Talk:JaMarcus Russell

Relationship

JaMarcus isn't dating a relative of Fats Domino. Jamarcus Russell is the biggets bust everrrrr!!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9180309/

"The 77-year-old R&B singer and his family are friends with the family of Russell’s girlfriend, sports information director Michael Bonnette said."

Someone edited this page and stated that in JaMarcus' first game, the Raiders lost. The game hasn't been decided yet. It is currently being played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrliang (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 December 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 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Word usage/Awkward sentance

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace "By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds, as well as received his first recruiting letters and became more adapt with the playbook." with "By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds. He also began to master the playbook and started receiving his first recruiting letters." Lasomething (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to suggest the following compromise: By the next season, Russell had grown to 6"3 and 185 pounds, had received his first recruiting letters and was becaming more adept with the playbook.. This corrects the spelling mistake (adapt -> adept), and is grammatically more pleasing. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 Season

Showing up @ 290 pounds is false, and the reference is a rumor site any way. It was reported he showed up @ 271 pounds, still 11 pounds over his listed weight, but not 290. Mikesd (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Penngulf, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Though the statment below lists an article cite, it is not accurate:

However, initial reports say that Russell had a good first minicamp and is in great shape.

The article says that Russell had a good first DAY of minicamp. Further, the 'cite' is a columnist's take on the first day of a Spring mini-camp. It is an editorial article, not a statment of fact, and does not merit inclusion in the Wiki. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt to mitigate the preceding paragraph's statements.

Penngulf (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reworded both paragraphs I changed it from "initial reports" to the exact source, which is more appropriate, I think. RF23 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pantheon of draft busts?

Perhaps its too soon to add that sort of comment (I think it is), but I also think it's good to keep track of articles like this since --in about a season or so-- we're going to know whether or not its official. This ESPN article does have some interesting info for now and the future like:

• "owner Al Davis finally lost patience with the immensely talented but unproductive player he drafted first overall in 2007 against the wishes of former coach Lane Kiffin."
• "Russell will now likely be considered one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history, joining Ryan Leaf, Ki-Jana Carter, Akili Smith and others on that list. He will have been paid more than $39 million by the Raiders, while producing only seven wins as a starter."
• "Since the start of the common draft in 1967, only one other No. 1 pick was released this quickly in his NFL career. Indianapolis cut 1992 top pick Steve Emtman after three seasons but that was more because of injuries than production."
• One of their analysts separately wrote: "The Oakland Raiders can finally move on from what must be considered the biggest all-time draft whiff."

Anyway, if people want to add stuff now or later, I thought I'd keep this noted here. --Bobak (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's too soon. You can't call someone the the biggest bust until AFTER they retire. If it was to have the label "biggest bust" on the article, I think it would need to have more than just 1 reference, I'm guessing around 4 or so that all distinctively call him the worst bust. RF23 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert of POV fancruft type edit: 2010-05-14

An editor tonight made a fancruft type edit that deleted two citations. Lede paragraph was restored. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's "neutral rewrite" deleted the citations again. They are well reported by many sources. Please don't delete citations. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete them.. i moved them to the proper section. Please don't be an idiot and blindly revert. Pay attention.RF23 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NPA policy, comment on edits and not editors as in your previous statement. WP:LEAD allows controversy in the lede paragraph and it can be repeated in subsections. Please don't delete citations again. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The way it's written (the way you keep putting it back in) it doesn't follow WP:NPOV. Don't try and be a policy hound. The people who edit the NFL articles on Wikipedia generally know what they are doing, and there seems to be a consensus among them for shorter leads then normal, anyways. RF23 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

plus, 2 sources is not "many sources". If it's in there, it needs at least 4 definitive sources or so. RF23 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. The edit has been and doesn't nee four sources. Please see WP:RS. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get this settled before anyone gets blocked. Morenooso, the lead before had many POV problems that Ringerfan tried to fix. Even though it was sourced, it did not belong in the opening paragraph. Further down, in a different section, fits better. Ringerfan, leads are brief summaries of the entire article. While the "NFL editors" like to keep consistency with the general 3-4 sentence leads, they are allowed to be longer. Just look at the lead for Javon Ringer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree but if you would do a "neutral re-write of the paragraph with the sources it had, I'd be open to see what you come up with. WP:LEAD allows controversy in it. It says verbatim, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. I follow a number of college articles with worst controversies than this one. Unfortunately the subject of this article is being discussed in this manner and . . . wait for it, I am a Raider fan but I park my fanship because I have to be a Wikipedia editor first subject to WP:V. An editor should write from the heart but what is available through reliable sources. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like pointing to WP non-article pages on stuff, but: WP:BLP & WP:NPOV are far more important than WP:LEAD and WP:V. Note the Differences between policies and guidelines. BLP & NPOV are policies. Lead is a guideline. WP:UCS & WP:IAR apply here. Also, make sure to brush up on WP:NOTVAND just to be safe.

But really, the whole main thing that applies here that over-rides any other guideline or policy is WP:WELLKNOWN. The initial IP edit were wrong, in the fact that it simply removed the material. My edits were putting the material in it's proper place and re-writing it to follow policy properly.

Specificality (if that is even a word-if not- i just made it up to describe something- i think everyone can figure out what i meant) is more helpful in articles. For Example, if you say "Some people say [Person x] is [thing x]" and only have 2 sources, people who read that and don't put to much thought into it may think that many many people hold that theory. It's very vague (some people could mean 2 people or it could mean 2 million people) and leaves the article up to interpretation. The correct alternative to clean up any possible confusion would be "[Person X2] and [Person X3] have described [Person X] as [thing x]." Unless it's considered a consensus (ie, they do a poll of 25 sports writers or something along that lines) it really doesn't belong in the lead, nor does it belong in the article at all in it's previous spot.

Let's look at it another way, in some relation to this:

Let's say some two obscure sports websites (we'll call these hypothetical websites Thebestsportingnewsever!!!!.com and ultra-sports-monthly.net ) (also for this situation- assume that both website are considered WP:RS) both give an NFL player the award "Best WR - NFC East- Week 8".

Instead of saying in his article: "Some sources state he is the best WR in the NFC"

it would be better (since it doesn't imply any sort of vague un-particularity (Am I making words up again?)) to say:

"Thebestsportingnewsever!!! and utlra-sports-monthly labeled him the best WR in the NFC east for week 8.

That is much more specific and prevents the article from being overtly vague. The reader can't make guesses because it's a explicitly stated.

I don't consider this an edit war, nor is there any vandalism. Specifically, this is just a couple of editors who aren't seeing on the same page. Maybe we're reading different books? RF23 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Details from each season, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are mostly trivial; such as accounts of the games, which could in fact violate copyright laws with the NFL, unless Wikipedia has express written permission to do so. I suggest that the sections on the three seasons should be removed.

2007, 2008, 2009 Seasons; Weight; and "quickest release"

Details from each season, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are mostly trivial; such as accounts of the games, which could in fact violate copyright laws with the NFL, unless Wikipedia has express written permission to do so. I suggest that the sections on the three seasons should be removed. Also, rumors on Russell's weight are potentially libelous, other than saying that Russell has been criticized for weight problems. The "quickest release" story is also trivia meant for sports dweebs, not pertinent information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A. You can't copyright stats or numbers.. there's nothing to copyright.. it's a stat. I suggest you do some reading about copyright laws, this shows a vast misunderstanding of them. The Quickest released thing is not 'trivial" it's extremely relevant to the article. I changed the weight references to read so they say exactly what the sources report- which is what wikipedia is basically. You claim that the things you are removing are "potentially libelous" but the edits you keep putting in are much more potentially libelous. Read my above long-drawn out comment about different policies and such, most of which apply here. See also WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and the links I mentioned in the above section. Your edits will keep getting reverted if you keep making the same mistakes. You can't just make shit up and throw it into an article. You gotta source it or it's gone. RF23 (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, after viewing your talk page, you seem to have another vast misunderstanding that you need to come to terms with before you can properly edit wikipedia. This is actually a very very basic life thing, the difference between fact and opinion.

Fact: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.

Opinion: An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts

direct quote from you on your own talk page: "Simply stating that Russell has not succeeded in the NFL and has been harshly criticized is all that would count as fact."

I can't believe I have to tell people this, but the above statement is not a fact. The above statement is an opinion.

"Russel had a record of x-x" is a fact.

It's a proven thing. There's no interpretation. Nobody can claim otherwise without lying. It's in the record books.

Stating

"Russell has not succeeded in the NFL and has been harshly criticized at all" is

AN OPINION.

Notice the adjectives, which leave things up to interpretation, MAKING THEM OPINIONS.

For example, to one person, "Success in the NFL" could mean simply signing with a team. to others it could mean winning 4 super bowls."

I'm so dumbfounded, I should add in "Movies are not real life. That's something you should know because it's the only thing that can express the sheer disbelief I have right now.RF23 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.

Russell (not Russel) has been harshly criticized. That is not an opinion - that is a fact that people have criticed Russell. Moreover, your grammar is terrible. There were no specifics as to what people have said about Russell, merely that he has been the target of heated criticism.

This article is abhorrent. Frequent references are made to weight, trivia, and bias. The most recent edits were made by someone that is likely biased, as their talk page stats that he or she is a USC fan (the former coach Lane Kiffin is now the coach of the Trojans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see no personal attacks. I may have a USC box on my userpage but I will be first to say Kiffin would NOT be my coach. I could care less about who coaches the Raiders. In fact, he wasn't there when Russell got released. "Comment on edits, not editors." ----moreno oso (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Kiffin however was in Oakland when the Raiders selected JaMarcus Russell. Clearly, you have attempted to remove any association between Kiffin and Russell, when Kiffin openly refused to work with Russell - which is a fact. Clearly, you are biased towards Kiffin and are trying to protect his reputation after being associated with Russell. "Comment on edits not editors" is BS. This page was blocked after a user made corrections, on the accusation of being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a WP:SYNTH argument. Doesn't hold weight. My record of contribs is clear. I don't play favorites. Interesting that the same statements about removing material was made by another editor elsewhere and now here. I wonder who made those statements?----moreno oso (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you are paranoid. The grammar of the opening paragraph is worthy of a first-grader and loaded with biased trivia. I suspect that the gramamr suffered because the editor wanted to add the trivia about Russell being the shortes-tenured first overall pick.

The reference to Russell being the shortest tenured first overall pick is a subjective fact. You cannot prove that is more important to go fifth overall (or otherwise) as it is to go first overall. I could just as easily say that David Klinger, Ryan Leaf, or Akili Smith did as much or more damage to his respective team as Russell did. The point of draft selection is merely loaded with expections and expectations are opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You could be dumbfounded because your grammar is abhorrently dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, after you said "comment on edits not editors" you suggested a connection between my edits and someone else's. Clearly, you are a hypocrite.

I advise the above editors and everyone involved in this insanely stupid edit war to re-read wikipedia's key policies, talk page guidelines, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION

(quick examples: Saying "apples are fruit" is a fact, saying "Apples taste great" is opinion.)RF23 (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RingerFan23: I suggest to you that your biased edits caused this edit war in the first place, because the article is clearly loaded with subjectivity, trivia, poor grammar and prose, and otherwise. Direct accounts of NFL games and the stats involved, do fall under copyright protection.

Any accounts of NFL games fall under copyright protection, due to an anti-trust exemption given to the NFL in the early 1960s. The NFL has the sole right to give permit the reporting of its games. For instance, that is why the NFL can blackout games from TV.22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The quality of this article is terrible

The quality of this article is terrible. It is filled with poor grammar, rumors, and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POV is more like it. I am willing to concede that Russell was a good college quarterback but for some reason has not proven it at the pro level. He's had some good games but more bad than good. Being released by Oakland was/is the kicker. But, anything said and cited about that is editted out as bias which is non-inclusion of all relevant material. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just saying blanket claims that get nothing done, be specific. For example instead of saying an extremely ironic statement that doesn't work to improve the article, try things like "The sentence that reads [Insert sentence here] should be written as [insert sentence here]." If you keep up what your doing, you'll get endlessly reverted and eventually bocked for disruptive editing and/ or vandalism.

this article is just about perfect the way it is. it cites what the sources say, which is what wikipedia is all about. It had some sentences in there before that were kind of iffy, but I went through the article and re-worded potential.

I think we're dealing with either a troll or someone who can't cannot apply or does not know the meanings of the words & phrases "poor grammar" "rumors, and "bias".

I'll just give some examples, you claim you're reverting "bias", but your edits add in several biases, you add in paragraphs like the following:

"Russell has drawn claims of being the biggest "bust" in draft history, and critics have targeted the exorbitant contract that Russell received from the Raiders. Critics of Russell have cited poor work ethic, weight problems, erratic sleeping, and alienation from teammates and coaches as characteristics of Russell's tenure in Oakland."

With no sources whatsoever. Saying that critics have cited poor work ethic, weight problems, et ect is Original Resource unless it can be Verified. Also, everyone check in on talk page guidelines, this isn't a forum for you to express your opinion on the subject, it's a place to talk about in efforts to edit or improve articles. And also, Morenooso, just pointing out that this is about the 3rd or 4th time that you've linked to a policy but put the alt text as something that's not the policy. WP:NPOV is "Neuteral Point of View", not fancruft or non-inclusion. (You might have been looking for WP:FANCRUFT when you linked to NPOV and put "Fancruft type edit" earlier).

The main reasons why silver's edits keep getting and are going to keep getting reverted is because of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, & WP:RS. You need to understand those three key policies before you continue to edit wikipedia, otherwise your edits will be constantly reverted until you get them right. RF23 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits made by silverandblack. The editor removed trivia and bias such as use of the word "legacy" instead of "criticism." The word criticism is neutral, whereas the insiunation of the word legacy is that an indelible perception has been made, which can be proved about Russell. Russell reportedly has committed himself to training in order to sign with another team, which could happen. Russell is only 25 or so and still has time to change any perception of legacy. Nevertheless, references to turmoil between Kiffin and Davis could be perceived as original research, but more or less, the edito simply refined the grammar and prose and used more neutral terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I was not discussing the nature of the topic, I discussed the veracity of the article and used examples of what I meant.22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)

WP:NPOV reads exactly:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

all significant views will be included. Certain editors have consistently editted out anything cited that is negative. I know which policy I was quoting. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and in all your pontificating about the rules of Wikipedia, you ignored several - "assume good faith," "be polite" "be welcoming" when you have clearly suggested that I have done something improper.

Direct accounts of NFL games and the stats involved (when used in relation to accounts of the same), do fall under copyright protection.

Any accounts of NFL games fall under copyright protection, due to an anti-trust exemption given to the NFL in the early 1960s. The NFL has the sole right to give permit the reporting of its games. For instance, that is why the NFL can blackout games from TV.22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the reason that the Raiders released JaMarcus Russell after only a few seasons is a fact loaded with debate and debate is subjective. For one, Russell was replaced by Jason Campbell, while other teams have held on to top picks because they lacked a replacement.

Why is is relevant to state that Russell had the shortes-tenure of a first overall pick? Akili Smith for instance was the 3rd pick in 1999 and played fewer games with the Bengals than Russell did with the Raiders. Andre Wadsworth with the Cards was the 3rd pick in 1998 and spent roughly the same amount of time with the Cards as Russell did with the Raiders. The 2nd pick in 1998, Ryan Leaf,. spent about the same amount of time with the Chargers as Russell did with the Raiders. The FIRST pick in 1996, Ki Jana Carter, started only 14 games with the Bengals, while JaMarcus Russell has started 25 with the Raiders. CLEARLY, references to the quickest release is just subjective trivia - you're seeing what you want to see.22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs)

Biggest difference? Russell was the number one pick of a draft. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

to "Silver/ fingers" No. You are flat out wrong on the copyright thing. Take it up with WP:COPY were somebody will get a good laugh out of it.

According to you, every single thing in an NFL broadcast is copyrighted by the NFL. Using that logic, Wikipedia cannot have an article on grass, because in the descriptions of the game an announcer said "he hit the field" so the NFL owns the copyright to grass. I'd suggest you learn up on copyright laws.

Numbers have existed long before the NFL. They cannot be copyrighted, they are in the public domain.

From the NFL website (which has the stats on it): "NFL and the NFL shield design are registered trademarks of the National Football League. The team names, logos and uniform designs are registered trademarks of the teams indicated. All other NFL-related trademarks are trademarks of the National Football League. NFL footage © NFL Productions LLC"

Nowhere in there does it say anything about stats. Stats are not logos, team names, uniform designs, nor are they tradmarked or video footage. Look it up in a copyright database if you don't believe me.

read what it says. Ki-Jana Carter is not a quarterback. If you think the information you stated is relevant to the appropriate articles, add it in with sources.

It's relevant. Subjective triva would be something along the lines of "In the first 2 minutes of his 2nd to last game, he had only threw one pass, which was incomplete because the WR dropped it." A major thing (Such as being the quickest released QB taken #1 overall by the drafting team) is relevant. The words your claiming of me and other editors seem to be a spitting image of your own edits.

your edits were in no way shape, or form in ways with the core guidelines. The way the article was, it was in shape with them. Plus, Fingers, please don't impose yourself as another user. We can tell it's you [Silver and black].

I "clearly suggest you have done something improper" only because you clearly have done something improper. WP:SOCK is a ban-first-ask-questions-later policy, and you seem to have broken it.

to Moreno: Just pointing out that WP:FANCRUFT could have been what you were looking for, since you said the word "fancruft type edit" not "POV edit". RF23 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This Article Should be Unprotected: References to weight, games, "quickest release" and "legacy" should be removed

I recently joined Wikipedia and after only a few edits, I have not been welcomed. Instead, I have been harassed. I took an interest in this edit war going on and reviewd the edits made by users Ringer, Moreoso, and silverandblack.

I decided to reiterate a few things in a new section - feel free to remove the redundancy in the other sections.

Direct accounts of NFL games and the stats involved (when used in relation to accounts of the game), do fall under copyright protection. Any accounts of NFL games fall under copyright protection, due to an anti-trust exemption given to the NFL in the early 1960s. The NFL has the sole right to give permit the reporting of its games. For instance, that is why the NFL can blackout games.

Moreover, the reason that the Raiders released JaMarcus Russell after only a few seasons is a fact loaded with debate and debate is subjective. For one, Russell was replaced by Jason Campbell, while other teams have held on to top picks because they lacked a replacement.

Why is is relevant to state that Russell had the shortest-tenure of a first overall pick? The point of draft selection is merely loaded with expectations and expectations are opinions.

JaMarcus Russell has started 25 games thus far.

References from nfl.com: The 6th pick in 1992 by the Bengals, David Klingler, started in only 24 games over 6 years with the Bengals. Akili Smith was the 3rd pick in 1999 and started fewer games with the Bengals than Russell did with the Raiders. Andre Wadsworth with the Cards was the 3rd pick in 1998 and spent roughly the same amount of time with the Cards as Russell did with the Raiders. The 2nd pick in 1998, Ryan Leaf, spent about the same amount of time with the Chargers as Russell did with the Raiders. The FIRST pick in 1996, Ki Jana Carter, started only 14 games with the Bengals, while, as I said, JaMarcus Russell has started 25 with the Raiders.

CLEARLY, references to the quickest release is just subjective trivia - just seeing what you want to see. The ESPN writer that made that observation may have done so merely as an innocuous comment to pad the length of his or her article.

Reports about Russell's weight are rumors. Some articles had Russell's weight at 270, others at 290, and some at 300. To put a number on the weight is just gossip.

"Legacy" is a loaded term that insinutes an indelible mark has been made, when Russell's career is on-going because he has not officially retired. "Criticism" is an abstract and neutral term that captures the scientific concept that people debate and disagree, yet silverandblack did not suggest which side was right. Dominic Rhodes for instance, criticized JaMarcus Russell on Outside the Lines, thus it is a fact that teammates have criticized Russell. That however, does not state whether the criticism is sound or valid.

Silverandblack made a few references to turmoil that could be seen as orginial research, but all in all, the edior merely refined an atrociously written article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingers2424 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're failing to see, we're going with "EXACTLY WHAT THE SOURCES SAY". That is what wikipedia is. We're an encylopedia that lists information on topics that is sourced. You keep making claims, but you have not thrown out a single SOURCE. If Dominic Rhoades criticized Russel on OTL, SOURCE IT We can't go just off Word of mouth (or made up stuff) You continue to not recognize the core wikipedia policies. If you want to put something in an article "IT MUST HAVE A SOURCE" otherwise it will be removed. RF23 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus, an argument about an article being poorly written isn't very effective when the argument itself is poorly written. Just a head's up. RF23 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I must agree with fingers2424 for defending me. I think what you're failing to see is that those "sources" are subjective and the information has been cherry-picked to fit a narrative about Russell being the biggest "bust," when the definition of "bust" is subjective. Moreoso argued that saying "Russell has not succeeded" (as a starter) is an opinion because it depends on how you define success. On the flip side, I could say that Russell is not a "bust" because it depends on how you define success or the lack thereof and thus any reference to his "legacy" as the biggest "bust" is also an opinion.

Russell banked 31 million for doing next to nothing - in some books, that's success.

Russell's records are indisputable numbers, whereas, his weight is the subject of dispute because multiple sources have reported different numbers, yet to mention only one is bias. You could mention each report, or you could simplify the subject and simply say that Russell has been criticized on this topic of weight.

What source has claimed that Russell now has the "legacy" of being the biggest bust? The only source given was the opinion of the Huffington Post and Steve Wyche, when the topic is the subject of debate. The section on "legacy" should either be removed or renamed. The term "legacy" is subjective, whereas, "criticism" is neutral. How could fingers2424 have cited Dominic Rhodes when this page was protected at the time? Clearly, the defenses for this article don't add up. 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is not neutral. Criticism is distinctively negative. "Legacy" is neautral because it can be either positive or negative. Plus, it's the manual of style for NFL articles.

Let me state it again, (I've said it about 6 times now) the things in the article DIRECTLY QUOTE WHAT THE REFERENCES SAYS. Notice it does not say "Critics say Russell is the biggest bust ever" it says "Steve Wyche claimed that Russell is the biggest draft bust in NFL history" And it is sourced with a source. There's absolutely no issues with the article in it's current state, your just arguing for the sake of arguing, bringing up points completely irrelevant to the article. You keep making claims that the article is "Horrible written" and "has many issues" but have only been specific on several issues. We're making progress, but we're not quite there yet. If a user who can't edit the page wants to put something in, make an edit request (see above on the talk page for how to do so) and an editor with proper privledges will do so.

Direct quote from you: "What source has claimed that Russell now has the "legacy" of being the biggest bust?" Funny. I don't seem to see a single line in that article that says "Russell has the legacy of being the biggest bust", because it's not there. To remove the section would not be neuteral, as it would be toning the article in favor of Russell, despite what the sources have said. If you can list some sources (which nobody on this discussion has done yet, which is why any edits will get reverted) saying his weight is disputed, then list them and we'll work them in. The two sources in the article right now claim he weighed x amount here and gained weight to x amount here. That is what the sources say. The sources don't say anything about the weight being. I am going refusing further comment because this is a giant waste of time. The sources are reliable sources (NBC Sports, ESPN). If you want to add something else in "INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING IT PROVIDE A SOURCE SO IT CAN BE ADDED IN OR YOU WILL BE REVERTED AND IGNORED."

I don't know how to drive this point across any harder, because I keep repeating it, but in you 'counter arguments' you keep ignoring it.

The article (or any article about a player with press about negative performances) will have a negative tone "BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE SOURCES SAY". IF there were sources saying, "ESPN the magazine named Russel one of the top 15 Raiders quarterbacks of all-time" then we would put that, with the proper sourcing, in the article. But NOBODY HAS PROVIDED ANY SOURCES THAT STATE THAT (probably because there aren't any reliable sources that state such. But if you can find them, we'll put them in, but I am going to repeat myself again until this registers with something, "WIKIPEDIA GOES WITH WHAT THE SOURCES SAY.SOME ARTICLES MIGHT HAVE A DISTINCTIVE NEGATIVE TONE BECAUSE THE SOURCES HAVE A DISTINCTIVE NEGATIVE TONE." it's very wishy-washy, but editors try their best to keep it neutral and STICK WITH WHAT THE SOURCES SAY (hence my re-wordings of phrases such as "Many critics say this" to "[name of critic) say this" For the weight issue, I looked, and I could only find those 2 reliable sources, everything else was not a RELIABLE SOURCE. Those two were reports from major journalism publications (what we call here: sources) and the text in front of the report is what the source says.

This is my final comment on the matter, and If people haven't gotten the point yet, then you have all miserably failed as human beings:

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU, MORENO, I, OR ANY OTHER EDITOR THINK ABOUT RUSSELL OR HIS CAREER OR WHETHER HE IS A BUST OR WHAT THE DEFINITION OF BUST IS OR WHAT THE DEFINITION OF IS IS. THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR ORIGINAL RESOURCE- AKA PUTTING STUFF IN THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SOURCE. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S A GENERAL CONSENSUS OR WHAT IT NEEDS A SOURCE. WE CAN'T GO ON YOUR WORD OF MOUTH. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS WEBSITE WORKS. » WIKIPEDIA GOES WITH WHAT THE SOURCES SAY. END OF DISCUSSION. THE WAY THE ARTICLE IS, IT SIMPLY STATES WHATS THE SOURCES SAY. THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. END OF STORY. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU CLAIM SOMETHING ABOUT RUSSEL UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SOURCES SO FAR SO THAT IS THE FINALITY. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SOURCE, IT DOESN'T GO IN. IF IT IS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A SOURCE ("by 'a source' I mean, <ref>[http://www.purple.com a hyperlink that links to a published reliable source that states the words that are put before the reference here on wikipedia] </ref> THEN WE CAN ADD IT IN. «

If you haven't understand what I'm trying to tell you, you shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia because it shows a misunderstanding of the core policies that are the backbone of the website. I'm not being uncivil, i'm just trying to get my point across (SINCE I'VE SAID IT AT MANY TIMES) RF23 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet, again you have demonstrated the ill-logic of this page. Someone stated that no where does it state that Russell has the legacy of being the biggest bust - except for the fact that there {was} a section called "legacy" and under which were opinions that Russell is the biggest or one of the biggest busts. Moreover, the editor that typed in all caps has thus demonstrated a clear and utter immaturity. The new section entitled "Impact" is also a subjective term, because his impact is also subjective. I suggest that that section be removed all together, since there seems to be no consensus on the veracity of it. The defenders of this page are clearly biased in favor of creating a negative narrative about Russell's career. I have merely tried to make it reflect the idea that, "it is what it is."00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" is not inherently negative or necessarily a pejorative. One of the definitions of "criticism{" is: 1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than criticism> b : a critical observation or remark <an unfair criticism> c : critique

Note the word "usually." The interpretation of criticism as negative or positive is subjective. The idea that the ne4cessary connotation of "criticism" is negative is opinion. Some people seek criticism because it's constructive to do so.

The definition of legacy: 2 : something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past <the legacy of the ancient philosophers>

What mark has been left behind in Oakland from Russell's career - other than opinions about his career?

The definitions came from merriam-webster.com.00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Section on "Impact" should be removed or consolidated with Future in Football

I decided to create a separate section on this issue. The section on "Impact" is loaded with subjective trivia, such as stats which are stated in the right column under the photo. There is no need for the redundancy.

There is also no consensus for the title of the section. "Legacy" and "impact" are loaded terms that imply a narrative that Russell is the biggest "bust" in draft history. I suppose the same could be said about "criticism." Nevertheless, the information contained in that section is subjective trivia about first overall picks, and not only first picks but 'quarterbacks taken with the first pick.' It's nothing more than micro-trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Acquisition of Jason Campbell is relevant / vandalism by Ringerfan23

The reference to the acquisition of Jason Campbell is relevant to this page. Had the Raiders not acquired Campbell, the Raiders would likley have retained Russell. I provided more than enough citations for the fact.

I believe that RingerFan23 is merely vandalizing the page, as there has been an "edit war" involving him. I added legitimate citations, which he deleted and has continued to delete. RingerFan23 has also made incendiary remarks about editors of this page such as "you have all failed miserably as human beings."

I suggest that Ringerfan23 has been the root of this "edit war" and should be blocked.

First off, my name is Eagles247. Ringerfan23 and I are two different people. Please do not assume that he and I are the same person. You violated the three-revert rule after I revised the lead here with these edits: here, here, and finally, here. Changing something in the lead is not considered vandalism, please see what vandalism is by viewing WP:VANDALISM. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ringerfan23 has engaged in an edit war over this page. The reference to the acquisition of Campbell was cited, and is a relevant fact to the lead paragraph, because that acquisition affected the decision to release Russell02:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs)

References to weight are clearly taken out of context

I read the story from the Oakland Tribune about Russell's weight.

"But opening week is four months away, and Russell won't stick around just because he can show up under 300 pounds (estimate: 270 pounds) and fire spirals toward the sidelines. Then again "...

Clearly, the references to the number of 300 were taken out of context.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_14996315?source=most_viewed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverandblack (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

People should be allowed to edit this page / A high weight for a quarterback?

Someone wrote "a high weight for a quarterback" after the reference to Russell weighing 300 pounds. That seems more like commentary than true fact.

Various sources have reported Russell's weight at 270 pounds. Why does this page even mention the issue? Clearly, his weight is an issue of dispute, not fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyoyo4567 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna try a different approach to discussing this.

I may not have been the most civil in some of my above statements, but let's look at what the sources say

• Russell's weight (officially- the one that goes under "player weight" in the infobox) is 260 pounds, as reported by his NFL profile, his ESPN profile and his Raiders bo. That info is handled by the Elias Sports Bureau, which according the Green Bay Packers, are the official statisticians of the NFL. Speculation, Reports, whatever else there is- The data provided by NFL.com (or the team website or espn.com- it's all the same) is the official data. That's what it says in the record books, so to speak. I don't know for sure, but I assume they don't keep real-time weights for every single NFL player- so even though this number is official- it may be out of date. But it doesn't matter how up to date it is, if they say he's 260, he's 260 officially. Until the weight changes in the stats database, the weight in the infobox should only read "260" under weight. Same with height.

Now, the other mentions of height and weight in the article are separate factors.

• Russel's measurements as reported during his Pro day were 265 pounds, 6 foot 6 and a half. In the wikipedia article, it is listed as such, and reads "denotes LSU pro Day"

• a report from NBC Sports states that Russell weighed 290 pounds and had gained weight. direct quote:

"JaMarcus Russell reportedly weighed in at 290 pounds when he reported for the Raiders' offseason program."

That's an official report, not a rumor, or speculation (It doesn't say "We think Russell looked around 300" it says "Russel weighed 290 according to our sources" (Which they put as Adam Schefter- so WP:V checks up well.)

About the claim "slightly upwards' that the "reports of Russel's weights were taken out of context" you gave a link, but the link did not say the previous reports were erronious. NBC Sports and national football post have not corrected their previous stories, and would have done such if a major error had accured.

the Can Inman report that you linked to "slightly up" from here is already sourced and in the article. (from the article: "Cam Inman of The Oakland Tribune said that Russell had "a good first minicamp" and "is in great shape" in the team's first training camp in late April."

The source you provided, even though you claim that it "clearly states reports of 300 pounds were taken out of context", a CTRL+F search of the exact article you claim gave no results for the words "Context", nor did the article mention anything about previous reports being wrong. The article, word for word, opened with:

"An out-of-shape Raider staggered off the field and vomited behind the end zone. Bulletin: It was not JaMarcus Russell. Rather, it was an undrafted rookie lineman, as it should be at an opening minicamp."

That simply states that the Oakland Tribute reporter was surprised the player out of shape was not Russell, and states that "it was an undrafted rookie lineman, as it should be"

You're Making shit up and putting words into things that aren't there.

Even though you claimed so, the article does not state:

"There was an out of shape player who weighed 300 pounds. Last Month [I don't understand the logic here- maybe Time travel's involved] there was reports that this player was JaMarcus Russell. (Which again, is physically impossible for a reporter in March to misreport an event that happened on April 26th] Those reports were wrong.

You keep claiming things, but you refuse to show a source that backs any of it up. I can make stuff up to:

"Sources state that JaMarcus Russell is an alien from Mars. His real name is Galaxtron and he's made of cardboard."

I just made that up on the spot. that's some good ol' Original Research.

But do you claim that that should be put in an encyclopedia entry on Russell? No. That would be ludicrous. Because I've not shown a reliable source about it.

If the new york times, NFL.com, or any other "RELIABLE Source" had an article that said

"A shocking development today. After several scientific studies, we were amazed by this, we have come to the conslusion that JaMarcus Russell is actually an alien from Mars. Geaneology reports show that his birth name is Galaxatron, and a study of hairs left in his room has shown that he's compowed of cardboard" then we'd put it in there (But this isn't fantasy land- this is the real world- so that wouldn't actually happen)

Should it be in the article? Is it important? I don't think so, but that doesn't matter what Editors think. Multiple Reliable sources have discussed his weight (and these are reported correctly in the article), so whether or not it's actually important is irrelevant because It been reported by major news.

Example:

If tommorow's Denver Post headline read "Someone's shoes were lost" It's important. Does it sound important? No. But If it's being reported by a major reliable source, they in turn make it important. Don't take this out on an encyclopedia, take it up with the people reporting it.

IF there's a report saying "Russell 290 pounds" and then there's a comment at the bottom by an anonymous user saying "you're wrong, he's actually 230 pounds. I heard it from him>" do we put it in? Of course not, Wikipedia doesn't just make stuff up and throw it in, Sources must be reliable, and things in articles must be Verifiable.

Moving on,

• the phrase "a high weight for a quarterback" I removed because I couldn't find a definitive source that says "300 pounds is an unusual weight for a QB" (the only thing I found was a source from ESPN that said that 285 lb QB Jared Lorenzen could be the heaviest QB in NFL history. But after reviewing WP:V & WP:OR, I can't put that in, because the source has nothing to do with Russell.

Now, the thing about sports journalism, is sometimes things conflict. Reporter A asks general manager A what he thinks about something, it goes down in the report as "I Like player X". Later that day, another reporter might ask the same question, and in his report, the quote might read "I love Player X. He's my absolute favorite player on the team." Sources will contradict themselves sometimes (for example, I saw a source 2 hours ago saying Jason Campbell was way ahead of schedule on learning the Raiders playbook. From another source, which was just as reliable, I heard that he was having struggles." Does that mean that "Jason Campbell is going insane. one day he has a hang of it and the next day he's hopelessly lost. It's an ongoing internal battle."

No. It doesn't. That's not what the sources said. One source at one point said one thing, and another source completely unrelated by separate thing said something else. Now, you'd have some merit if the same sources contradicted themselves. (Example, If on date x we see a report saying "Russell Weighs 300 pounds" and then a day later from the same source, we see them say "Russell Weights 200 pounds." without mentioning an update to a previous report or mentioning a correction, then they aren't a Reliable Source. But I shouldn't have to say this, that's not the case here.

From here on out, I (and i'm guessing other editors) will apply the "IGNORE, REVERT" policy that's been floatin' around for quite some time until you can show understanding of the points I've made here and "slightly up" from here.

These points I'm making are not points that I should have to be making to anyone.

Fin. RF23 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ringerfan, the above user is a sockpuppet of Silverandblack and has been indefinitely blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that references to Russell being out of shape are valid, however, how can anyone state a valid weight without a scale? It seems that the stories are based on guessing that Russell could be around 300 pounds, yet without any quantitative evidence, it seems unfair to include specific numbers.00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.163.153 (talk)

It seems that this article should have a POV tag

It seems that the neutrality of this article has been hotly contested and should be tagged for Neutrality.

typo

"In March, NBC Sports reported stated described Russel as..."

I can't fix this as the article is semi-protected.

In the section describing his codeine arrest it says

"at his July 20, 2010 arrangement"

I believe that is supposed to be "arraignment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.130.178 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.8.194.139, 29 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section on his codeine syrup arrest, "arrangement" should be "arraignment".

71.8.194.139 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should be winnowed - far too much trivia

I don't see the relevance of having this much information on a marginal figure in pro-sports. Being a famous bust is hardly worthy of attention or use of space on Wikipedia. Few (if any) players with Wikipedia pages have sections dedicated to specific seasons. Sections 2 and 3 on College and Professional Career are highly trivial. The section on Impact could be merged with Personal.67.169.25.132 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sections on individual NFL seasons on grounds of trivia. Statistics sufficiently explain Russell's career. I merged the section on his arrest as a subsection of personal life.

I merged the section on Impact with Football career under the subsection on Professional. I added a subsection of Opinions to cover the comments by the media on Russell's career.

I made other additions to clarify any holes that resulted from reorganization.67.169.25.132 (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. Please see Wikipedia:About. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Claim of Vandalism: Requesting Review by Moderator

I made the recent changes to this page. I opened a discussion line on it, but no one responded-until after I made the changes.

I reorganized the information to be more cohesive and logically presented, whereas, the previous page was a mess of grammatical and factual errors. The previous information was trivial, out of date, and generally irrelevant.

I added sources for new information from Sports Illustrated, such as Russell's recent interview in which he stated that he had been diagnosed with sleep apnea; a condition that is known to cause many of the problems that Russell had, such as body weight and mental concentration. Thus, sleep apnea is a relevant piece of information.

Recounting individual seasons is irrelevant and not in line with the typical Wikipedia page on a pro-athlete, which is why I removed those sections. The win/loss record for the Raiders with Russell as the starter sufficiently describes Russell's mediocre performances. There is no need to waste space by delving into the minutia of each season or individual game.

Some of the old references are outdated and factually inaccurate statements.

For instance, the previous page had a reference about Russell having the shortest tenure with a team after being selected first overall. The same blogger, Bill Williamson, also said that Russell was a talented yet disappointing quarterback. Williamson has also made contradictory statements in his claim that Russell was the "quickest" to be be released. It can also be proven that Williamson was factually inaccurate in his claim, which makes the citation useless. But above all, it's trivial.67.169.25.132 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Under Personal I made the following additions or changes: -11 of Russell's relatives died during his time with the Raiders. -I highlighted Hurricane Katrina, because the events of Hurricane Katrina were historic, and so, stories about Hurricane Katrina carry more gravitas. -Russell's Wonderlic score, which is a hot-topic every year in regards to quarterback prospects. -quotes from Russell about his charity work, because many people have criticized Russell for being greedy. -The paragraph on the arrest for codeine use is irrelevant, because JaMarcus Russell was not indicted by a grand jury. I winnowed it to the fact that Russell was not indicted.

Other Changes: -I moved the section on Russell's High School career to, "Football Career." -I moved the section on Awards to College under "Football Career." -I added a section on Opinions under "Football Career," because the label of "bust," is an opinion.

67.169.25.132 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at any Good Article on Wikipedia, you will see that season sections are in-depth and not considered trivial. Do you think it is cohesive to have sentence-paragraphs instead of in-depth paragraphs? What do you mean by "waste space"? There is an infinite amount of space available on Wikipedia. The codeine arrest gained national coverage, and clearly should be kept in this article. Before making massive changes (such as removing nearly half of the prose), please discuss your changes here before making them so that a consensus may be reached. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)T

There is a legitimate issue of space on Wikipedia. And I did attempt to discuss the changes before making them, but no one responded. Often times, a page will be questioned for its relevance because a) it does waste space (Wikipedia is not infinite), and b) it requires attention from editors and administrators. I don't see the relevance of in-depth accounts of individual seasons for a player that is not playing. There is no such detail on a player such as Ryan Leaf--unlike Peyton Manning. I don't see the relevance of dedicating that much space to a flop like Russell.

The career of NFL flops is trivial in the first place. By dedicating that much detail to Russell, he's getting as much attention as Peyton Manning, rather than a flop like Ryan Leaf. There is no relevance for in-depth accounts of failed careers, because often times, that "bust" goes on to something else in life and the biography changes, such as Heath Schuler. In fact, if you search for nearly any NFL quarterback that has flopped in the NFL - there is no such detail for individual seasons. The seasons will either be summarized by year (ex, 2003-2005) by team (ex, Dolphins), or not mentioned. I should add that the career is only summarized by team when that quarterback has played for multiple teams, such as Joey Harrington, Kyle Boller, Tommy Maddox, JP Losman, or David Carr. Russell has played for only one.67.169.25.132 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of quarterbacks to compare--Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Jim Druckenmiller, Todd Marinovich, Cade McNown, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Kyle Boller, Matt Leinart, David Klingler, Heath Schuler, Dave Brown, etc. No such attention is given to a player simply because he was the first pick in the draft, such as Ricky Bell, Tom Cousineau, Aundray Bruce, Dan Wilkinson, Ki-Jana Carter. To say that Russell deserves this much attention because his failure was 'epic' (as some have implied) would be subjective and without perspective. If you wanna debate the all-time worst use of a 1st overall pick, look no further than the 49ers in 1979. They traded the first pick to Buffalo for OJ Simpson.67.169.25.132 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As for quarterbacks taken first overall, there is still no such detail given to a flop. Examples include, Angelo Bertelli, Bobby Garrett, Randy Duncan, and Terry Baker, Jeff George, and Tim Couch. In researching this question, only three other quarterbacks that have flopped in the NFL have received as much detail for individual seasons as Russell--Brady Quinn, JP Losman, and Trent Edwards, which proves that the attention to detail for NFL flops is inconsistent and likely based on impulse reactions to tabloids, and without perspective. Wikipedia should not be used to account for daily buzz/tabloids and minutia.67.169.25.132 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove the information about the codeine arrest-I simply trimmed it. It goes without saying that he was arrested if the case was presented to a grand jury. Thus, it's tautologous to detail the arrest and the the fact that a grand jury did not indict.

Hurricane Katrina gained far more attention than some tabloid story about an arrest for codeine use, yet, my attempts to emphasize Hurricane Katrina as a part of Russell's life have been blocked. I also added recent information from the interview in Sports Illustrated. I also added Russell's Wonderliic score because the Wonderlic comes up every year.67.169.25.132 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the comments by Eagles24/7 only to have my comments deleted. I reverted the vandalism and made a few corrections of grammar.67.169.25.132 (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Made a few corrections for clarification.67.169.25.132 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

67, one thing you should know is that just because another player's article is shorter or less comprehensive then this one does not mean that Russel's article should be changed to conform to the others. You use this reason a lot, but see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article should be treated separately, and sometimes outside things (for example, there are more useful sources on Russel then many other players you named) factor in. Also, note that Eagles is right: space is irrelevant. This article is well within the bounds of article size guidelines and that is not a valid reason to remove content.

You made some good individual edits, but by and large E247 was right to revert you, especially your change of the entire "Professional" section to a bunch of one- and two-liners. I'd also note that your paragraph structure overall content setup was less then ideal. For example, why is his wonderlic score in the "Codeine use and Sleep Apnea" section, and why is that section bigger then every other section in the article, save the reformatted "Professional"? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question of relevance and whether the info included is trivial, which is a legitimate question to ask. By the way, I have edited pages in the past--only for people to make an issue of "space."

Moreover, there are plenty of sources on Joey Harrington or David Carr but no dedication to individual seasons, which makes your point about "recent sources" moot. If I can find sources on Randy Duncan or Tom Cousineau -- which I have -- then I can find sources on anyone; it's only a question of interest by the editor. I included valid sources on the information I added, only for my references to be removed without cause. This is not the first time that an editor has reverted the changes I made to this page -- one previous revert simply said that the references were removed.

The line about Russell's Wonderlic score could have just as easily been moved to Personal or Professional career. I included it under Sleep Apnea, because Russell has been accused of poor intelligence when his Wonderlic score would suggest that he's average. Sleep apnea however is known to impair concentration, which is why the Wonderlic score would suggest that Russell's lack of focus resulted from sleep apnea and not intelligence.

The structure of the Professional section is the result of the information included. I broke it up to individual lines, because the statements were not related to each other. Essentially, the information provided was a running timeline and not a substantive paragraph, which is another reason why I have questioned the relevance of the information provided on this page. It's basically just a hodge-podge of daily buzz and opinions.

I tried to improve the perspective of this page with the section on Codeine use and Sleep apnea, because again, sleep apnea is a mitigating factor in drug use, because sleep apnea is known to cause severe depression. Russell admitted to testing positive for codeine, which I left included, but a detailed account of his arrest is tautologous and trivial.

67.169.25.132 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there are more recent sources is not a legitimate reason to include every tidbit of information on a Wikipedia page. If anything, inclusion of every tidbit will only muddle any perspective.67.169.25.132 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, no. the information is not trivial. As a former NFL player whose claim to notability is football, seasonal info is almost the most important stuff on the page. You'd have to be more specific then vaguely referring to other discussion in which "space" was brought up.

You entirely misread my comment on "recent sources". All I was saying was that each article is different and might look different because of factors such as the availability of sources. I'm not saying it's a reason to put "every tidbit" in, but someone who has been written extensively about (like Russel) is more likely to have larger pages and more interested editors then some other players.

In regards to the wonderlic: you didn't say that in the article. In the article, as you had it, that statement just pops out (and if you don't have sources saying that "Russell's lack of focus resulted from sleep apnea and not intelligence" then it is really original research. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes that Should Be Made To this Page

I will not reiterate the previous conversations about the changes that should be made to this page. Please see the section "Response to Claim of Vandalism," if you need to catch up.

1)The section on Awards should be merged with College Career, because each award is from his college career.

2)The section on "Impact" should be changed to "Opinions." All of the information included are opinions from the sports media. The blurb about JaMarcus Russell by Bill Williamson being the "quickest" released is not factually accurate and thus, useless. At best, it's an opinion. It should be removed, but I can meet people half-way by simply changing the section to "Opinions."67.169.25.132 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

3) The section on Personal should be expanded, in light of recent information. The section has no perspective and is merely trivia about an arrest.67.169.25.132 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC) There was no indictment, so why is there a detailed account of an arrest? When a grand jury declines to indict, that generally means that the case against the defendant is weak and not substantive, which is why a detailed account of an arrest is prejudicial (in the legal sense of the word).

4) The opening paragraph has grammatical errors. I had also added this line: "In three seasons with the Raiders, Russell finished 7–18 as a starter[2] before his release on May 6, 2010.[3].

5) The information about Russell's High School career should be in the context of his College and Professional career and not under "Early Life."

6) The section on Personal should include or emphasize information about Russell's charity work, sleep apnea, Hurricane Katrina, and the exigent circumstance of having 11 deaths in the family during his time in Oakland. Those are all relevant facts for a section on Personal. You can't cherry-pick facts about someone's personal life--it's either all or nothing. An arrest without indictment is trivial, but if someone is going to chalk it up as being relevant to Personal issues, then all Personal issues should be discussed and treated equally. Highlighting a section on an arrest without indictment is subversive bias. Why should the eye of the reader be drawn to trivia about an arrest?

7) The only fact worth keeping from the "Future in Football" section is that the Raiders filed a grievance against Russell, but that could be included in the Opening paragraph. The rest of that section is simply a running timeline of trivia. I can meet you half way on the issue of winnowing the section on Professional career. The section "Future in Football" is trivial and useless.67.169.25.132 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

67.169.25.132 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Good idea. Would probably be best to keep the section header (lvl 3) intact though. So:

• • • 2 College career (2003–2006)
      • 2.1 Freshman and sophomore seasons
      • 2.2 Junior season.
      • 2.3 Awards

2) Why? The section is not about the opinions, its about his impact. It contains opinions, but that doesn't mean we should rename the header.

3) See #6

5) It should probably have its own section.

6) Agree. If you wanna rewrite it and post it here, I'll gladly look it over and add it. And yes, the arrest section appears to give undue weight to that incident.

7) Also agree. That section is one of the least-cohesive chucks of trivia I've ever seen, but its not totally useless. I'm going to trim it right now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see that you agree.

Whether Russell was a bust is an opinion--and that is the only information included under "Impact." The line about "quickest" release is factually inaccurate. The source is from a blogger. I know that Bill Williamson works for ESPN, but the bloggers aren't held to the same standards. A section on "Opinions" could also include the recent comments by Stephen A. Smith on ESPN.67.169.25.132 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter...ask yourself, what is the section about? Yes, the section will contain opinions, but that's not what its about. I don't claim to know anything about Russel, so do you have any sources saying otherwise? In the absence of others, ESPN (bloggers or otherwise) suffice. Got a link to that? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First, why has this page been locked? Second, Bill Williamson has made contradictory statements in regards to Russell:

"Since the start of the common draft in 1967, only one other No. 1 pick was released this quickly in his NFL career. Indianapolis cut 1992 top pick Steve Emtman after three seasons but that was more because of injuries than production." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5168757 "He became the quickest quarterback who was the No. 1 pick to be released by his drafting team." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5172061 As I have established with facts, the second statement is false. Those are two separate blogs with logically invalid statements. In the second statement, there is no mention of time-frame or common draft. It simply claims that of all quarterbacks taken with the top pick, Russell spent the least time with the respective team - George Cafego, Randy Duncan, Terry Baker and others spent less time with their teams.67.169.25.132 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Emtman lasted two months longer than Russell, so both of Williamson's statements are correct (if not for "quarterback" in the second statement). Regardless, I agree that this sentence in the article is vague and should be removed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. FYI though, Steve Emtman played 18 games for the Colts, JaMarcus Russell played in 31 games for the Raiders. Bill Williamson's claim was that Russell was the quickest to be released by the respective team that selected him with the first pick, which means that, Williamson wasn't considering the overall length of the career or whether that player went to a different team.67.169.25.132 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant time-wise, not games played. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity of the claim is exactly why it doesn't belong in the page. Just because something has a citation doesn't make it worthy of being on Wikipedia. I think I have established a reasonable claim to insist that the statement should be removed, because there is no consensus on what the claim means or the relevance to the article.67.169.25.132 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already removed it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to inquire as to why I've been blocked from editing this page, or if this page has been locked to the public, because I don't have the option to edit it.

There is another dubious statement with a citation from Bill Williamson under "Impact" that should be considered for removal, which is the one that states, "Also quarterbacks drafted first overall in NFL history, Russell has the worst starting record." Firstly, it is improper grammar to start a sentence with, "also." Secondly, that statement does not specify an era, which suggests that Russell has the worst starting record of any quarterback taken with the first pick in the history of the NFL, which is false; look up Terry Baker or Randy Duncan. Duncan went 1-1 with the Dallas Texans of the NFL in 1961, while Baker went 0-1 for the Los Angeles Rams in 1963.67.169.25.132 (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

67.169.25.132 (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I have removed it. (By the way, the Dallas Texans were in the AFL, not the NFL.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

--Why was the piece about his life coach removed?--

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/14/life-coach-fires-jamarcus-russell/

This was his most recent activity since being released.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statements about being a "bust" are subjective--not objective / Section on "Impact" is subversive bias

I have a problem with the fact that this article tries to include opinions about whether JaMarcus Russell is a "bust." It is not a objective statement to make--no matter how you cut it. It might seem obvious that JaMarcus Russell's time in Oakland was an embarrassment, but that is still an issue of opinion.

For instance, some have claimed that Russell was a bigger bust than Ryan Leaf because Russell was the first pick. Yet, at the same time, people called Todd Marinovich one of the biggest busts of all time--and he was selected in the 20s. Thus, where a player was selected is not objective criteria in determining whether a player is a "bust."

I don't see the relevance of the section on "Impact," and the ESPN writer that is cited has made contradictory statements about Russell's status as a bust. As I said, it is an opinion and trivia. The most that should be stated is that Russell has generated consideration as one of the biggest busts in NFL history, rather than try to include subjective opinions to point readers to the conclusion that Russell IS the biggest bust of all time.67.169.25.132 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)