Talk:Cam Newton

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 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the article states that Newton "did not steal the laptop but actually bought a stolen laptop." Is there any verification of this statement other than what Newton himself has said in interviews? I thought that he entered a youthful ofender program and the charges were reduced for that reason, not because they determined he didn't actually steal the laptop. Some further research would be good here. If Newton's story is confirmed, then it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.14.217 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Heisman Trophy candidates" through six weeks

This is an encyclopedia article; please resist the urge to include claims that are speculative in nature and keep this article factual. Including a single writer's opinion that Cam is one of the top candidates is non-notable, especially if it is being used as an over-generalization as has been the case in recent updates. If there is a direct quotation from an independent, credible source (e.g. in a feature article by Dennis Dodd, Stewart Mandel,etc.) that he is the leading candidate midseason (See: Denard Robinson), please feel free to quote it, with proper WP:V citation, while maintaining WP:NPOV. If there are none, please wait until the finalists are announced.....Just keeping this article sound. Thank you, Obamafan70 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For more information, please see WP:RECENT and WP:OR. Please do not revert without discussing here first.Obamafan70 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the player articles contain content relating to predicted draft status based solely on rankings. Heismman speculation is based on actual player performance and it's a big part of Newton's notability. He's having a stellar season. It should be included in the article and is properly sourced. Tigersarecomingforyou (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are new here, and so I don't to want bite the newby (WP:BITE). I also want to assume good faith on your part (WP:AGF). Speculation -- the exact word you used -- is not encyclopedic. Neither is the WP:OR fashion in which the source is being used; there were 5 players mentioned and only 3 players were listed. As mentioned, the edit violates WP:SPECULATION which is part of the broader issue of WP:OR. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not speculation that he's among Heisman candidates, it's fact as noted in reliable independent sources. It's entirely appropriate for the article and we are failing our readers when we exclude significant and important content that is crucial to a subject's notability. Tigersarecomingforyou (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tigersarecomingforyou, it appears you either do not understand my comments and/or are constructing straw man arguments as indicated by your previous comment. You've also implicitly contradicted yourself -- Heisman speculation is....It's not speculation that. As a new Wikipedian, perhaps you should take a break from editing and re-read some of the core policies here which may be instructive. I wish I had followed similar advice and saved myself from a few minor spats. Obamafan70 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're so adamant that we can't include well sourced content about article subjects being among the contenders for their sport's top prize then go remove that content from the other Heisman contender articles. It's not speculation any more than talking about candidates running in elections. Cameron is a leading contender for the prize because of his onfield performance as discussed in reliable independent sources. It's not speculation, it's fact. We know he is in the discussion because that's what th reliable sources say. If that changes we can make an update. Stop wasting peoples time and read the policies. You're obstructionism and silly arguments aren't constructive to writing an accurate and up to date article about this subject's most important and significant accomplishments. Tigersarecomingforyou (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and see the appropriate article for straw man. Other users will surely tire of me pointing out that you are arguing against positions which I don't hold. By way of a compromise, I've included a sentence which should properly illustrate how to write for an encyclopedia. To some reasonable people, it still violates WP:RECENT and possibly even WP:SPECULATION but it's at least not stated in the deceptive way originally written.Obamafan70 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original sentence:

He is considered a candidate for the Heisman trophy along with Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith and Boise State quarterback Kellen Moore

The problem is that there is only one source for this original sentence and it lists 5 candidates not 3....pretty clear case of WP:NPOV violation by (talk), in addition to the fact that it puts undue value on one

journalist's opinion at this moment in time. The way (talk) stated it now is stated factually, though I don't necessarily agree about the recentism in WP:RECENT. Not to bring up a spectre of WP:COI given the user's moniker, but there might be issues here.Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

why were the sections on previous colleges removed

see edits by 108.67.98.189 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.67.98.189 72.92.226.11 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Maybe someone is trying to re-write his history? They also changed him from a Junior to a Freshman. I copy/pasted all of the original text back into place. Why the hell would someone do that? BeaverYabor (talk)

Washington Post report 11 17 2010 7:55 PM $ 180,000 Payment Plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111706326.html << Report: Booster received payment plan for Newton By The Associated Press Wednesday, November 17, 2010; 7:55 PM ">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss St & Auburn Connection

This Wash Post revealed payment plan was by Miss St, its supporters; and note, if Cameron were then by such arrangements , attempted arrangements disqualified from playing at Miss St, he would also be barred from playing at Auburn, so there is that connection to present playing at Auburn Univ...and these plans predating

the present season, would cause change in whole season for Auburn Un and bowls, rankings, etc. /s/ "Shug" Joanz, Zeek Smith, Jakie Burquette, Pattie, Lil "Bo" 69.121.221.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Pay for Play rumors

ESPN is reporting some gossip. NCAA is declining to comment. Until they do, this is mere rumor. There's no deadline and as yet we have no reliable source for anything, so I've removed the rumors. --TS 03:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how far is your head buried in the sand on this issue? 74.163.37.5 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of verifiability. It doesn't matter what you think the truth is, this is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column. Truth will out in good time. --TS 21:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well in that light, I move that the last part of the last line of the Auburn University section be removed. Any Heisman speculations at this point are just gossip, and this is an encyclopedia. 74.163.48.100 (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do remove that if you're uncomfortable with it. I don't feel good about it either. --TS 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

These rumors are credible enough to be mentioned in the article at least. The NCAA is conducting an inverstigation after all--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The FBI is also investigating. A controvery/scandal does exist, and it involves Cam Newton. It does not matter if the allegations have been proven or not. It is proper to include them in the article. CH52584 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. There are rumors regarding the matter, but it doesn't change the fact that a controversy does exist. Existence is all the matters here. --Mr. Brown (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for that actuality of an FBI investigation, produce them. I've had enough of this repeated reporting of rumor as fact and use of the fact of a rumor to make a statement on what I remind you is a BLP.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/09/fbi-sniffing-around-cam-newton-situation/. Well that was an easy task130.39.0.200 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5813734&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines--216.165.3.147 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC) We'll have facts to report in good time. To report facts, we need facts, not rumors of facts or facts about rumors. Facts may appear in due course and will then be verifiable and will be reported. --TS 22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard dscussion

This matter is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard. So far, the consensus is that the Newton situation is being investigated by the NCAA. However, this is a very recent news story, and we ought to wait and see how it pans out. Wikipedia is not a news source, and recent events should not get undue weight here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add to article, any, upcoming NCAA ... disqualification of Auburn and ban of Newton further playing if Canm Newton found to be PAID PRO quarterback /s/69.121.221.97]] comment added 06:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia awaits reliable sources, and will not settle in the meantime for wagging tongues. --TS 22:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. I know fans of the rest of the SEC are champing at the bit for this to turn out badly for Auburn, but until something actually happens here, we can't speculate. Dayewalker (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, after reviewing this thread, I'm changing the speculative header to something more neutral. If another editor disagrees, feel free to revert. I just feel stating something that hasn't occurred yet (and may be a BLP violation in calling Newton a Pro Quarterback) is a bit confusing. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember my wikipedia login (i haven't made edits in over a year... so sorry this is anonymous). There is a NYT article reporting that the FBI is investigating. Not sure if that is helpful to this discussion, but here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/sports/ncaafootball/15colleges.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.1.46 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TS has been around for quite a while an knows the policies. You should listen to him and wait until the facts are known. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed some statements supposedly sourced to AP, because the cited AP report does not support the statements that were in this article. There is neither confirmation nor denial from CNAA that an investigation is being conducted. All the article contains is rumors and claims by a fellow called Bell--the guy with the soggy cellphone.

Sorry to be such a stickler on this. The rumors may eventually be replaced by facts, but at the moment there's no sign of facts. --TS 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should exclude any speculation as to the consequences of NCAA action. I have inserted two sentences in the Blinn College section because that is the point when the alleged payments occurred. There are no allegations that he was paid by Auburn, just that his father propositioned Mississippi State. So we should limit coverage to that until more develops. Racepacket (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The information you have added is based on a Mississippi State fan's comments that were only made in an attempt to clear his team's name in this investigation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the information I added were from the Associated Press and the Washington Post. Our job is to assess the source and accurately reflect it. It could be that the father was speaking without the son's knowledge or that alumnus Bell is lying. You can view Bell as trying to harm Auburn/Newton, or you can view Bell as implicating Mississippi State as having a Booster organization that entertains such proposals. That is for the reader to decide for him/herself. Racepacket (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it would be the reader's decision if it wasn't already made for them. You added one (very biased) side of the story without adding the other. And if you add the other, you are adding speculative rumors that should be removed until confirmation is made for them. This information should not stay in the article, regardless of its truthfulness. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell: we don't pass on tittle tattle and "let the reader decide." --TS 12:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

add stat charts to article

Please add statistics charts to article showing Cam performance at Fla and Jr College and Auburn Univ, etc thanks, s/ Wette Wile Willie Sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Blinn College

It says under the Blinn College section that he was "hotly contested for by Auburn and Mississippi State." By all reports he wasn't even looking at Auburn until a week before he signed with them. It doesn't even mention Auburn in the citation article. And even if it did, It's B/R, which is an open source sports outlet and not a credible source. 74.249.76.141 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree on Bleacher Report. As I understand it anyone can register at the site and contribute reports. As it happens the contributor there is identified as one Brad Locke, who according to his profile "has covered Mississippi State athletics for the the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal in Tupelo, Miss., since 2008." The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal has a total daily circulation of 37,000. Not bad considering, but he's presumably contributing these reports in his spare time. The name "Bleacher Report" really says it all. And even if we used it, the piece doesn't mention Auburn at all. --TS 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

More speculative stuff

I've removed recently added material that is in effect a single source speculating on the precise reasons why Cameron Newton did not return for a senior season at University of Florida. This is great journalism but it is still rather speculative and, as we see, single-sourced. It is in essence one journalist's analysis of the reasons given by Newton for stepping down from Florida. --TS 13:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you on all accounts. First, it is clear from the citations I added, there were two sources: The New York Times and FoxSports.net. As the opening of the New York Times articles states: "A person briefed on Newton’s situation confirmed Tuesday the FoxSports.com report a day earlier that Newton left the University of Florida after the fall semester in 2008 rather than face suspension or expulsion in part because of three instances of academic cheating." The New York Times got independent verification of an earlier news report, so that's not a single source. Cam Newton was offered an opportunity to explain his withdrawal and he declined. Next, it is a fact that Newton stated that he withdrew from the University of Florida after Tim Tebow declared he was returning for his senior season. It is not speculation to say that that was false; he withdrew from Florida before Tebow made his decision. In accordance with BLP policy, an unflattering but relevant fact belongs in a Wikipedia article. —Ute in DC (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so now a sports scholar is being accused of "academic cheating"? How unusual. It's still speculation and we don't write into an encyclopedia material attributed to people whose name is merely "a person briefed on Newton’s situation". Otherwise we could simply transcribe Judith Miller's nonsense into Wikipedia and magically transform pre-invasion Iraq into a country with an active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program. We have Newton's words and his father's words, attributed to them, and no named person acquainted with the facts gainsaying them. So we wait until we have actual facts, not speculation and unsourced accusations. This is a biography of a living person. --TS 21:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment implies that news accounts must have someone speak on the record in order for the news account to be a reliable source. That isn't Wikipedia policy. Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. The New York Times gave Newton the opportunity to respond to their report and he declined, which is a tacit admission of its truthfulness. —Ute in DC (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

News accounts aren't in general of much value at all, frankly, no matter who is speaking and irrespective of whether he's on record. And we don't, we really don't, consider that X published in newspaper Y is reliable for all X and a subset of all Y, irrespective of what is being said and how it is said. Absolutely not. Verifiability which is policy, means that what we write is verifiably true and that certainly doesn't mean "some anonymous source quoted by a journalist claims it's true." --TS 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You may want news accounts not to be considered reliable sources, but current Wikipedia policy says that news accounts are. A reader can follow the citation and can check that this material was published in a reliable source. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just supposing for a moment that your representation of the verifiability policy were to be verbatim and complete, then the written policy would be out of step with the spirit of the policy and we'd have to change it to say what we actually do, which is to make sure we don't put unverifiable stuff into Wikipedia. If by some chance an editor thought that the verifiability policy permitted us to insert rumor and gossip into Wikipedia, and our written version of the policy supported his view, then obviously we'd change it. I don't think we need to change it. Wikipedia isn't the place for rumor and gossip, even if that rumor or gossip was procured by the most exceptional and advanced investigational methods available. That is to say, if you think Wikipedia would have hastened the resignation of the 37th American President, you're wrong. Wikipedia would have lagged the news media. Try Wikileaks, or a blog, or something. This is an encyclopedia. --TS 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My quotation of the verifiability policy was verbatim. The policy language continues, but you have yet to point to any language in the policy that supports your position that this is non-verifiable. The spirit of verifiability is summarized in the nutshell at the top: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The edit in question was attributed to reliable, published source with an inline citation. It was neither rumor nor gossip but rather facts supported by reliable sources. You hint that you find all news sources to be unreliable, but that's not Wikipedia policy. Your Watergate analogy fails because I am not trying to include original research. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ute in DC is correct. There is a well-documented controversy with coverage by major news organizations. Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living persons provides that with public figures, such as Mr. Newton, a multitude of reliable published sources will be available. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article--even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

While some of the articles do cite unnamed persons, it doesn't change the fact that a controversy exists and that controversy is being covered by a multitude of reliable sources. A discussion of said controversy needs to be included in the article. It's almost like there is a certain group of people attempting to bend over backwards to keep this information out of the article... --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

+1. It's really rather absurd that there is no mention of the controversy in the article. The article shouldn't come down on either side of the controversy, but it should document that it exists. Here is a prominent biography page where a controversy is mentioned: Jimmy Wales. Furorimpius (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The one thing we don't seem to have here is a well documented controversy. We don't even know for a fact that the NCAA is investigating Newton, although there is a lot of speculation on the subject. If NCAA is investigating Newton they'll release a report and then we'll have some facts to put into the article. We're not going to report as fact a heap of gossip that has been published as gossip in newspapers. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a living person, not about gossip and rumor pertaining to that person. --TS 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This notion is borderline absurd. Not only is this controversy getting major airtime on news and sports networks/radio shows, it's also making front page headlines on sports media websites. AP wires state the NCAA investigation as a fact. An employee at Alabama was fired over playing inappropriate songs directed at Cam Newton and the controversy around him during last Saturday's game (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5864754). The Mississippi Secretary of State is meeting with former players that may be involved (http://versus.stats.com/cfb/story.asp?i=20101130214838240000101&ref=hea&tm=&src). Even If the NCAA investigation is just gossip, the fact of the matter is, it is being discussed and is probably one of the biggest stories surrounding college football this year. It most certainly belongs in the article as an ongoing controversy.Jamhov (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)