Talk:Andy Dalton

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Red hair controversy

The information that there is a controversy regarding the color of his hair with NFL scouts is completely unencyclopedic and does not belong here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, " unencyclopedic" is a circular argument and not a reason to delete something.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_unencyclopedic

The fact is the red hair controversy has gotten national attention and has been a subject of discussion in the NFL. It has also gotten a lot of chatter on internet message boards about NFL draft watchers arguing over whether a red head or a "Ginger" can be an NFL QB. Many people are of the belief that a "Ginger" can't have leadership skills required of a QB to lead an NFL team. I do not share this belief, but it is real controversy.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/04/does-andy-daltons-red-hair-disqualify-him-from-being-nfl-qb/1  

Red Hair discrimination is also a topic that has been discussed on Wikipedia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Red_hair#Modern-day_discrimination

This is an important issue that deserves to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.58.193 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link to WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC does not apply in this situation since that guideline is for deletion discussions such as articles for deletion. Sonny Jurgensen, a Hall of Fame quarterback, had red hair, so it is ridiculous to question whether people with red hair can be good quarterbacks. Apparently one NFL scout "questioned" his hair color, but all he said was that it was discussed once in a meeting. Does that team really believe that the color of his hair will dictate his level of success in the NFL? Hell no, but teams are looking for anything to discern between this tight second-tier QB group in the draft. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sonny Jurgensen played decades ago. The fact of the matter is prejudice persist in todays NFL. It wasn't long ago that common wisdom in the NFL said that a black person couldn't be a QB. And even today some people question if white people playing the running back position

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Peyton_Hillis#Professional_career

It is a well known fact that people with red hair have been labeled "Gingers" by some and have been subjected to discrimination in recent years. Every thing from South Park to "Kick a Ginger" day in schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6725653.stm

The fact is Sonny Jurgensen played well before most people had cable TV let alone when South Park started this anti ginger movement. And of course I don't believe that a red haired person can't be an NFL QB today. " Does that team really believe that the color of his hair will dictate his level of success in the NFL? Hell no," This argument could be used about anything. Does this company really believe that women shouldn't get promoted? YES SOME COMPANIES HARBOR PREJUDICE. This is a FACT. "but teams are looking for anything to discern between this tight second-tier QB group in the draft" This argument PROVES my point. "LOOKING FOR ANYTHING" This should be limited to his athletic ability and character. Natural Hair Color or Race should be off limits. Hence this is a controversy that needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.58.193 (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And yes my link to unencyclopedic does apply in this situation because the guideline clearly states that it applies to not just articles but, "the following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, " Is the quote on the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.58.193 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Key word there is "deletion discussions," which is not what this is. This is a content dispute. I'm not willing to give in, and I'm assuming you aren't willing to give in either, and since there isn't any real policy for or against this information, I think input from others would be helpful in order to get a consensus. Do you mind if I ask users at WT:CFB and WT:NFL to voice their opinion here? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome the opinions of other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.58.193 (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC does apply. If you actually read it, the point it makes is that suggesting that content (whether an entire article or just a portion) should be removed because it's unencyclopedic is a circular argument. The issue about his red hair is obviously verifiable. It's written in a reasonably NPOV manner, although "some have doubted" is a bit weasel-wordy; it might be better to simply write that "Sports Illustrated quoted an unidentified NFL coach as saying..." The biggest concern I see is that, because this article is relatively short, mentioning the comment probably gives undue weight to a fairly minor (approching trivial) incident. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That something is verifiable does not make it notable. I can find a citation somewhere on the internet for all sorts of ludicrous speculation about people, it doesn't mena they belong in their bio. Please see WP:BLPGOSSIP. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To 24.165.114.205

I have done most of the writing of Andy Dalton's page since its creation. Most unregistered editors have been outright vandals of this article but you seem to have good faith in attempting to edit. However, a week-by-week summary in-detail of every single game is not needed, especially since you deleted some important points such as Marvin Lewis' comments after the Denver game. Also, objective and professional writing is a must (no bad grammar, no misleading writing such as the "career-low 81 yards" despite the fact he was injured, no referring to him as just "Andy"). Feel free to improve this article, but such sweeping changes are really for the worse. Thanks! Nfl392 (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)