's over. - Davis21Wylie 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

To user Davis21Wylie: When reverting vandalism, please use the summary "rvv" or "rv vandalism" only. Do not make comments about the other editors even if they are disrruptive. Revert and place a notice at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thank you for not feeding the trolls and keeping civility in mind ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I never would have thought that Matt Leinart was gay. I wonder why any of those articles were in any of the magazines I read.--Emokid200618 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection

I've unprotected the page. I don't feel that one vandal is reason enough to semi-protect a page. Especially with the draft coming up, it is likely that anons/new users will have many contributions to make to this page. It takes about a minute at most to revert and block the guy. --W.marsh 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• The draft is a good point in removing the unprotect. The vandal is one person, I'm convinced and I have no problem RV over and over without feeding the troll. Report to an admin, get the IP blocked and wait to see if he comes back. He's gotta run out of computers eventually. TKE 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree.--Alhutch 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

wow.--Alhutch 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• The cat came back. TKE 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna start blocking as soon as I see it come up on my watchlist.--Alhutch 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's gotten a bit silly, I semi-protected the page for now. I have emailed abuse at Georgetown (where he presumably goes to school, or at least is using their internet connection). Semi-protecting isn't a good long-term solution, but for now it works... --W.marsh 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, we could spend all night blocking sock puppets, or we could semi protect. the latter seems the better option for now.--Alhutch 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I think his relevant QB information is there, and he is expected to go second in the draft. With a University IP all he has to do is log off and then on again. Shame. TKE 05:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Leinart

Hey guys,

I really disagree with how the admins are becoming so corrupt and are inappropriately stifling a fact about leinart that they just don't like. I fully support all the many people who are opposing the admins' corruptness. Here is an additional source I found today on Leinart's homosexuality. I hope this puts this issue to rest once and for all:

http://www.answers.com/topic/matt-leinart

• The source for that writeup is your phony entry on wikipedia, slavishly copied by that website as they do so much other wikipedia stuff. If Leinart actually were "openly gay", it would be a major news story. It isn't, and he ain't. Wahkeenah 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that answers.com site is a little less embarrassing to the vandal than his Jukt Micronics-esque phony blog, but still... There's no point in using logic at this juncture, just revert and block, revert and block. - Davis21Wylie 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to semi-protect it. I'm just a lowly user with no authority to do so. >:( Wahkeenah 18:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to answers.com. It's not a stealth ripoff. It says right at the top of the page that wikipedia is its source. Wahkeenah 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• That and if you'll notice, it's editors reverting your crap. Admins come in when called. It's been six weeks, go to bed already. TKE 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the future, if he returns, feel free to request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or through me directly (but I might not be around). Keeping the page protected long-term is, as discussed, not something that should happen. --W.marsh 19:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder where it went after being so persistent earlier today. Maybe recess was over. Wahkeenah 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

nope, they're back. revert and block, revert and block.--Alhutch 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

everyone feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if there's an attack, and i'll come and block the vandals if I'm around.--Alhutch 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The vandal is up to 22 21 socks, but resistance is futile! T K E 06:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It often seems to create them two at a time, so it will usually have its sockpuppets in pairs. :) Wahkeenah 06:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's going on the sock page with W. marsh's comment. T K E 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

what the heck is this fellow's motivation? the sock count is up to 23 with the two i just added, but who's really counting.--Alhutch 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Raises Hand. T K E 07:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any other vandals so active they have their own category? Talk about Dubious Achievements. I think the page understates the case, as I think that Leinart looney has used several IP addresses at various times. As to motivation, that would be known only to the vandal, if anyone. It reminds me of some other minor vandalism wars recently, such as with the George Reeves article. But in my admittedly narrow wiki world of experience, I have yet to run into any other vandal so persistent. Wahkeenah 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Every sock template created makes a page; it's autogenerated. They can be found at Category:Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets of Username. As to prolific, there are many. Willy on Wheels mentioned below is fairly humorous- the user adds "ON WHEELS!" to random articles. The Communist vandal is less funny. I find this one to be amusing in scrappiness. T K E 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't link the sock thing because I'm too lazy to find the sock temp link list. So sue me. T K E 07:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a few famous ones, like Willy on Wheels and Mr. Treason and others. I think they're detailed here: Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Unique_entities. those ones get imitated sometimes. i have never seen one so persistent as this one either.--Alhutch 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it's just a singular person at Georgetown University. But there ain't nothing to do but watch, revert, wash, rinse, repeat. T K E 07:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Illegal push?

I think it was Sports Illustrated that had stated Leinart was pushed over the line by Bush in the Notre Dame game. I just saw the replay, and they were right. Whoever keeps deleting the fairly neutral (and generous) "some claim he was pushed" is out of line. Wahkeenah 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please settle this dispute here; I asked the IP to come and comment. T K E 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad; I thought it was another vandal. - Davis21Wylie 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. User IP 67.48.90.179 is not the Leinart vandal, 68.__.__.__ are. The 67 IP has only contributed with this edit; hopefully the user will weigh in. T K E 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this link, with this quote:

"USC running back Reggie Bush violated a rule when he helped push quarterback Matt Leinart into the end zone for the winning touchdown against Notre Dame, but a national officiating coordinator said Sunday that the play would not have been reviewable even if a replay system had been in use for the game. Bush acknowledged after the game that he attempted to push Leinart into the end zone. -- Los Angeles Times"

If Bush himself admits to it, I think we can safely leave it in. - Davis21Wylie 00:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, User 67.48.90.179 here. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be "out of line" in continually changing the part about the push. I just think putting it in there changes the context of the article and takes away credit from Leinart. If you watch football, you realize this kind of play happens somewhat often and is almost never called unless it is extremely conspicuous or lasts several seconds (even then, it's almost never called as an illegal push). If we want to start another whole article about the play, I have no problem with it. If we want to leave it in on this article, that's fine, too. I will say, though, that one time I tried to mention that Weis himself said he had no problem with the push, and that, too, got deleted by someone. So, on that note, here, I'll provide a link with Weis's quote: this link ...

"After seeing replays, some Irish fans were upset that Bush wasn't penalized for pushing Leinart in. But Weis said even though it's against the rules, he had no problem with it.

'That's a heads up by Reggie and hopefully any running back I had would be pushing right along with him,' he said.-- Sporting News"

Therefore, if you're going to say that some claim it was an illegal push, then I think it's fair to include Weis's comments as well to keep the play in context. On the other hand, if you start including all that, you're going off on a tangent and giving the play more attention than it deserves in an article about Matt Leinart, in my opinion. Like I said, if you're going to talk about it that much, perhaps it's best to start another article entirely on the subject. But it doesn't matter to me anymore. Do as you guys will. I want to say for the record, too, that before I get blamed further for being out of line, I have contributed to various parts of this article, including parts about Leinart's youth, his performance in the Rose Bowl and the summary of the Notre Dame game - all of the numbers and stats should be correct. Hopefully I've contributed more than I've harmed. Thanks much. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.48.90.179 (talk • contribs) .

• No one has criticized your contributions, nor have you harmed the article. That's why I asked you to weigh in here. T K E 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further Clarification Many of your edits were reverted by accident because of the vandal, I apologize on behalf of all the other editors. T K E 05:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• In my view, if you're going to talk about the great play at Notre Dame, you have to acknowledge the push. Otherwise, don't even bring up the subject. Officials don't always catch these things. In the NFL it likely would have been reviewed and the touchdown nullified. The Green Bay touchdown to win the "Ice Bowl" game, a quarterback sneak, was a similar play. The Packers halfback (I forget who it was) raised his arms to show the official he had not pushed Starr across. That became a famous photo, since he appeared to be signaling "touchdown". I wouldn't go so far as to say the "Bush push" was some gross miscarriage of justice, especially as the Irish shouldn't have let them get that close. It's just one of those things. Wahkeenah 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wahk, what would have happened in the NFL is irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on a college football game (I'm certainly far from convinced that it would have been reviewed and overturned in the NFL anyway). As has been said, in the college game - which this was, as we all know - it wouldn't have been overturned even if it could have been reviewed. Furthermore, every year in all kinds of games there are all kinds of controversial plays that go for scores that don't get called back. Heck, it's even been said that officials could call holding on basically every down because that's how frequently it occurs. (And BTW, when was the last time you saw an illegal push get called in college football, anyway?) That's football. Remember Vince Young on the option pitch in the Rose Bowl that scored a TD and replays clearly showed that his knee was down. Yet I haven't yet seen discussion on how that play should have been called back. If we're going to be discussing every single controversial call in football, we can add a few more thousand pages to wikipedia. I'll gladly contribute to doing so if you like. I'm just warning that it might become tiresome. Like I said, at this point, if you all want to leave in the thing about the push, it's perfectly fine by me. But just saying "hey, some claim it was an illegal push!" leaves a lot to subjectivity while also leaving much necessary context out to adequately explain the situation (and perhaps why the push was ruled correctly and was NOT ruled to be illegal), especially when the opposing coach himself doesn't think it was a big deal and in fact states that it was a great play. Just my opinion. Again, sorry for being out of line earlier.

I think we should keep the description of the push if we are to describe the great 61-yard pass that preceded it, but also include the fact that Weis was okay with the push, the fact that it was not reviewable, and source the LA Times and The Sporting News for the sake of documentation. Also, "some observers claim" may need to be re-written in light of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. This way, all points of view will be accomodated in the article. - Davis21Wylie 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• If it's against the rules, then it's against the rules, and it doesn't matter who was "OK with it". And since Bush owned up to it, "some observers claim" should be replaced by "Bush acknowledged". However, it could be a single line with a single parenthetic citation, and that should be sufficient. It's not going to change the game's outcome. And USC lost the national title, so their illegal action was eventually punished by the football gods. >:) Wahkeenah 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• You're right - if it's against the rules, it's against the rules. But this is where the debate is: was it in fact illegal? Just because Bush "owned up to it" does not make it against the rules. And just as it apparently doesn't matter who was "OK with it," then it doesn't matter what Reggie says or doesn't say about it. We all saw what happened. Even still, it's realistically a completely subjective call. How many short yardage plays have there been in football in which the fullback pushed the tailback or the tailback pushed the QB or a lineman pushed a ballcarrier down the field? Answer: lots. How many of these plays have ever been penalized for an illegal push? Answer: hardly any. If there are any, it's usually for a push for a sustained length of time or amount of yardage. And no, I don't have a citation for that, but I have watched a lot of football at all levels over the years. In any case, Wahk is right: right or wrong, there are in fact people who CLAIM that it was illegal, so I'm "OK with" a citation of some sort. It certainly was a controversial episode at the time (and still is, I'm sure, among certain ND circles).

• So it's agreed that a mention should be in the article, which fits the Music City Miracle. Now, wording is the last step and then the article is pretty much down. T K E 04:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

NFL Draft

By basically saying he is going to be taken by the Tennessee Titans and only the Tennessee Titans when they are actively considering Vince Young is pov. The Oakland Raiders are a possibility and the New York Jets, but the middle 1st round teams could move up as well though I doubt somebody like the Colts or the Steelers could or would move up.

63.173.47.193 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not exactly violating POV since it is attributing the prediction to specific commentators. Feel free to rewrite it, but it's probably best to cite sources. --W.marsh 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is information (with references) that potentially explains his slip from #1 overall to #10 not notable? Particularly being added to the 2006 Draft section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.2.124.130 (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The information, if it can be sourced, would be speculative and would rely heavily on opinion, which is very difficult to be presented in a neutral and objective manner. So, I don't know if it is as much a question of notability, although, it probably is not really that notable. That he was drafted is objective and notable; that he won a Heisman is objective and notable; that he is now a backup is objective and notable; but that he went 10th when some though he should have gone higher is not objective and not notable. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

==His Appearance on Punk'd==

Did everyone in USC worked with Ashton Kutcher to set up Leinart (including Reggie Bush)? BigBang19 23:49 PST, 5 May 2006

Matt Leinart a father

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0830Leinart-ON.html Should anybody include this information in the article?

No mention of Britney Spears?

The two are being linked together —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.2.85 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Height?

According to the pro-football statistics on the right he is "6-5 and (4.5m)" 4.5m would mean he is over 14 feet tall.

Controversey

Since there is/ was only one controversial situation in his life, shouldn't the title be "Controversy" for now. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I concurr. Larry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Renforth (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any controversy section IMO. It is poorly sourced and of dubious reference. It calls for conjecture and opinion of judgment as to his actions, violating Wiki's NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newguy34 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't every controversy subject to people's opinions? Some people may think nothing of it, while others seriously would. Bank robbers wouldn't think someone holding up a bank is newsworthy, but the rest of the public would. One's opinions are clouded by their surroundings, and in a digital age, that blur of distinction is even more evident as everything is available in real-time and is able to be scrutinized easier due to accessibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Renforth (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jedbartlet.jpg

The image File:Jedbartlet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2005 season

I was reading this, and saw that in the sectiona bout the 2005 season, it says that besides fresno state, USC wasnt really challenged during the regular season

ummm this is a COMPLETE LIE!

im a USC fan and i remember clearly not only the Fresno State games, but also The notre Dame game, which some people consider the best game of all time, and the Arizona state game, where i beleive SC may have been down by as many as 18 points before the half, and the oregon game, SC was down at half time (although they did blow the ducks out in the second half —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.152.87 (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've reworded it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bush Push game redux

An IP editor added text to link the discussion of the 2005 Notre Dame game to the more detailed article 2005 Southern California vs. Notre Dame football game. QueenofBattle reverted this. I then tried to make the text more explicit, with a source, to restore the wikilink from this article to the more detailed one about the game. QueenofBattle reverted it again. It seems obvious to me that this belongs in the article, in some form, and I especially don't understand the resistance to having a link to the more detailed article on the game. I don't see any policy or editorial reason to leave this out.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that BLPs should be about the person, not about what happened during a football game. The push is covered in depth at the article that you point out, as well as at USC Trojans football and 2005 USC Trojans football team. That seems like enough for something that comprised an very, very, very small portion of one's life. Plus, he wasn't even the one who made the push. So, should we have a link to every other player who made a good play while Leinart was on the field? Clearly, nope. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. This is probably the most famous play of his college career (in which he scored the winning touchdown)--what else would you put in an article about a football player? Why would you oppose having a summary and link to the more detailed article? If it is the phrase "Bush Push" that you don't like, I suppose different wording can be worked out. But I can see no reason to avoid linking to a detailed article on what has been called one of the most famous plays in football history and in which Leinart played a central role. I will be interested to see if anyone else has an opinion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

POV, tone

Overall this article if well-written, but there are a few places where it veers close to sounding like a fan article. Just a thought. And do we really need to know anything about his child custody arrangements? PurpleChez (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Heisman Trophy history at end of page

As was done with the {{Heisman Trophy}} template, I am changing the winner to say that no one is the 2005 winner, and that Troy Smith is the 2006 winner. The same is also being done for the Troy Smith article. This is the source. Please do not revert it unless discussed here. Also see the List of Heisman Trophy winners talk page. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Matt Leinart/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Second half of the article needs to be fixed, plus unnecessary information needs to be removed. Almost a B-class article. --Wizardman 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 23:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Leinart. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080729072550/http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-1-82/Once-anointed-as-USC-QB--Sanchez-asserted-himself.html to http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-1-82/Once-anointed-as-USC-QB--Sanchez-asserted-himself.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wonderlictestsample.com/nfl-wonderlic-scores/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Tweet about moving

I removed this content about Leinhart's recent tweet about moving from Los Angeles due to COVID-19 restrictions being put into place on restaurants. Leinhart did tweet this, but it could just more of a rant about not being able to dine out than it is a statement about moving. Regardless, I think it's best to wait a bit per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:RECENT to see how things play out before incorporating anything about it into the article. The tweet is receiving some coverage and perhaps there's a way to rephrase the content in a WP:NPOV to include any possible coverage (positive or negative) that the tweet receives. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, however, and there's no need to rush with this type of thing when where dealing with WP:BLP content. I think the first edit and only edit by an IP account to add this to the article has a "trying to disparage" feel to it, which isn't what Wikipedia should be trying to do. If the tweet continues to receive more coverage because either Leinart does move, recants, apologizes or whatever, then perhaps content about not only the tweet, but any ensuing controversy can be incorporated at a later date. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, that addition isn't due in the article because its only source regarding Leinart's statement is a tweet. However, like you said there is some coverage out there. We should wait a few days, but it might be due in the article if and when more coverage comes out or Leinart faces lasting consequences other than criticism (so that the article isn't too heavily weighted by recent coverage).

WP:BLPGOSSIP isn't relevant though - he definitely said it and definitely faced criticism.

Gbear605 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I only brought up BLPGOSSIP because of the part that states "whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I wasn't trying to claim the Leinart didn't tweet such a thing, but perhaps BLPGOSSIP isn't as relevant as I originally thought. Anyway, I read some reports that Leinart (and his wife) subsequently tried to clarify the tweet and that he went ahead and deleted it, which probably will only generate more coverage of it. It also seems as if he has tweeted other similar things in the past; therefore, there might be a way to incorporate not only coverage of that one tweet, but also of his tweeting in general if other tweets have received coverage similar coverage or have been similarly controversial. FWIW, the only reason I came across this was not because I've got any interest in Leinart or his tweeting, but because the first article I read about this included another tweet about someone who seemed to be gloating that this Wikipedia page had been updated regarding the tweet and Leinart's apparent "desire" to leave LA. Again, content about this probably should be considered, but it needs to be added in a more encyclopedic manner IMO and not just be the expansion of some Twitter war. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing the tweet reference is the correct decision. This article is a BLP of a highly decorated athlete and the tweet reference does not meet WP:DUE standards for an encyclopedic article. The WP:RECENT standards also apply here. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)