Jump to content

Talk:Tim Tebow/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Protection

This article says it's semi-protected at the top, but ip addresses are editing how is that? Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'll ask an admin. Burner0718 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I sure am glad semi-protection was removed from the article. I was getting bored with only 1 or 2 attempts at vandalism a week. WTStoffs (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 26, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass but could use some work, there's not really anything about him doing anything wrong. It's like he's perfect, although he hasn't made many notable mistakes.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

I'm sorry, but I do not feel that this article meets the GA requirements at this time. Many sections of the article, including specific facts, are completely uncited. "2006" is a strong example of many uncited facts and paragraphs, but there are others as well. Large sections of "Early life" and "2007" suffer from this as well. Smaller parts of "Heisman Trophy" and "Effect on homeschooling movement"There are many WP:MoS concerns, but the biggest is that "2006," and definitely "2007" read like borderline Proseline. "On this date he did this and this date he did that." It's not the definition of proseline, I admit, but whatever it is it breaks up the flow to the point of distraction and does not read well at all. There are more smaller concerns as well, but these are the ones that leading to me to list this article at good article reassessment. Cheers, CP 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it has enough references now, I added a few to the 2006 season. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the result of the discussion was still "delist". The discussion will be added to the GAR archives shortly. Geometry guy 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I've put this article back up for GA nomination because i think it now may meet the GA Criteria. Thanks Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA Nomination

The article made some good improvements from the time before but it still lacks enough citations. I went through the article and added markings to show where citations are needed. I agree with previous editors remarks concerning there being too much chronology in the 2007 Season section. The part about the Heisman Trophy is also covered twice. I suggest that the information that is in this section be expanded, reduced, eliminated, or turned into a chronology chart as to diminish any choppiness on the account of dates. Also, I don't know why there isn't a chart for his stats. Many pages on athletes have athletic stat charts. This is still a really good article despite these concerns.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The improvements made to the article are looking great. Just something I didn't add to the review but might be helpful, make sure the article has no problems with let fact speak for themselves standard and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The article looked pretty clean in these areas, but there was a few instances.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

April 23 GA Nomination: Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Good work so far. It's well-cited, and by all appearances does a good job of covering the subject. There are, however, a few places where the prose falls short of the MOS or is just a little NPOV.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    My main concern is that readers who aren't as familiar with American college football will have a hard time with this article. There are also a few terms that are wikilinked on the second reference or not at all: rush, pass, touchdown, pocket, underclassman, and a few others. I'd like to see a citation on the first sentence of the third paragraph in "Early Life," and many of the citations that do exist need to have publisher information and generally adhere to a consistent style. See 2008 Orange Bowl for an example of what I'm talking about. The section discussion Tebow's "shopping" for a high school team is also somewhat awkward; it talks about the high schools as if they're people, saying they didn't or did like to pass the ball and refers to them as "who" rather than "which." I'd suggest rephrasing those few sentences.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    There are spots that have slightly NPOV language: "continued to impress," "Interestingly," "hard-nosed style," etc.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Drop a comment on my talk page when you've made the changes, and I'd be happy to take another work. Good work so far; hopefully this GA review will stick!

JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed due to none of the suggestions being made in more than two weeks and no contact from any involved editors. Please contact me if you do want to make a serious effort at getting this to GA status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs semi-protection

Temporary semi-protection was recently lifted. Today I see no fewer than 7 edits of vandalism by anonymous users. And this is during the offseason! WTStoffs (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's a never ending battle to keep this article clear of "jokes" and other vandalism. Envy is a sad emotion to see in action.... Zeng8r (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It is possible, but against policy to have both the article and its talk page protected at the same time. Zginder 2008-05-21T15:44Z (UTC)


The repeated vandalism has started again. It's really misguided to remove protection during football season. Zeng8r (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Heisman Trophy Voting

Does the table with the total balloting for the 2007 Heisman Trophy really need its own subsection--let alone exist in the article? Taking a look at Troy Smith's article, the information is succinctly written into the Heisman Trophy section of the article. I will try to make the Heisman section on this article look similar soon if nobody expresses opposition to this. WTStoffs (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


GA

A while ago, this article was in the discussion for Good Article status, but it looks that since then, few changes have been made that help its criteria. We need people who can edit through this article and find anything that doesn't sound right and it needs to be corrected. Some sections seem too lengthy and it seems that the information can be shown by using less words. I'm not very good at finding errors, but if told, I can try and fix them. I would really like to get this article up to GA status, and hopefully futher. Thanks, Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 05:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

SEC

In the information box, SEC is linked to Securities and Exchange Commission. Someone with privileges should fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.47.71 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, good catch. Fixed. Zeng8r (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article on Tim should include the following in the 2008 section prior to the Georgia game paragraph...

On September 27, 2008 following a devastating 30-31 loss in the Swamp to the Rebels of the University of Mississippi, Tebow addressed the media with what many believe were words that inspired Florida's remaining BCS National Championship run. Tebow stated, "To the fans and everybody of Gator Nation, I'm sorry. Extremely sorry. We wanted an undefeated season, that was my goal, something Florida has never done here. I promise you one thing, a lot of good will come out of this. "You will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play the rest of the season. You will never see another player push his team as hard as I will push everybody the rest of the season. You will never see a team play harder than we will the rest of the season. God bless." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96vAbtpakLg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sienadad (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that it is biased a little bit and is an opinion to whether it is important or not. Although I am a Gator fan some people don't think what he said was very important, other do. Also words like devastating make it a little bit biased towards Tebow and the Gators, and remember all articles must have a nuetral point of view. Thanks for your suggestion though! Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Math Error

In the "Statistics" section, it lists his overall completion percentage as 67.8, higher than any single year he played. It turns out that 448 / 681 = 0.657856094, which gives an overall completion percentage of ~65.8%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnObfuscator (talk • contribs) 05:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

== Total Passing Yards Error ++

The career passing yards should subtotal to 8,557 and not 8,457. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.112.12 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 stats need to be updated to account for the 2010 Sugar Bowl, all career subtotals need to be updated as well currently they don't add correctly. Career Passing Rating needs to be calculated correctly from the updated career stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.69.58 (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The career passer rating of 176.00 is also incorrect. 661-985 for 9286 yards, with 88 TD's and 15 INT's = 172.73340101522842. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8R8U2 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason Taylor is a Miami Dolphin

{{editsemiprotected}}

Already done Celestra (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Effect on homeschooling movement

On January 7, 2007, Tebow was featured prominently in an ESPN “Outside The Lines” feature on homeschooled athletes seeking equal access to high school athletics in other states. Because a homeschooler's access to public and private school athletic functions vary by state, Tebow and Washington Redskins defensive end Jason Taylor (who was allowed to play at his local high school in Pennsylvania) argue in favor of extending the right to play for local teams to more states.

Should read:

Effect on homeschooling movement

On January 7, 2007, Tebow was featured prominently in an ESPN “Outside The Lines” feature on homeschooled athletes seeking equal access to high school athletics in other states. Because a homeschooler's access to public and private school athletic functions vary by state, Tebow and Miami Dolphins defensive end Jason Taylor (who was allowed to play at his local high school in Pennsylvania) argue in favor of extending the right to play for local teams to more states

98.218.157.195 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tebow's religion

the aritle never said what religon Tebow practices. We know he was born to christian missionaries but what denomination. This is of intrest because Tebow frequently talks about his faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.161 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad Concussion?

Article has a quoted item "bad concussion" but following the reference (58), there is no mention of the word "bad" when describing the concussion. Perhaps it was taken from someone in the comments? If so, that doesn't seem very reliable. As far as I know, there has been no mention of the grade of concussion Tebow suffered. Either way, having it in quotes is misleading as it seems that "bad concussion" was mentioned specifically in that article, which I can't find.

It was in the reference article when I first linked to it, but often stories are edited as information changes. It's currently called a mild concussion. I'll update the article to reflect this. WTStoffs (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Typos

From Professional career: "Questions about Tebow's possible success at the professional level has also be cited..."

Shouldn't that be "Questions... have also been cited..."? Sorry for nit-picking! Tufelkinder (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions of Style/Organization

  • The 2008 Quauqua Protege Award mention seems out of place... it's an award received for "superior, general, balanced skills and accomplishments" (per Quaqua.org - "Awards Overview"), and not a reflection of his 'effect on homeschooling movement' as its placement would suggest. I suggest a rewording here if the intent was to note the effect on the movement his earning of this award had... also, the award itself should be listed with the other awards and honors. Selquest (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing Honors and Awards

What was the major for the degree he earned while studying at the university? 23:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.168.45 (talk)

Male Athlete of the Year (2008) (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090623/ARTICLES/906239938?Title=Tebow-named-SEC-male-athlete-of-the-year)

SEC Scholar-Athlete of the Year (2009) (http://www.gatorzone.com/story.php?id=17120)

Sports Illustrated College football Player of the Decade (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/15/cfb-highlights-lowlights/index.html)

Academic All-America of the Year (2008)(http://www.gatorzone.com/story.php?id=14920) (2009)(http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4685592)

Sugar Bowl Most Outstanding Player (2010) (http://allstatesugarbowl.org/site.php?pageID=19&newsID=131)

Lowe’s Senior CLASS Award Football Winner (2009) (http://www.seniorclassaward.com/news/view/floridas_tim_tebow_selected_as_2009_lowes_senior_class_award_football_winne/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexufl (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done RF23 (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim's Career QB Rating Is Incorrect

It's listed as 176.0, and that isn't accurate. 661-985 for 9286 yards, with 88 TD's and 15 INT's equates to a QB passer rating of 172.73340101522842. Actually, even that is inaccurate, as Tim's actual numbers are Tot.: 661-995 for 9,285 yards 66.4% 88 TD's 16 INT's 80 (long), which calculates to a rating of 170.78793969849244, or 170.79.

G8R8U2 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all well and good, Gator fan, but can you find a reliable, published reference that calculates Tim's career QB rating in the same manner you do? Remember, Wikipedia is all about "verifiability." If you can find a source, I'm happy to add the properly formatted footnote for you . . . check ESPN.com's college player career stats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tebows Stats for 2009 are slightly off 213 Completions, 314 Attempts QB Rating 164.17 should be the correct, this according to ESPN# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.60.221 (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl ads to feature anti-gay family group

Reference in the article needs to be added about Tebow's involvement with anti-gay organizations:
http://ebar.com/columns/column.php?sec=sports
Native94080 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More news articles from eBar about Tebow and the anti-gay Focus On The Family group:
http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=lavendertube&article=111
http://www.ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=sports&article=275
Native94080 (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the Family is not "pro-life"

Nothing that this organization stands for suggests that they care about life. So the description of this organization in this article should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.212.55 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I could agree with that. They are anti-gay, per the article I posted directly above. Native94080 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page in response to a (rather rude) comment from Nwerle, wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this article is a totally inappropriate place to promote one's view on abortion. You're proposing to qualify a published quote which came directly from the mother of the subject of the article, apparently for political reasons. Should we stick "according to his mother" in front of every other tidbit of info that came from that Gainesville Sun piece? It defies common sense, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nwerle has been arguing this point on my talk page. I'm uncomfortable copying the conversation here, but this is where it belongs since I'm not the only one who has reverted his recent edits to this article. Any interested parties are welcome to jump right in... --Zeng8r (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously a case of one editor violating the NPOV policy. Until this editor can prove that they do not have an agenda, any further edits to this article should be reverted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Prove I am innocent? You are not an American I can see. Did I post on a pro life page one way or another? or in any other article related to abortion? Did I inject in the item near top of this page if Focus on family is "pro life" or not? No, I saw a news item and looked up sources to find that Wikipedia was letting lies be posted and was not letting facts be inserted by SEVERAL editors. Because you have a BIAS for fundamental christain "pro lifers". And do you all help me figure out how to protest your censorship? or use editing tools correctly? NOPE! And this thread was not supposed to be about Focus on family anyway! njw 06:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Except that I am an American? Had you even bothered to look at my userpage, you would have seen that I was born in Philadelphia and edit mainly American articles. I have no bias, in fact I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. Considering you created your account in 2006, you should have figured out the tools by now. If not, that's your fault. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
created account? I logged in with a name , why dont you check to see when I started adding anything. yes when I saw the news that wikipedia editors were putting out crap, and In American one is Innocent until proven Guilty. Mr Philly nocustomdontknowhow 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs)

Instant reverts are going too far, imo. Maybe a reasonable wording can be formulated. Zeng8r (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean instant reverts, I mean that this user hasn't contributed anything that is not a violation of NPOV towards this article. I'm not an expert on abortion or any of this pro-life stuff, so I can't really tell what is NPOV or not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

suggested addition to article

On January 29th, 2010 did an interview with radaronline.com [1]in that interview she talks about doing some investigating into Tim's mother's story about Pam's Doctors recommending an abortion.

In her interview with RadarOnline.com points out factual inconsistencies with Pam's story. One glaring fact is that the act of abortion is totally illegal in the majority Catholic country of the Philippines - under all circumstances including rape and incest, and even without a provision in the circumstance that the mother's life is in danger. The law has been in effect since 1930.[2]

Also physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions – no matter the reason – may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years.[3] Thoruen (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Thoruen

(I hope you don't mind that I moved your post down to the bottom of the talk page where this issue is already being discussed. Makes it easier for everyone to follow...)
As a US citizen on a mission trip, she could have returned to the US for the procedure, so this info certainly doesn't prove that Pam Tebow's statement has "factual inconsistencies."
But it's not really our place to sort this out. The real issue here is that these edits are running afoul of the "no original research" and "wikipedia is not a soapbox" guidelines by using a particular point of view to push the article in a direction that suits a certain position on abortion. If a real investigative report proves that these statements are false, the article should of course be changed to reflect that. Right now, tho, all we have is speculation fueled by anger about a Super Bowl commercial that hadn't even aired yet. Let's let cooler heads prevail, please. Zeng8r (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
As an American, yes. She could've easily returned to the US and gotten an abortion. But a doctor in the Philippines would be at risk of losing their license and maybe even going to prison just for recommending an abortion (and in fact, doctors and nurses tend to be some of the most vocally anti-abortion demographics in the Philippines). So the claim that an abortion was recommended to Mrs. Tebow is in and of itself dubious. And it's not original research because third-party sources (such as the above-linked interview with Gloria Allred) have brought up the discrepancy. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree with you.

1. This is not "original research" it is information about an apparent contradiction in the story. As far as "wikipedia is not a soapbox" this article is bias as written. If mention of the controversy can be included, neither should the original section.
2. I do agree that the paragraph above is inflammatory, but we do need to add something.
3. Having suffered a placental abruption, a serious obstetric complication, travel back to the US would not have been an option. http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec25/ch303/ch303c.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2,3-DPG (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point, but then you did some obvious original research when you looked up a medical condition online and then made an independent medical decision about somebody's ability to travel 20+ years after the fact. Can't do that.
Anyway, as I said before, if this controversy (or any other fact that is "likely to be challenged") is to be included, it must be cited with a quality source. The paragraph is currently unsourced, and the sources added previously were only blogs.
Also, before anybody accuses me of a "Focus on the Family" bias, let me assure you that nothing is further from the truth. Actually, I've been among a handful of users who have helped keep this highly visible article free of wp:npov problems (both pro-Tebow and anti-Tebow) for the past several years. To me, this looks like much the same thing, albeit for reasons of politics rather than college loyalty. Zeng8r (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So who put the POV back in early years section? njw 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
i knew you wouldnt understand njw 06:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nwerle, editing your comments after others have responded to your original statement is discouraged,as explained here. Zeng8r (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why, but I added a source that wasn't a blog, and it only took 7 minutes before someone ripped it out. Evidently the only credible sources for this article are only the ones that reflect positively on the subject... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgui (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Addition: Tim Tebow Foundation

As of 2010, Tim Tebow has recently launched his own foundation website, which should be added under professional career Tim Tebow Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argumentdesk (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 February 2010

Find an independent, reliable source about it first. --Ronz (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup; independent, reliable, notable; the works. Invmog (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy Problems

Since there is considerable controversy around the subject, perhaps we could change the section about Tim Tebow's mother's pregnancy problems to say that she claims that doctors recommended she get an abortion. The link provided is based on an interview with her and provides no corroborating evidence. Eiad77 (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is what a NEWS source says about the ad - http://www.gazette.com/articles/tebow-93671-bowl-well.html and the REPORTER (unlike the wiki gestapo ) following your suggestion. gadfly46 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

: D'oh ! nocustomdontknowhow 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That last sentence is what I disagree with. Let's say you're editing the Beatles article and cite a new factoid with a direct quote from Paul McCartney that you found in a credible published source that's also available online. Would it be reasonable to for somebody to insist on couching the item with phrases which doubt the fact just because the source provides no "corroborating evidence" besides the word of the person most involved? Who would know about more about events like this than the person who was actually there?

:: hearsay even by the god paul McCartney should be suspect, (god part was a joke). nocustomdontknowhow 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "Hearsay" is when somebody hears a story second- (or third-, or fourth-, etc.) hand and repeats it. Neither the Pam Tebow statement nor the hypothetical word of Sir Paul is hearsay. If somebody is telling what happened in their own life and it's published in a good source, we'd have to accept it for wikipedia purposes unless directly contradicted by another good published source. Zeng8r (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

::: and what Paul says John said is HEARSAY!!!!!!!!! nocustomdontknowhow 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)

Without a REALLY good reason (ie an investigative report from a published source, NOT just blog speculation), there's no need to qualify anything here, either. Now if the controversy itself gains some credible press, it should be included in the "Super Bowl ad" section. imo. Zeng8r (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

::: press ? abc, cbs http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-cbs-air-controversial/story?id=9667638 http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/02/03/should-cbs-show-tim-tebows-anti-abortion-super-bowl-ad.html nocustomdontknowhow 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The articles linked above discuss the controversy over the Super Bowl ad. That topic should certainly be included in Tim Tebow's wiki-bio. However, I didn't see any mention in either link concerning Pam Tebow's alleged lying about the circumstances of her son's birth. That's the specific topic that shouldn't be included due to a lack of quality sources, imo, at least at this point. I hesitate to direct you to yet another wikipolicy, but have you looked over the guidelines for biographies of living persons?Zeng8r (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
biography does not start UNTIL a person is BORN - that is a legal definition, the reference posted was about an event BEFORE the birth. Events prior to a birth are not part of a BIOGRAPHY! Nwerle (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::: you said press - so thats what I put, you want SOURCES 1 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html 2 - http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/is_the_anti-choice_tim_tebow_super_bowl_ad_a_lie 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m3X6MghcNI 4 - http://chattahbox.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/gloria-allred-says-tim-tebows-superbowl-ad-misleading-advertising/ 5 - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_bianchi/2010/02/tim-tebow-abortion-story-is-being-swiftboated-by-womens-rights-activist-gloria-allred.html 7 I even include a "pro-life" source http://www.lifenews.com/nat5943.html, next you will be saying MALE oriented sources only. nocustomdontknowhow 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Every one of those sources is a blog. PLEASE read the guidelines for biographies of living persons, especially the section on acceptable sourcing! You don't seem to get the problem here - it has nothing to do with political or religious beliefs, it's about making sure biographical articles are fair, accurate, and libel-free. Here's a quote from the official policy: Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with great care and strict adherence to our content policies. Zeng8r (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
straight news item from a NEWSPAPER about her CLAIM http://www.gazette.com/articles/tebow-93671-bowl-well.html gadfly46 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

::::: I think orlando sentinal is a NEWSPAPER, The following are NOT blogs they are news sources, Examiner, Gloria-Allred-challenges-CBS-over-Tim-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad--says-its-misleading, AS well as LIFENEWS and chatttahnews and the week. Google lists 307 news sites! new one salt lake NEWSPAPER http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14327273 Nwerle (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

oh, and one other minor little source - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/business/media/02adco.html Nwerle (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:::: another news source http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/03/kevin-mccullough-tim-tebow-pam-tebow-abortion-super-bowl-ad-allred/ Nwerle (talk)

I wonder if an acceptable compromise form would be words to the effect "she says that doctors recommended...", rather than either of "she claims that doctors recommended.." and "doctors recommended..."? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • so who put in the part about controversy and was not reverted? only your favored editors? gadfly 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)


Last time. Gadfly, once again, I looked through the good sources you provided and don't see anything about Pam Tebow lying about the abortion recommendation; it only seems to be mentioned in blogs or online opinion pieces. I read many of those websites myself, and I happen to agree with and/or believe most of the stuff written there. But it doesn't matter what I believe; info from such sources cannot be used in a biography of a living person according to wikipedia policy, especially on a controversial topic such as this. It just can't.
From the source - "Celebrity attorney and feminist advocate Gloria Allred repeated the slander against the Tebows' situation, telling RadarOnline.com that doctors would not have offered her such advice:" Allred is saying that Tebow is lying. Gadfly46 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)
And as also I've typed many times, the controversy about the actual Super Bowl ad is clearly notable and well-sourced and should definitely stay in the article.
Once you understand the relevant wikipedia policies and are ready to constructively work on this, I'll be happy to discuss it with you again. But right now, it seems like I'm wasting my time. Zeng8r (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
its you who doesnt know policy - the 2nd element is "Verifability" no one has provided verification of the claim! Just as I do not take the story a of a VIRGIN birth for a fact! gadfly46 07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro Life ad

Huffington post is a blog! gadfly 06:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)

Is the Dawkins comment not notable and relevant to this article?--Xris0 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

reference is made to Huffington post, which is a blog not a news source! can you not read! Gadfly46 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)


I thought it was less important in the big scheme of things than the more notable criticisms from more vocal groups (such as NOW), but I wouldn't object to restoring it if others think it should be in in there. Zeng8r (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Who reverted my source , The Colorado Springs Gazette, the newspaper from the HQ city of the Focus on the Family and left the puff piece by a SPORTS writer with PRO LIFE affiliations! gadfly46 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Go look at the history. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Dawkins quote belongs here. Specific quotes from critics is excessive in my opinion, although a general overview would be fine. Boromir123 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

it? yes be NON specific Gadfly46 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


It is NOT Tim Tebow's participation in ad that is has drawn controversy, it is HIS mothers's statements without proof that are the controversy! If he was in ad saying abortion is not good, that would be his right, noone ahs right to lie on US airways.

 :: especially when it includes critic on ayn randians running wikipedia for their own purposes. Gadfly46 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)

I normally ignore name-calling and the like, but I'm sorry, somebody calling me an "ayn randian" is about the most hilariously ironic thing I've ever read. Seriously, you have no idea. lol lol lol, etc.

Ahem. Anyway, besides violating the same policies quoted and linked nauseum above, the latest edits put WAY too much emphasis (there's another linked wikipolicy) on the Super Bowl ad, making the section about as long as sections about record-shattering football seasons. This is an article about a guy who's in a commercial, NOT about the commercial itself. There's no reason for putting in arguments about CBS's advertising policies and history or the intricacies and history of Philippino reproductive law in a biography of a 23 year-old football player.

Among all the issues with these edits, the main problem is that a few editors seem to be inappropriately trying to slant the article for political reasons. Feel free to hold picket signs, write columns or letters (salon.com is good for that), call CBS and/or your congressperson, or rant all you want in your own blog to get your point across. But wikipedia is NOT the forum for advocacy or activism, especially in a biography of a living person, which are even more tightly regulated than other articles. Please understand the guidelines before continuing. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew I would see your racist stripe pop up, its either Filipino or Phillipine its NOT Philippino! Gadfly46 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs)

What is the relevance of including this as a separate section? Should each biographic wiki page include every sort of controversial activity the person engaged in throughout their life? If the section is to remain it must include an accurate description of the controversy. It is not simply a "pro-life ad". It is clearly a major controversy throughout the nation, not restricted to feminist organizations. To uphold the integrity of the page and the website in general all available information about the controversy must be included. It is unfair and blatantly wrong to include a few sentences about this major controversy. Either include a detailed, comprehensive description of the controversy or remove the section entirely. Furthermore, the "protecting" of this page by those with vested interests in the subject is inappropriate at best and unethical at worst. If wikipedia is to have legitimacy in the eyes of society at large, accuracy, transparency, and honesty must be upheld. --Calboarder24 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living people? Because your post directly above is pretty much directly contradictory. Once again, this isn't about "vested interests" keeping out certain views for personal reasons. Not that it's anybody's business, but I've been arguing here with people whom I actually seem to agree with politically. But that's not the point! Like I've said many times on this page, there are plenty of places to get your opinions across. Wikipedia is not one of them. Zeng8r (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
like I said, its not about Tim Tebow, he has not said anything I disagree with, its his mothers input about events before he was born that should not be part of a bio, or else every BIO should cover every ancestor and action that took place before birth. gadfly46 06:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a NEWS ITEM regarding Tebow in a NEWSPAPER http://www.gazette.com/articles/tebow-93671-bowl-well.html and the REPORTER (unlike the wiki gestapo ) puts in facts . gadfly46 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the current Tim Tebow OR the newspaper article you linked? Pretty much everything in that link is already in the section on the SB ad controversy. However, the "Pam Tebow is lying" angle is again not mentioned. That's the only item that's NOT open to interpretation, since it's undersourced and thus clearly violates wp:blp. Zeng8r (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
there you go again, making stuff up, where is it stated she lied? the reference says she claims

gadfly46 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

since it is My hometown PAPER I read it in INK before it was ASCII posted on the net, and the source uses the word "claims". gadfly46 20:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Gadfly, be sure that you're well acquainted with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Invmog (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the commercial itself isn't controversial at all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je0lYPUvTZc. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems the reports quoted in the current version of this article are accurate. Zeng8r (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we remove the pro-life activist category? He appeared in one commerical, that hardly makes him an activist. Inclusion into such categories should involve long involvment with a political movement, not one instance of a person declaring their belief. If he continues to comment on abortion-related topics or becomes activly (and visibly) involved with the movement, he can be added. But as it stands right now, he no more belongs in the category, then say, Alanis Morissette belongs in the pro-choice activists category since she has stated she is pro-choice before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.140.153 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it's appropriate. See here. Zeng8r (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
it was a SUPERBOWL commercial! one ad, such a lame statement. gadfly46 05:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


All that that says is that he's an evangelical Christian. It says nothing about him being an activist of any sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.141.123 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Biblical ref

I came here as the BBC article about the ad controversy [4] mentions his "trademark biblical references painted underneath his eyes". There's nothing about them in the Wiki article. Can anyone expand? What is the ref? Why does he do it? How long has he been doing it for? Thanks 86.159.39.99 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Surprising that that's not mentioned in the article – Tebow is pretty well-known for his biblical eyeblacks. I might get around to adding it to the article, but either way, this would be a good place to start, to find sources and info about it. Regards, JamieS93 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
He has had "3:16" written on his eyeblacks in reference to John 3:16 and he has also had "Phil 4:13" in reference to Phillipian 4:13. I think it was removed a little while ago for some lame reason. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That's true; the article could definitely use more on Tebow's public religious stands. I'll do this later if nobody gets to it first... Zeng8r (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I dont care about his religious beliefs, only the TRUTH! gadfly46 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the truth is that he wears eyeblack with biblical verses written on it on gamedays. And we weren't asking you if you cared about it or not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Something should probably be in there about the eye paint, especially considering the 'tebow rule' that was recently put in effect about the banning of messages on eye black in college football. I'll look for some sources for it, but if someone can list them, it would make it significantly easier RF23 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Just added info on the "Tebow Rule"

The ad is not political. It's not pro-life. It's not pro-choice. It's just about the love between a mother and her son.

So I changed the name of the external link of the ad from "Tebow Pro-Life Ad" to "Tebow Super Bowl XLIV Ad." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

yes it was benign. gadfly46 05:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was surprised at how non-explicitly pro-life it was; it was mainly about Pam Tebow briefly telling their story. Invmog (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought the ad was beautiful and lovely. I didn't see it as being any more controversial than the song Happy Birthday to You. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ncaa Football 11 cover athlete

Ea Sports have named Tim Tebow the cover athlete for Ncaa Football 11 on April 7, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.191.74 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done RF23 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.198.236.51, 17 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The source provided for the statement regarding the circumstances of Tebow's birth makes no mention of those circumstances. This source reference should be removed and replaced with "reference needed". See specifically the text of source [1]. There is no information regarding Pam Tebow's health at the time of Tim Tebow's birth or any mention of a physician advising her to abort the preganancy.

98.198.236.51 (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the second page of that article. That is where the information is located. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: The information is indeed verified on the second page of the referenced article. --Darkwind (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mile High Messiah

A number of journalists have already started using the nickname. It's catching on, I see no reason why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NKS22 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Provide multiple reliable third party sources that indicate that it wasn't invented today (or yesterday) and that it is widely used. If those sources are not forthcoming, it goes. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't stay if "it's catching on." If you can prove it's an established and documented nickname, it should stay.Willcrys 84 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Well obviously, it would have have to been invented today or yesterday.. since Tebow was drafted by the Broncos yesterday and before that had absolutely no connection to the team or denver. I looked at the provided ref, and it talks about Woody Paige, who's a nationally recognized columnist for the Denver newspaper and panelist on Around The Horn, nicknamed him "Tremendous Tim". I'm thinking that should stay- since according to the ref- Mile high messiah was created by fans, which really doesn't make it that notable. However, if a nationally syndicated columnists gives a player a nickname, it generally sticks, (see Jared Lorenzen for example). RF23 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed it, it is silliness sourced from a blog. Including stuff sourced in that way is an epic WP:BLP fail. Anybody reinserting it may well wish they had not. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, this isn't epic BLP fail. Since the NFL Draft or so, the nickname has been heavily mentioned by the media. However, we aren't a site that follows every latest trend; FWIW, a nickname should not be included in the first sentence unless it's very prevalent, almost like a second name. I'm a Tebow fan, and I've only begun to hear this in association with the Draft. "Mile High Messiah" was coined less than a week ago, and that is NOT enough time to see if the name will even stick. Please no re-adding the name until he is associated with it on a long-term level, not just this week's NFL hype. JamieS93❤ 12:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Come on. Neither of these nicknames should be included. Nicknames invented by a newspaper blog columnist in the past week do not constitute a substantial "nickname" in wide circulation among those who are familiar with the subject person. "The Babe" = Babe Ruth. "Tremendous Tim" = ?? This is an encyclopedia not a blog. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a real difference between an actual nickname (Adrian "AD" Peterson) and just a term that sports writers decide to tag an athlete with. Dayewalker (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Concur as well. Not only is inserting this supposed nickname silly, but much of this discussion is silly as well, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note: there is a HUGE difference between an actual blog (IE: herearepicturesofacat dot blogspot dot com) and the source that was in there (Not an actual blog, run by a NEWSPAPER on a NEWSPAPER's WEBSITE) It only retains the blog title and format, but it's run by actual Journalists, and hosted on a LEGITIMATE NEWSPAPER's WEBSITE. example: THIS has "Blog" in it's title, and has a blog format, but it is considered a RELIABLE SOURCE because it's not really a blog- it's essentially a newspaper- but with a different format. These guys aren't just random people from the internet. Theses are (highly) paid sports journalists who work for the biggest sports network in the world. But that's beside the point. I kind of agree now that the name shouldn't be in until it's widespread (example: If Tebow plays on SNF, and we hear Al Michaels or Collingsworthless say either of those nicknames multiple times, or he's in an NFL game and the commentators repeatedly refer to a nickname weak after week, then it would be more appropriate to put it in there.RF23 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Jersey number for Broncos

I notice there's a bit of an argument (via reverts) over Tebow's jersey number in the Broncos - #15 or #10? I did a Google News search and couldn't find anything definitive, so I am blanking that infobox field for now. If someone has a good source, let me know. Thanks, WordyGirl90 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing over at Colt McCoy, better to leave it out until we get a reliable source. Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Tebow held up a #10 jersey at a press conference right after the draft, but it was not the jersey assigned to him. The number was the year of the draft (2010). I highly doubt Tebow wears any number other than his college number, 15, due to his amazing college career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
His college career will likely have nothing to do with it, if he gets 15 it's because it's available or a teammate gave it up for him to wear. It's can't be assumed in my opinion that it'll be 15 just because that was his college number.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that his number will definitely be 15, but I find it very likely that if the number is available (which it currently is), he will take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=11097 -- He's wearing 15. Change it. (71.201.176.224 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
I added the number and reference, in spite of 71.201.176.224's decidedly un-Tebow-esque manner. Dayewalker (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good...thanks everyone. :) WordyGirl90 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DaredeviLogan84, 1 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/media/ALeqM5j7ej23gb1BIgbpcSq95L_1krWzpg?size=l(him in broncos mini camp,broncos uniform) DaredeviLogan84 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.66.77.5, 5 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} For the heisman trophy section; you should change underclassmen to sophmore. There have been nearly a dozen juniors to win the award.

66.66.77.5 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


The term "underclassman" refers to a freshman or sophomore only. Zeng8r (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 Not done Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Claytnb, 2 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Tim Tebow is no longer the incumbent Best Male College Athlete ESPY Award Winner. John Wall is.

claytnb (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Virginity

Why isn't there a mention if his statement to the effect that he is a virgin? I think it is notable and has several verifiable reliable sources. Lawyer2b (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have links to those sources? I'll add it with reliable sources. PrincessofLlyr royal court 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Here you go: [5] [6] [7] [8] Lawyer2b (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for pointing that out. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Tebow/Archive_2&oldid=1140148393"