Talk:Jimmy Clausen

No Speedy Deletion this time!
I know, it has already been discussed whether Clausen is noteworthy or not. But he definitely is! He was featured in Sports Illustrated, he won prestigious awards, millions of football fans know his name. --Bender235 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuhreeus 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a member of the 2007 Notre Dame football team, this article needs to stay and eventually be expanded.

3 State Titles is wrong
I wasn't sure where to place this so I chose here. Clausen did NOT lead Oaks Christian to their 3rd staight State Title. Region Titles yes. State titles were only re-established last season in Cal. Making the 3 straight titles impossible. —Preceding unsigned Robertplant 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How come the Wiki Gods jump all over minute shit they deem "important" but can't delete the farce that is Oaks Christian winning 3 straight state titles? I'm guessing since the only sport they ever played or understood was and is pocket pool in Grammies basement. Hypocrite fuckers. Robertplant 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply be WP:BOLD and correct the article with a reference. -- KelleyCook 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Commitment Announcement Event
I felt it appropriate to include some of the criticism generated by the way in which Clausen announced his commitment to Notre Dame, in light of the opinion that any college recruit's actual performance and utility to his chosen school cannot be accurately predicted due to various factors including but not limited to injury as well as errors in judgment of a prospect's talent and/or capacity for further development.
 * Do you plan on adding this to every recruit that glamourizes their college choice? Clausen wasn't the first nor will he be the last high school kid to make the most of their moments of fame and act, well, like you would expect high school kids to act.  It seems like your objective is to call out Clausen when in actuality, college football and the monster it has created needs to incorporate this criticism.  Fuhreeus 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What college recruit has "glamourized" (a flattering choice of words to say the least) their college choice to this degree? I personally am unaware of any student-athlete who has taken things to quite this extreme.  If there was someone and there was citable material covering it and criticising then I feel it would be appopriate to mention it in their article.  Also by your logic, if the event is just normal for a high school commitment these days, then it isn't worth mentioning at all, is it?  If the event is noteworthy enough to provide details of then it's worth mentioning the cited criticism of it to be balanced.  But personally I'd be in full favor of giving the kid a break and forgetting about these shenanigans.  Sorry, can't have it both ways... either mention the event and accept the inclusion of the cited media criticism, or don't mention it.  For now I'll remove the parts covering the event.  Fuhrees perhaps you'd be willing to reveal the extent of your connection to Notre Dame and/or Clausen since you seem sensitive about the subject?  And for the record, no I am not an SC alum, I am a Cal Golden Bear.
 * The extent of my connection to Notre Dame -- I graduated in 1998. The extent of my connection to Jimmy Clausen -- I went to high school. Other than that, I have been following recruiting for many years and I've seen plenty of these athletes completely glamourize their recruiting. Have you ever seen a kid pull the "hat trick" on national TV during the Army All-American game?  Did you hear about the kid who called his press conference at The ESPN Zone in Baltimore only to last-minute backout of his committment?  Another kid, on national tv took off his jacket to reveal his team's jersey...paused...and then took that one off to reveal his true choice.  The list goes on and on.  My point was that this 'stupidity' that these kids exhibit isn't anything new and the fact is that it will get worse because college football has created it and glorified it.  The Claussen announcement was sensasionalized because he was the top QB recruit in the country, AND because it was Notre Dame (media darling or media pinata: whichever you choose to believe).  Sidenote: What do I care where you went to college? Also, please sign your comments with 4 ~'s.  Fuhreeus 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My point in stating where I went to college was to show that I am not from a rival school of Notre Dame and looking to besmirch this kid because of that. I am simply a concerned fan of the game of college football.  To me an obvious difference between the examples you point out and what Clausen did is that these other young people were primarily dramatizing their choice of college.  It is true that this is also somewhat egotistical as it gives the impression that their college choice is a big deal.  However associating oneself with the college football hall of fame, showing up in a big, fancy limo like some preemie celebrity, and making such outlandish predictions about what you will do for your college team before you're even a senior in high school is taking self-glorification to a new level.  How can you even repeat that comment about 4 national championships with a straight face?  To me having those comments in the article without some kind of reality check was a joke.  And it is true that egos of college recruits appear to be getting worse, but one way to change any behavior is to draw attention to it and criticize it.  Or just ignore it as we have apparently chosen to do since after all they are just kids and don't need all their youthful indiscretions highlighted in a forum such as this.  It will be interesting to see how Clausen's career plays out, but I am sorry that he wasn't given better guidance by the adults around him and feel he has raised expectations to an impossible level.  BTW, thanks for the tip on signing, I am relatively new to Wikipedia.  Alvie3 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying but if you actually watch the press conference instead of reading the writing of a dennis dodd, one of way-to-many pot-stirring sportswriters, you'll see that it wasn't the case. Yes, he rented a hummer stretch limo and took it to the college HOF.  Have you ever been to the college HOF?  Clausen came out to South Bend for ND's 2006 spring game where he announced his selection in a college football environment.  He never predicted what he would do in college nor how many national championships he would help the irish win.  "That's what I'm going to come here for, to try to get four national championship rings." Shades of Joe Namath? Not even close.  Go back and find the press conference (it may be on youtube).  If anything, you can see that he's just an athlete with everyone's attention and he spews all the standard athlete rhetoric.  It was made into a far bigger deal by Dennis Dodd and his ilk than it ever was.  P.S. Next lesson, indenting.  use a colon or colons in succession to indent the beginning of the line. Fuhreeus 11:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I listened to what was on YouTube. I didn't hear the remark about the national championships in there.  But it said on here before that he planned on winning 4 national championships, not just that he'd try to or that was his goal.  I assumed someone would have corrected that if it was inaccurate; I don't hang on this kid's every word.  No I have never been to the College Football Hall of Fame, the relevance of which is somewhat lost on me, but don't you think it's a nice touch that the stage is set up in the room that appears to honor Heisman Trophy winners, with their pictures prominently displayed and "HEISMAN" in nice big letters on the wall?  Overblown to the extreme, sorry but no other way for me to look at it.

Skepticism about Jimmy Clausen Hype

 * KelleyCook deleted the paragraph noting criticism of the Jimmy Clausen recruiting period hype. I've added it back to the article as 1) it balances out the article's numerous preceding references to Jimmy Clausen recruiting hype, and 2) the skepticism and doubts about the hype were notable and sufficient enough to attract the referenced New York Times article discussing them.  I removed the line about Clausen's having been outplayed by Ryan Mallett in the Army All-American game because despite it being a widely voiced opinion (the announcers at the end of the game ranked Mallett's performance ahead of Clausen's), the only reference for the opinion cited was from a biased source. -- TexasDawg 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Obsession...
Is it really necessary for this bio to contain every single article and or criticism that is written about the kid? He has yet to take a single snap at the college level and if the current trend continues, he's going to have the longest bio in college football because every time there's an article, people extract junk from it and post it here. Can we all relax a little?Fuhreeus 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with ya on that one man. GoIrish24 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. (He's going to suck anyway (like his older brothers did).  But of course, that's just my POV for now.  ;-)) -- TexasDawg 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Second that- He played on a team completely loaded with DI prospects, he's like 2 years older than everyone else, and he played in a pretty crappy prep school league. In the biggest game of his life(championship game), and having to make plays by himself(since his star RB marc tyler was out), he throws 3 interceptions and stinks it up. Sure, he's All-World piling it on against the bad teams, but he has yet to prove he's a big-time playmaker.Ychennay 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that here instead of in the main article. It sounds like you are one of the obsessed. Fuhreeus 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good lord 19 playing in high school.  Liked 6th grade enough to do it 3 times?Robertplant 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical tidbits
While recent edits may be viewed as being not having a NPOV, they are indeed true. As the quarterback, Clausen would indeed 'preside' over the team, and would indeed be at least partially responsible for the offensive drought. ALL of the statements are well sourced, and while it may APPEAR to be lacking NPOV, I dont believe that it is. Criticism in an article isn't a bad thing. Mientkiewicz5508 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not specific or direct criticism of Clausen. It is innuendo, conjecture. Find specific criticism that states due to Clausen's play the team is 0-4, and then you've got something worth mentioning. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why it says that Clausen 'presided' over ND's 0-4 start. It doesn't say he was responsible, it simply states that as the team's leader and quarterback, he oversaw an 0-4 start. It's not far fetched or lacking NPOV.Mientkiewicz5508 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's why it is irrelevant conjecture. The fact he "presided" over it is meaningless without a direct and specific reference to his particular performance/contribution to the losses. This is a sneaky way of getting some POV attacks into an article. Not enyclopedic at all. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are going to have a page about a quarterback, you have to talk about his on-field accomplishments. That includes a win-loss record and an offense's accomplishments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.16.68 (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, while mentioning that ND has yet to win a game with Clausen as QB might be a neutral and relevant fact, inclusion of rhetoric such as "Clausen presided over a historic offensive drought" is unnecessary POV posturing. Relate the facts, leave the fluff out. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the statement is inaccurate in that Clausen was not QB for all of those scoreless quarters, nor all of those 4 losses. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are clearly obsessed with making Clausen look as good as possible. He is on wikipedia because he is a quarterback, so his performance as a quarterback should be freely mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.16.68 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith - I merely am trying to create an accurate and unbiased encyclopedia article. Please don't accuse me of anything, let alone a 3RR violation, which has not occurred. Yes, his performance as QB should be included, so feel free to post actual statistics on his quarterbacking. But suggesting via innuendo that he is responsible for 13 quarters of scoreless play, and an 0-4 start -- especially when he didn't start all four games or play in all 13 quarters -- is at best, inaccurate, and at worst, POV. Please stop. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added actual statistics. Please cease your reverting or you will likely be blocked for violating 3RR. -- Zim Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  12:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request
I see a third opinion request was rendered for this article. Can the two parties involved place short, succint and neutral statements noting the issues involved beyond what is stated above? -- Blind Eagle <sup style="color:red;"> talk ~ contribs  14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This inclusion is inappropriate as it is inaccurate (noted above), non-specific to Clausen, and suggestive in a non-neutral tone. My most recent addition of stats is neutral and specific to him. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Third Opinion - I have read both entries listed within this string. Both entries, to me, have issues.  From here forward, accuracy and WP:NPOV is our best route.  The article as it stands right now has several issues with weasel words and superlatives that may or may not help the NPOV that should be maintained.  My opinion is that at this time, the article and the QB stats should be left static.  If after several weeks there is addtional information to add, perhaps a discussion and revisit of the article and the section in question could be accomplished at that time.  This is just my opinion.  I hope it helps.  -- Blind  Eagle <sup style="color:red;"> talk ~ contribs  17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth date
I changed his birth date he was born in 88 not 87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.232.65 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. Clausen was born in 1987. He is in fact a 20 yrs old true freshman. ––Bender235 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Birth year of 1987 confirmed here. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
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 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just erased the entire Early life section because it was vandalized. Can someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.91 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Alcohol-related incident" un noteworthy and violates WP:BLP
I thoroughly believe this section violates WP:BLP privacy policy namely:


 * Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.


 * When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

The young man is known for being a football quarterback. This article devoted approximately a third of the article to section entitled "Alcohol-related incidents" regarding two seperate events from years ago (getting a citation for driving an overage person to an alcohol store when he was not drinking and a picture with him holding what appears to be a beer cup) that happened two years ago and ended up having no legal consequence and regardless of third party sources is clearly not Germain to why Jimmy Clausen is deemed Wikipedia WP:NOTEworthy. On the second issue, the legal system properly dropped it as pointless, It is not Wikipedia duty to carry it on forever. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The material is properly sourced and gained national attention. When the quarterback of Notre Dame gets arrested for alcohol-related incidents, national attention tends to be garnered.  Given that there are two separate incidents, there's not really any bias or special weight being given to this section of the article.  You may want to re-read BLP, if you insist on using it as a crutch. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if indeed the first charge was dropped, instead of deleting the mention, you would make note that the charge was dropped. This leads to a more neutral article, rather than just erasing, as you seem content to do. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Just took the time to read some of your contribs and talk page.  Looks like we've got a "domer homer" here folks.  The situation suddenly makes more sense. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)