This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nwerle (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 4 February 2010 (→Pregnancy Problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:26, 4 February 2010 by Nwerle (talk | contribs) (→Pregnancy Problems)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has been selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling Collaboration of the Month for April 2008. Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Tim Tebow was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on August 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
Missing Honors and Awards
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)
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.
G8R8U2 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 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.
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. 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)
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)
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 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sports_bianchi+%28Open+Mike%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher 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: Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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. Nwerle (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Maybe something like "In an interview, his mother stated that..." would work. Let's see what others think. Zeng8r (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)