Talk:Rashard Mendenhall

Edit request from 67.188.222.0, 3 May 2011
Mendenhall "tweeted" that he didn't think just two airplanes brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, one of which was not even hit by an airplane.

67.188.222.0 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I removed that whole section per WP:WEIGHT. He's known for being a football player, not a 9/11 theorist. — Bility (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this information violated WP:UNDUE and might deserve a line in the article, not an entire subsection.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah....Mendenhall's twitter comments are the subject of tremendous national (American), , , , , , , [ news coverage as well as international news coverage. , But NOOOOOOOOO apparently his comments aren't controversial and don't deserve undue space....common people let's get serious here. [[User:Sleetman|Sleetman]] (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. I feel that this one incident, even though it has a ton of coverage by news organizations, is not relevant enough to Mendenhall's biography to justify its inclusion as such a large section in the article.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So what's your suggestion? That we don't give his tweets any mentioning at all? That we trim down his tweets to a one-liner? How would that be neutral???? Also, going to put a tag on the personal life section as deletion of his twitter commentary seems to violate neutral. Sleetman (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I think a one- or two-liner would be appropriate. And not having the information about his Tweets in the article right now is definitely not considered a violation of WP:NPOV.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, you've got me completely non-plussed here. "not having the information bout his tweets is not considered a violation of WP:NPOV." What? So are you telling me his tweets aren't expressive of a particular political viewpoint? You telling me that the response to his tweets are not emotionally-laden? Sleetman (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I mean that in response to "going to put a tag on the personal life section as deletion of his twitter commentary seems to violate neutral" I fully disagree with your view. Also, please stop edit warring on the article and discuss here.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so that's why I'm asking you how is the deletion of the tag a neutral act?Sleetman (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The section, in its current form, does not have a slanted POV, considering it only mentions his brother, Walter. If we add back the Twitter controversy in its entirely, I think it would be appropriate to add the tag.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, so that's why I asked you before, what would you suggest in regards to the Twitter controversy (i.e. how should we write it up?) I propose giving a brief mention about his tweets, but including the one about 9/11 in full, followed by a brief mention of Art Rooney and articles criticizing his statements.Sleetman (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia biographies are not intended to memorialize every damnfool thing a prominent person says or does, even if some of those things hit the press or social media. This isn't an NPOV issue; it's simply recognizing what an encyclopedia is for.  The internet may stretch these 15-minutes-of-fame events out to 15 hours or even 15 days, but they're still transient events without lasting consequences. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia biographies are not intended to memorialize every damnfool thing a prominent person says or does" Sir, of course you're pulling my leg here, if Wikipedia biographies (not everybody gets a Wikipedia biography you need to meet the notability test first in order to get a Wikipedia biography) didn't report widely-reported things that prominent people did, then what would be the function of Wikipedia biographies? Also, I'm not stretching anything I've already wrote my proposed changes regarding the twitter controversy which is already a slimed-down version of my initial post...also you say this twitter thing is a transient event without lasting consequences really? I'd be glad to cite you sources that says his twitter comments have/are going to have serious consequences, heck that's why even the steeler's president felt compelled to make a remark. Sleetman (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eagles247 explained this quite well, above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregation site or a tabloid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does Eagle247 say Wikipedia is not a news aggregation site or a tabloid? Sir, and since you concur with Eagles247 I presume you also agree with his statement that a one-to-two liner should be given about Mendenhall's twitter controversy?Sleetman (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(OD) As it stands now, there's no need for the tag. It looks ridiculous, in fact. I say the Twitter story should appear under the personal section, although carefully arranged so as not to be undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should Mendenhall's twitter controversy not have it's own section?? Sleetman (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't deserve one due to BLP issues. You have to demonstrate why it does. We went through a similar situation with Luke Scott when he came out as a birther. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well....how would creating a new section discussing Mendenhall's controversy violate BLP? Is there a specific paragraph/rule you can point to in BLP that the controversy section violates? There's nothing in BLP that discussing Mendenhall's controversy violates. It doesn't matter if Luke Scott comes out as a birther and he doesn't get any mention or Nir Rosen tweets about his Schadenfreude at somebody getting sexually harassed which gets an entire section dedicated to that incident....we're talking about Mendenhall on THIS article. I'd also add that the whole "demonstrating evidence" thing, the burden also falls on you too; you have to prove you're case that the twitter controversy doesn't deserve a section just as I have to prove my case that the twitter controversy does deserve the section. Sleetman (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as undue weight to break up a personal section that isn't particularly long as it is to make this twitter thing a subsection, especially in terms of recentism. This whole thing may well blow over and be done with already, at the cost to Mr. Mendenhall of his sponsorship with Champion. As far as controversy sections go, BLP guidelines state that sections titled "controversy" or "criticism" should be avoided as they violate NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight to create another section about this twitter incident....how? As you even pointed out the incident's been so widely reported on that even an advertisement sponsor has dropped Mendenhall. I'd also add that the third opinion provided recommends the creation of a sub-section albeit one with a neutral heading...But on just a general note, it's crazy to suggest that this whole twitter thing isn't a controversy given the deluge of responses his comments have provoked...but if you insist on a more neutral heading perhaps something like, "Twitter comments about Osama bin laden and 9/11" could be created. However, I'm definitely not going to compromise on the suggestion that no section should be created for his comments.Sleetman (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Mr. Mendenhall should have his quotes listed for historical significance. "It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side." This is quite possibly one of the most amazing quotes ever to come out of an athletes mouth- why wouldn't you want to document it? Should all the murder references be deleted off OJ's Wikipedia site because "it's only about football"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.14.99 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning makes no sense and violates WP:NPOV.  Eagles 24/7 sock  (C)  17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * any action or comment by a public figure that makes headlines in the sports sections of every major newspaper in the U.S. should certainly be included in that person's wilkipedia bio. Not including it amounts to censorship.  Mendenhall's comments need to be included verbatim, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. 98.88.133.42 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)bud7dy


 * At first, I felt this incident shouldn't be included. I've changed my mind upon seeing that Champion (sportswear) has dropped Mendenhall as a sponsor. I feel that this makes it more than a one-off "he said something then the media reported on it" non-notable story. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2023
He did not win a Super Bowl. He lost in the one he played in. 100.16.237.173 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)