Talk:Terrell Owens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I removed the unfathomably idiotic comment that the 2001 49ers' "success was hampered by Terrell Owens's purported feud with Steve Mariucci and Terrell Owens."

A couple things here, idiot:

1. The 49ers weren't even expected to be in the playoffs in the first place. Terrell Owens HAMPERED the 2001 49ers when they went 12-4? What, they were supposed to go 13-3 or better? And I'm sure his 93-1412-16 had NOTHING to do with them going 12-4 or anything at all, right?

2. There was no Garcia/Owens rift in 2001. That didn't start until 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New T.O. pic[edit]

PLEASE unprotect this page so i can show my artwork (at least for this one time). I'm betting everyone will love the picture. I drew a really great picture of terrell. i really worked hard on it for about 4-5hours and i want to showcase my talent. i want to request it as the new terrell owens main image.

Fan Art work does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to share your artwork, try Flickr or Deviantart ;) --►ShadowJester07  20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs more info on S.F. Years[edit]

I think we need more info on his S.F. years, mainly controversey. Its not like it all started with the Eagles. I didn't really follow him then, so if anyone knows, please add on.

Proper Pronunciation[edit]

Could someone clarify how his first name is supposed to be pronounced? Either "Tur-rel" or "Tear-ul". Since I have heard commentators and sports reporters refer to him by both names.CharlieP216

It is pronounced "TEH-rell", if that helps. I'll try to look for the exact phonetical breakdown of his name. --ShadowJester07 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would actually say that it is "Tear-ul", because it it is pronounced differently than other Terrell's, such as Terrell Davis, which is pronounced Teh-rell.

It is pronounced Ter-rell. Ter as in Terripin, and rell as in rellish.

I think the best way to represent it on paper without hearing it is "Tare-uhl", while the other pronunciation (as in Terrell Davis) is "Turr-ell"

Also, he didn't want his name to be pronounced differently until after 'The Catch II' in that playoff game against the Green Bay Packers

Uh, no. His name was ALWAYS pronounced "TEAR-uhl." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Profile Pic[edit]

Owens plays for Dallas now so why is his main picture a pic with the Eagles?

Because there is no Free Fair Use Alternative that depicts him w/ the Cowboys. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone please find a new photo? This one looks terrible. VietGrant 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm... why don't you? 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFL Record/Notable Addition[edit]

Owens led the NFL in dropped boobs in 2006 with 17, according to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think he actually dropped butts. It should at least be in his the Dallas Cowboys section.

TO led the league in dropped passes with 17, but also led the league in touchdowns with 13, while playing injured. It may be more interesting and non-biased to juxtapose the one stat with the other. (Mythos721 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC))...........Reply[reply]

forgot to cite my source And I tried to find his dropped passes stat but couldn' may not be an "official" stat...but I don' know that for sure. (Mythos721 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Stats Against Former Team[edit]

You should add that Terrell Owens has never beat his former team in NFL competition. He lost to the Eagles and the 49ers. And you should change facts file to "Terrell Owens Tidbits".

September 18 2005 Eagles beat San Fran 42-3, T.O. Played, got two TD's, You should become a better researcher instead of a hater..

Nice. And the Cowboys beat SF this past year decisively, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't it worth noting that TO has not won a playoff game since his last game with San Fran????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Controversy Section IS NEUTRAL[edit]

Just because a section highlights all the idiotic things he does on a regular basis does not mean it is not neutral. The section just tells facts (actually leaves out a lot like calling Garcia gay or saying Steve Marucci threw a game -- all things which should be added BTW) and leaves Readers to make judgments....SO GET RID OF THE TAG.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Terrell Owens never accused Mariucci of throwing a game, nor did he ever call Garcia gay. He did imply he thought there was truth to the rumors that had been swirling about Garcia being gay for years when asked about it in a "20 Questions With Terrell Owens" Playboy piece, but they were no longer teammates at that point (2004). He also clarified at his press conference from Eagles camp the next day that he did not say Garcia was gay, and that he wasn't sure whether Garcia was gay or not. The thing you mistakenly bought into about Owens accusing Mariucci of throwing a game (2001 @ Chicago Bears) was a lie by Bay Area opinion columnists looking for a story with a man they were targeting because of his touchdown celebrations against Dallas the year before. Owens said in his postgame interview that they lost as a team - offense, defense, special teams, and coaches - and that he hoped Steve Mariucci would change his philosophy about "destroying" teams (running up the score), because he felt no game in the league was ever over, and that mentality came back to hurt them this time. He added that he thought Mariucci sometimes tried to avoid embarrassing opponents who were his buddies. Owens was only playing off what Mariucci had openly stated; the media noted Mariucci had admitted to apologizing to Bears head coach Dick Jauron just the year before for continuing to pass in the 4th quarter to get Owens the single game receptions record.

Allen Iverson is on the Denver Nuggets, not the Philadelphia 76ers. Update


Is this really his middle name?--E tac 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's really Stalin.source Damn vandals --ShadowJester07Talk 02:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source says Eldorado. That's funny.--E tac 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it really necessary to have "T.O say to Jessica Simpson "Go away from My QB". Tony Romo." on the page? I know it's trivia but it seems unnecessary to me. Someone please answer. Burner0718 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV tag[edit]

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon reading the section, I can see that Professional Career section contains several peacock words/terms, which while generally comply with Wikipedia's POV policies, should still be revised. I agree that the POV tag may not be needed, but a Peacock words tag may however.--  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Other 81"[edit]

Last year TO left a letter before the game against the Patriots talking about how "the Original 81" would leave all questions about "the Other 81" until after Sunday's win (a game they ended up getting their asses handed to them in). Does anyone else think that should be added to controversies? It wasn't THAT controversial, I just thought it was hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short Arms[edit]

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia (the last week or so), but I heard that T.O. has short arms and hard hands. What does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YerYeller (talkcontribs) 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a receiver is said to have "soft hands" it's the same as saying he has great hands. (i.e. the ball never bounces off of them.) So having "hard hands" or "stone hands" means just as it sounds, he drops the ball alot. Similarly, having long arms would allow for a player to go up on a jump ball and catch the ball at a higher point, as well as allowing for more acrobatic diving and reaching catches.

Therefore, having short arms and hard hands refers to him not having the hands of a Larry Fitzgerald or the arms of a Randy Moss.

This quote would mean that aside from his ability to be physical and seperate himself from a DB using that physicality, his skills are not typical for an all-time great receiver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, what? Uh, no. Owens's ability was based on pure speed and elusiveness. He was not a physical receiver. Also, the OP was obviously conversing with a doofus who was talking out his rear end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why so little info on 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

url correction[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} reference #4 url must be updated. URL should be changed from to

Sceditor09 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yo dawg, you gotta update this page. There is nothin about 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basketball Awards[edit]

He is a two time NBA Celebrity All Star Game MVP (2008, 2009). This should be mentioned in his sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T.O. released from Cowboys?[edit]

I note that it's been added to the page, but ESPN is still waiting for confirmation from the team before reporting that as final... Duncan1800 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's also now listed under the "Celebrations for Dallas" section, which seems fairly inappropriate. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jerry Jones has made an official statement, that should be edited in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jersey number[edit]

Probably T.O. will wear #1 for the Bills.

Except that's impossible. Good job.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impossible? Oh, really?

It's a generic pic, retard. NFL wide receivers can only wear 10-19 and 80-89.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shame on me, I didn't know about that rule. Anyway, there's no reason to call me retard. I haven't shown any animosity towards you. Peace man (Except that I was cocky and said "Impossible? Oh, really? and then posted a site that I obviously didn't read because it proved my point completely wrong.)

Then you must not follow football.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's true, I'm from Italy and football is not widely broadcasted here, I watched only a bunch of Super Bowls. I read about Terrell's move and (as I often edit pages on wikipedia when I find wrong or missing data) I wanted to add his new jersey number. Unfortunately, I didn't know about that rule concerning number issues, I just wanted to add some informations. My fault. Cheers Chris

Why is someone from Italy editing an American football site?? With all due respect, unless you're going to do your homework, stick to futbol and leave football to us.

{{editsemiprotected}} Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.

The Buffalo Bills website does show a jersey showing Owens and #1, however, when you bring the product up it says "Jerseys will ship 3-4 weeks after jersey number selection." He absolutely will not wear #1 in Buffalo. My biggest problem is that this site is semi-protected and the people who do edit it don't follow through with thorough research. This information needs to be changed immediately because Terell does not have a Bills jersey number yet. Trust me, this site will get many hits and far too many people will be misinformed if this goes on. Thank you

Edit request rejected for failure to state specific text that should be inserted. (Also, it appears that the article has dealt with the issue, as it now says "He has been temporarily assigned the number 1, since his current number 81 is worn by James Hardy. As per NFL numbering conventions, Owens will likely have to change his number prior to the start of the 2009 season.") (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He got 81 as per CronoDroid (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, who is responsible for so much misinformation? TERRELL WAS NEVER ASSIGNED #1 TEMPORARILY. Following the Bills signing him, his jersey number was temporarily UNASSIGNED, as he had not selected a number nor talked to James Hardy yet. For anyone that wants to know the truth, the Bills simply needed something to put on their website so that they could begin the pre-ordering process of his jerseys, so it showed a #1 Owens jersey much as they do for first round picks. Long story short, whoever edits the site saw this and didn't bother to read the disclaimer that said he had not been assigned ANY jersey number (including #1). So prior to the news about Hardy giving up his number, the site should have shown "Jersey number not yet selected." Just take the responsibility for your lack of research and accurate information, instead of saying "oh well he was temporarily assigned number 1," which is just more inaccurate information and not possible. A team would never temporarily assign a number that would be illegal for a receiver to wear.

This is like watching the upcoming draft and then going out and saying Michael Crabtree will be wearing #1 this season!!! Then when you realize you're a moron, trying to say oh it was temporary. No, actually it's just a generic jersey so that they have something to hold up. Otherwise the list of players to "temporarily" hold number one would be endless. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Touchdown celebrations[edit]

"Popularly known by his initials, T.O., Owens is both renowned and reviled for his flamboyant touchdown celebrations, earning him many fines and his teams frequent penalties for his end zone theatrics."
Isn't this a bit lame? The TD celebrations are actually mentioned twice in the same sentence. How about "..earning him many fines and his teams frequent penalties."? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Action Figure[edit]

Should someone add something about the action figure of T.O. is his days at dallas?It was his blue jersey and was fully poseable.Replays made it.If you know what I mean,pleasae post.Im new and not used to Wiki.Spidey53225 (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Someone added a headline about T.O. playing for the Bengals,but never posted anything.Please remove. Im new and dont know how to edit. Please tell me how on the discussion page. Spidey53225 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanksSpidey53225 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Part of the intro sounds maybe a little biased to me, even though it's cited: As productive as he has been, Owens has been equally controversial, creating firestorms with almost every team he has played for as a professional —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-Money92 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • He has. With the 49ers, he incinuated that Jeff Garcia was gay in a playboy interview. He had all kinds of controversy with the Eagles and Dallas. Aside from those last two one-year stints, he's started controversy. He's not condemned for it, it's just mentioned, hence neutral. Atari2 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Owens wasn't on the 49ers when Playboy asked him if he thought there was any truth to the rumors that Garcia was gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old boy....[edit]

born on December 7, 1945 ?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page was vandalized. It is fixed now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrell Owens's supposed defense website[edit]

I deleted this from the article:

In May of 2010, Terrell Owens launched It is a website dedicated toward defending him against the many criticisms of him by the media.

I can't see any evidence from the website that the site has been set up by Owens. Someone named Jordan has set it up. Since it isn't anything official or otherwise endorsed by Owens, I don't see its relevance to the article. I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of similar sites, advocating for and against Owens. Scrawlspacer (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Currently it's considered that information on Wikipedia is up to date. Currently we don't think that we have to preface every fact with a word indicating that the following fact is up to date. Currently, it does not matter if a word like "currently" is used, because if the information falls out of date, "currently" does not protect the statement from becoming false. Currently, I believe that this article should not use "currently" when stating facts like this player is "the only player to score against all 32 teams." Currently this is true, and it will remain true until another player accomplishes the same feat. When that happens, it will no longer currently be true regardless of the use of this annoying word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request from , 25 October 2011[edit]

he now plays for NYG i want to add that Rafftyler (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No he doesn't. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cell Phone Incident[edit]

Should the cell phone incident be mentioned? AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're referring to the touchdown celebration by Joe Horn, then no, it shouldn't be included in an article about Terrell Owens ;) -Hatster301 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should there be no little section about the fact he has been voted the most overrated player a few times by peers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You Can Not Be Serious[edit]

The Youtube video I linked is the full version of the actual Owens interview in question - with Graham Bensinger in 2005. The claims I made about what Owens said in the interview, which contradict what was written before, are proven there. This is like trying to say that a link to a NASA picture from space of the earth being round doesn't prove the earth is round because "it'z not a blah blah blah source dat followz wikipedia guidelinezzz," and then reverting the page about the planet to saying the world is flat. This is the best possible source. Are you really just going to defy all common sense out of spite? It literally proves exactly what I typed without a shadow of a doubt. Additionally, I added the book to show that the fight with Douglas did not take place in the locker room, as was written, but in the rehab facility (or training room...if you want to change it to "training room," be my guest). That's what the guy who was actually there says (and if you do a google search, there are posts on various NFL forums copy-and-pasting an article written by Jay Glazer of Fox Sports which said the same thing. I was going to use that as the source, but Fox Sports has since removed the article. It was from 2005, after all). (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there's nothing wrong with linking to a YouTube video of an interview. The section does appear to be a bit lengthy though. Was this "controversy" really that big of a deal? Lizard (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be a good idea for you to take a step back and see if this is worth getting worked up about. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Youtube interview link[edit]

I found a better (secondary) reliable source for the quote about Brett Favre; it's in the Rosenhaus book. I added it; I think that having a book reference is also better for establishing that the quote is significant enough to include in the article in the first place. I still think much of the rest of that paragraph is problematic in that it's all unsourced and much of it seems to be WP:OR, but I'm working on finding sources. Rockypedia (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a lot better. Article content need not be notable, but it's still best to use independent sources to show that it's at least significant. Lizard (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book does not provide the full context the way the Youtube videos do. Why not add the book as an additional source to show it was significant, while leaving the rest of it, since it's all substantiated? One other thing: Please tell me how the book is a better source than the official documents from Richard Bloch, the arbitrator? You honestly think the player's agent recalling something from memory is more accurate than text documents from the arbitrator from the grievance hearing, which detailed things he recorded about what transpired from conversations with those involved?
The book is better for establishing significance of the event. Any old case can have official documents; that alone doesn't make it noteworthy. The arbitrator's documents (and the YouTube videos for that matter) are better for verifiability. Whether or not all of that info is supported by the sources currently in the article, I'm not sure. I haven't checked. But it seems Rockypedia has checked and found some things that aren't supported. These should be worked out as opposed to indiscriminately reverting each others' edits. Lizard (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I did try to discuss the issues with the verbiage that I changed; some was unsourced and I was unable to find sources, some was clear WP:OR, and some things I did find sources for, and in the latter cases, some of the verbiage was a little inaccurate (according to the sources) so I made the appropriate changes. All the while, this anon IP refused to discuss any of the content, and resorting to the mass-reverts of every single edit I made, which I found unhelpful. I've given up on trying to discuss with him, after 4 of these mass-revert sessions, and reported him for 3RR. Meanwhile, even his latest edits add a bunch of unsourced original research, but I'm leaving it alone until the 3RR report shakes out; perhaps another editor can address that stuff in the meantime. Rockypedia (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quotation in the book is out-of-context. The full version of the interview shows the full context. You can add the book as an additional source for one of the quotes, but to remove the whole context perpetuates the mythology instead of showing the true nature of what happened. (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's another source showing that Owens being taken out-of-context was important in this controversy. "I said earlier in the interview that we would have a better record if Donovan wasn't injured." The full version of the interview I provided links to proves that what he was saying about being taken out of context was true. A neutral website would reflect this reality instead of making it appear as though Owens was intending on taking a "verbal jab at McNabb" by doing the same thing the sports media did at the time: taking the quote out of context. (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That source doesn't show that Owens was taken out of context. It merely documents Owens' claim, after the fact, that he was taken out of context. I'm asking a serious question here: do you understand the difference between a primary and secondary source, and why that is important here? ("here" meaning Wikipedia). Rockypedia (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I said the source shows it was IMPORTANT. I didn't say it shows he was taken out of context. That's what the videos show. (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two things: It doesn't show that, for exactly the reason I stated above - Owens claimed to be taken out of context. No one reported that he actually was taken out of context. Second, your interpretation of the video is not a reliable source. This is exactly why this guideline exists (you should read it): you can use a video of an interview to cite an exact quote, that's true. But the minute you say "well, that quote was taken out of context" - that's original research. You need a reliable secondary source that states Owens was taken out of context, or it doesn't go in the article. Rockypedia (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. I took out the interpretation. (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the least of the problems with what you blindly reverted. You've still left a ton of unsourced original research in (which I had removed and/or sourced in edits that you subesequently reverted), including, but not limited to: "The media portrayed this as Owens criticizing McNabb." "McNabb was incensed when he heard the parts ESPN showed of the interview", "Eagles' front office demanded Owens apologize to McNabb, telling him he could remain on the team if he adhered to their stipulations for apologizing for his responses in the interview." Some of this was addressed with my edits, where I added sources, and you reverted them with no regard for what you were taking out. I'll give you one more chance, as it now appears the 3RR report has stimulated your sense of cooperation: I'll continue to work with you on this page, and I'll make a note on the 3RR page that you're now cooperating, hopefully avoiding a block on your IP address, and we go back to my last revision before you reverted everything, and start from there, on this talk page. Is that acceptable to you? Rockypedia (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe try actually reading the sources I provided? You obviously didn't read the link to the Richard Bloch documents (from, which prove what I wrote, with information from Andy Reid in those documents.
"Following the interview, the Coach again confronted Owens and told him "he couldn't do those things" and that he was going to have to suspend him. But, Reid proposed a way out. First, the Coach said Owens would need to apologize to the organization publicly. Second, he told Owens to "get with the quarterback and work this thing out. Work it out." Later, testifies the Coach, he learned of more players being upset. He reviewed the transcript, found supportive comments that Owens had made and spoke to him again. He told Owens:
Hey, man, there were some good things in there. But these things right here are wrong. And this team right now, that locker room isn't right. It's just not right. It's just not right. There's too much questioning going on. And a lot of it right now is they are questioning you. And let's just get it straight, or I have to suspend you.
It was at that point, testifies the Coach that he added a third requirement:
I said you need to stand in front of that team and let them know what you meant, and get this thing settled. I even gave him examples because that's not an easy thing for him to do. But I thought it was important. I just thought at that time the team needed to hear -- again, this is a veteran Player they look up to as a football Player and just say, hey, listen -- one of the examples I gave him -- this thing didn't come out right. It didn't come out the way I wanted it to. I even told him it does not need to be a tear-jerker team. I don't need that. I just need it set straight. It didn't come out the way I wanted it to, and it won't happen again. I'm staying away from the TV's and all the radio and so on. I'm staying away from it all. It's not going to happen again.
But the Player rejected the offer, telling the Coach he couldn't go to McNabb and didn't feel comfortable appearing in front of the team. The Coach solicited Rosenhaus' assistance, and the agent prepared a statement, including an apology to Donovan, which, the Coach assured Owens, need not be read in public. Owens apologized to the Eagles organization in public. But he continued his refusal to speak directly to the team or to Donovan McNabb. At that point, Reid notified him he would be suspended."
As for the fact that the parts of the interview ESPN showed incensed McNabb and that the media portrayed this as Owens criticizing could find a billion sources for that. You're asking me to cite basically every single sentence I wrote, while the vast majority of the things written in this LONG article aren't cited and you're fine with that. Why is that? (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not at all fine with it. That's why I've been working on it. I've already sourced a bunch of stuff that wasn't added by either of us. And yes, every statement, except for those in the summary, needs to be sourced. That's how this place works. Rockypedia (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you insist on sources for what you asked for, here's McNabb showing he was incensed (or at least upset, depending on what language you prefer), comparing it to black-on-black crime. Here's ESPN saying Owens took a shot at McNabb with his response to the follow up question about Favre. Not sure how many sources you want to show that the media portrayed this as a criticism of McNabb.
Okay, first off, I think it's time you stopped with the combative attitude. Saying things like "If you insist on sources" as if I'm forcing you to do something that the rest of the editors on Wikipedia don't do (like adding sources) is not going to win you any friends, and it makes it harder to work with you. Second, while that's a useful source (I have added it), notice that it's talking about an interview with McNabb months later (I added that as well). Finally, if you want to add something like "incensed" or "upset", that's usually original research, unless there's a source that states "McNabb said he was incensed" or "McNabb was described by teammates as incensed".
You're doing better than before; at least you're discussing here instead of just reverting changes, but you still have a bit to learn, I think, about how sources work and why original research isn't allowed. I really think if you read WP:OR, a lot of it will make sense to you at this point, and will help you going forward. Rockypedia (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except they clearly don't, and you didn't go through and do a mass deletion on all the uncited stuff on this page. Here are just a few things on here which aren't cited: "Based as much on his size and speed as on his demonstrated ability, the NFL's San Francisco 49ers drafted Owens in the third round of the 1996 NFL Draft with the 89th overall selection." "Owens gained a tremendous amount of popularity throughout the league, especially among the Eagles' fan base." "With the Eagles heading to Super Bowl XXXIX, Owens shocked the media by announcing he would play no matter what, even though team doctors stated that his injury would take several more weeks to heal." "Skeptics were silenced when Owens started the game and played well." "After the game, Owens criticized the media by saying that a player like Brett Favre would have been praised for such bravery." I'm just going to stop there, because the majority of the things on this page aren't cited. I know for a fact that most of these things are true, but of course, that's not the point.
Also, you still insist on keeping things on here which aren't true. "Coach Reid demanded that Owens make a public apology to McNabb on national TV. " The Richard Bloch documents from the grievance hearing, which I linked you to, say that Reid told him it didn't need to be read in public, but he needed to apologize to McNabb in private. "While McNabb did not publicly comment on Owens' slight at the time." Where are you getting this from? You are claiming it is a slight when all the secondary sources claiming it was a slight are opinion pieces and therefore, the most you can say is that many in the sports media claimed this was a slight. The full interview, where the answer is in context, does not support the claim. Additionally, McNabb absolutely commented on it at the time. You think he didn't do press conferences and answer questions about it? You may not have found anything from that long ago, but assuming he didn't comment on it is a baseless assumption (and I can tell you from memory, wrong). Then there's this, which is sort of true, but uncited and a generalization. "Eagles fans perceived the comment as a verbal jab at McNabb and the team." SOME did. Nobody polled every Eagles fan to see what they thought. (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I know for a fact that most of these things are true" is not a WP:RS. The "Coach Reid demanded..." sentence is almost verbatim from the Rosenhaus source, so is the "verbal jab at McNabb and the team" and the citation is right there at the end of that paragraph. McNabb commenting on it? "I can tell you from memory" is also not a WP:RS. We seem to be going back around in circles now. Let me know when you have a concrete suggestion to improve the article that's based on a reliable source. Rockypedia (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that wasn't my point. I was saying that while most of that stuff is accurate, it isn't sourced...yet you leave it in and only deleted the stuff I added, most of which was sourced. You wrote that McNabb didn't comment on it at the time, which is an unsourced assumption (and false, which you would see if you did enough research). As I said before, the Richard Bloch documents, which were posted on, trump what Rosenhaus wrote in his book. Bloch was the arbitrator during the 2005 grievance hearing, and it was his job to record everything people told him. Rosenhaus is a sports agent with tons of different clients and was telling this story from memory. I don't see how Rosenhaus has the authority to speak for "Eagles fans" in general more than anyone else. (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah this part: "Yet you leave it in and only deleted the stuff I added, most of which was sourced" is a total lie. I deleted lots of things that I couldn't find sources for. I found sources for other things that were unsourced, and added them. And of the things you added, LOTS of it was unsourced, and much of it that you "sourced", it turned out the sources didn't actually say what the text you added said, so yeah, that gets removed too. In fact, pretty much everything you've done at this website from that IP address in St. Louis has been disruptive. Rockypedia (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, "if Donovan wasn't injured" is the same thing as "had McNabb been healthy." What do you think "healthy" in football terms means? It means, "not injured." Jesus fucking Christ. I mean, really? You are the one being disruptive, and your ulterior motives have been apparent from the start. Also, I already listed several things that weren't sourced that you didn't even touch, and those weren't even the tip of the iceberg. The first thing you did when you stalked me over here from the Jared Taylor talk page was delete all of my additions, leaving basically everything else. And you said of my link to Youtube uploads from Graham Bensinger himself of the complete interview, word-for-word, which I was quoting, that Youtube isn't a reliable secondary source. Well, I guess we can't prove that these weren't just a couple of actors pretending to be Bensinger and Owens...maybe long lost twins or something. And then you just reveal you actually traced my IP address? I mean, how is it you haven't been banned yet? You're clearly in violation of wikipedia rules. What do you think gives you the right to tell others what they can and can't do on wikipedia? (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Does Rockypedia Get to Dictate This Page?[edit]

Enough is enough. The sources showing that Owens said he was taken out of context and that he said had McNabb not been injured, the Eagles' record would have been better were saying the same thing I typed. "Healthy" is another way to describe athletes not being injured. However, even if he took exception to this, why not just change the word "healthy" to "wasn't injured" and call it a day, since the reliable sources proved what I had written? Instead, he just deleted the whole thing and said "it doesn't say that." I then made the change in phrasing myself, but for some reason, the bot came up talking about copyright crap...I was only linking to an external source on youtube, and the external source was uploaded by the interviewer himself (Graham Bensinger). The bot didn't come up last time, either. However, I think the biggest question is why Rockypedia has free reign to tell me what I can and can't do on this page. If you're going to let users like this run the show, why even allow the public to edit pages at all? (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a specific change you'd like to make, detail that on this talk page, in the format of "This currently says X, I think it should say Y, and here's the reasons." Rockypedia (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it said in the Controversy with the Eagles section after I typed it, before you reverted, is what it should say, because it is well sourced. (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Declined. Your edits were sourced to Youtube videos and included WP:OR, and no indication of the significance of the text offered was sourced to reliable secondary sources. Rockypedia (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already consensus that the Youtube videos are perfectly valid, and you already provided the source showing it was significant with the Rosenhaus book. My last edit did not contain WP:OR. I only said that Owens said he was taken out of context (which is a fact established by the article), and I provided the videos to show that I can use the word, "noted," because it is known that he said this, since the videos prove it. (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll have to be more specific. What exact X ---> Y changes do you want made? Rockypedia (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the changes myself, based on consensus. You are not the owner of this article. If you have any objectives, explain on here. (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have full-protected the article for 12 hours, which gives us time to sort this issue out. A few general comments to help:

  • YouTube videos are generally (but not always) copyright violations - unless you are absolutely certain the video is not, do not link to it - at all
  • Opposite to that, some official interviews are available on YouTube. However, they should be used with care - unless you can be sure the video publisher is a reputable source (eg: the official channel of a broadsheet newspaper), the video may still be unacceptable per the biographies of living persons policy.

Now - discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The videos of this full interview were uploaded by the interviewer himself, Graham Bensinger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, well that might not be enough in this case. To give a rather far-fetched example, I could get my friend to interview me giving my blunt opinion on Donald Trump, but I couldn't use that a source for Trump's article. As Besigner seems to be a small-time reporter, I think you're going to need to find better sources before we can accept that edit. For example, the next sentence is cited to ESPN - that's the sort of thing you should be aiming towards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what you're getting at. If YOU were a notable person and it was the wikipedia page for YOU, a video your friend uploaded of him interviewing you would be fine to cite on the page about YOU, would it not? Especially if parts from that same interview were broadcast across the nation and proven to cause a major controversy? This Bensinger interview, where he was interviewing Terrell Owens, was the interview that played all over ESPN and WAS this controversy being talked about. This is literally the interview. I posted the link to the actual interview just to show that what the LA Times article quoted Owens as claiming he said during that Bensinger interview - that he had mentioned in that interview that their record would be better if McNabb wasn't injured - was true. Owens did, in fact, say their record would be better if McNabb weren't injured, as proven by the upload of the full Bensinger interview itself. (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I want to add, if you still consider the videos an issue, here is a source from with him quoted as saying it. (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Ritchie333 here. The issue is the significance of the interview; how much trivia from the hundreds of interviews T.O. has done over the years should be included in this article? There's nothing to indicate that this remark was significant. The incident in question was already fully covered in the previous article text. T.O. saying "I was taken out of context!" is not notable lasting news with significant coverage. In fact, there's no secondary coverage of that interview; only the interview itself exists. Rockypedia (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The LA Times article I linked was secondary coverage of what he said on the radio about being taken out of context. The videos are to show that what he claimed he said before the Favre thing was, in fact, what he claimed he said. (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're linking two things that don't actually support each other. The article simply says "He said he was taken out of context in the interview", nothing more. It's a totally insignificant mention of a not-surprising backpedal after Owens had already made the comments that were significant. The youtube videos are of the actual significant interview that started the entire controversy, and that's already well-sourced with secondary reliable sources. Rockypedia (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this "totally insignificant?" It was covered by the media, as I showed. The LA times is a reliable secondary source, wouldn't you agree? Why is that insignificant but McNabb saying he thought it was a slap in the face was significant? The videos prove it was not a "backpedal;" he did, in fact, say exactly what he claimed he did. It is also significant in the context of this controversy because, as shown in the Richard Bloch documents, Owens used this claim of being taken out of context as an explanation for why he was refusing to apologize to McNabb for the interview (and thus leading to his suspension). You are not acting in good faith. You are being deliberately disruptive because you are upset over what I said on the Jared Taylor talk page. I encourage anyone reading this to check the history and see that Rockypedia followed me over to this talk page on July 30th of this year after telling me he was going to check the post histories of certain people on the Taylor talk page. He then proceeded to revert everything I had typed on here, and ONLY what I had typed, but left everything else alone, despite the fact that there were countless things that were uncited. He made no other edits on this page for the next 5 days. It was only after I undid his reversion on August 4th, that he returned to this page and started trouble, claiming he was acting in good faith and not reverting my edits and leaving everyone else's alone because of his personal vendetta against me. (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And here is yet another article that delves further into the subject of Owens saying he was taken out of context, this supposedly "insignificant" information. (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth sentence of lede[edit]

Remove "As productive as he has been, Owens has been equally controversial, creating firestorms with almost every team he has played for as a professional."[1]

The language, "creating firestorms", is inappropriate for a BLP, especially the lede section.

The source does not verify the information.

The source is not reliable.

It introduces a summary biographical paragraph, skewing it with unencyclopedic information and presentation.

It makes generalizations inappropriate for the lede, "almost every team". --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this, should be removed. Not sure how I missed it when I started editing this page to root out stuff like that; my only excuse is - there's a lot of it still in there. Rockypedia (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you missed it because you only came to this page to delete what I wrote (out of spite), and didn't return for the next 5 days...only being motivated to return because I undid your revert. (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NPA Rockypedia (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edited out the inappropriate material. Rockypedia (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Terrell Owens Biography – Played Multiple Sports in High School and College, Courted Controversy, Set New Records". Retrieved March 5, 2016.

My Addition Is Perfectly Valid[edit]

Ritchie333 only took issue with the use of the videos as a source (although I don't think he understood the nature of these videos and hasn't responded to my response to him). He never took issue with me adding the information itself - that was all you, Rockypedia. I changed the video source to an source, which Ritchie333 already agreed is a reliable source. You're the one who is edit warring. (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are twisting what Ritchie333 said to suit your purpose in a different place. He stated that you needed to find some indication that reliable secondary sources need to establish that Owens was taken out of context, and that that was a significant part of the controversy. It's only your interpretation that that is so, and our opinions are not enough to warrant the addition of trivia. But you already know this, because I've attempted to explain it in talk multiple times. Rockypedia (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He stated no such thing. You literally just made that up. This is word-for-word what he said: "Okay, well that might not be enough in this case. To give a rather far-fetched example, I could get my friend to interview me giving my blunt opinion on Donald Trump, but I couldn't use that a source for Trump's article. As Besigner seems to be a small-time reporter, I think you're going to need to find better sources before we can accept that edit. For example, the next sentence is cited to ESPN - that's the sort of thing you should be aiming towards." We were clearly discussing whether or not it was acceptable to use the Youtube video uploads of Bensinger's interview with Owens as a source. He said nothing about it being a "significant part of the controversy." I found an ESPN source to show the same thing as the videos and therefore replace them. We're deadlocked at 1-1 as to whether or not this information - that Owens said of the controversial interview that he was taken out of context - should be added to the controversy section. I recommend a third party to decide. I maintain that it is at least as relevant as McNabb's reaction, which you added to the section. I didn't add something about Bob from Iowa's reaction to it...I added what the subject of the article said of this controversy, which he was the subject of. That's significant. Due weight and all that. His reaction to the controversy over the interview was what led to his suspension, as our sources demonstrate; he said he was taken out of context on the McNabb part and refused to apologize for it. (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Owens Taken Out Of Context[edit]

Rockypedia's attempt to justify yet another revert: "Controversy with the Eagles: still not significant, Owens may have said himself that he was taken out of context, but no reliable secondary source has said that)." The deleted sentence didn't say that Owens was taken out of context, it merely said that Owens SAID he was taken out of context. Reliable secondary sources said that by quoting Owens as saying it. This controversy is about how Owens did an interview and was suspended for not apologizing for the McNabb part. The link between the interview and Owens being suspended for not apologizing for the McNabb part is him saying he was taken out of context and refusing to apologize for the McNabb part. (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should stick to your efforts to make the white supremacist Jared Taylor a more sympathetic figure on Talk:Jared Taylor; you might have more luck there. Rockypedia (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off-topic trolling. Why hasn't anybody banned this guy yet? He breaks numerous wikipedia rules on a regular basis. (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have a specific issue with my edits, you should bring it up to an administrator. You're unlikely to get any resolution to your issues by asking open-ending questions on the Terrell Owens talk page. Meanwhile, make sure you also mention your 30-some reverts on this page, many of them removing sourced material, along with the sources. If you need a handy list, I have it and can email it to you. All you need do is ask. Rockypedia (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An admission that you are not trying to improve the article, you are just trying to be disruptive. From reverting my perfectly valid, well-sourced edits, claiming consensus when you have none, and falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, you are begging for a block. (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm begging for a block, eh? That's a lot of wikipedia knowledge coming from an anon IP editor that just started editing two months ago. Amazing. Rockypedia (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for reverting sourced edits (and their sources), let's take a look at these 18 reversions here. Quite an impressive list. How'd you find the time to delete all that material and the sources that went with it? Rockypedia (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You weren't changing anything in good faith - you were making several edits at a time after reverting me to make it impossible for me to undo your revert of my edits without undoing all of your subsequent edits. Again, give it a rest. You're not neutral, you're not doing anything in "good faith," and you don't even try to hide it. You just make passive-aggressive comments because you think having a registered account makes you above wikipedia's rules. (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see you're familiar with the term "good faith." Again, amazing the amount of wikipedia knowledge you've picked up after editing just 2 pages. The fact that one of them is the highly contentious white supremacist Jared Taylor page is probably just coincidence. Rockypedia (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's really hard to pick up lingo when people toss it around on the talk pages dozens of times each day. There's also the fact that wikipedia has been around for just a little while and some of us have even moved during that span of time. (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you admit that you've edited wikipedia from other accounts and/or IP addresses? Rockypedia (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the past, when I lived in a different apartment and had a different IP address from the IP address I have now, I occasionally edited wikipedia. (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Lede"[edit]

The main controversy Owens faced was over the touchdown celebrations. That's what made him a focus of the sports media to begin with. It makes no sense to say, "and also attracted attention for his flamboyant touchdown celebrations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks, but the controversy section presents a lot of evidence that the TD celebrations were not, by a long shot, the only controversies he attracted. Rockypedia (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why I wrote it as "which included his flamboyant touchdown celebrations." These celebrations - the star celebrations and the Sharpie - were enormously controversial. (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third party, two cents[edit]

I was planning on staying out of this, but seeing as the page has been fully protected for the second time in a week, I'm going to give my two cents.

  1. If there are reliable secondary sources that confirm Owens said he believed he was taken out of context, then I think it belongs in the article.
  2. YouTube videos should not be used as a source in this case. If it's significant enough, there should be a better source for it than a YouTube video. Who posted the video is irrelevant.
  3. We don't need all the fine details. I would trim During his weekly news conference... starting with the 17-10 loss to the Washington Redskins on November 6 and After Owens read his statement, Rosenhaus took questions from reporters, but refused to answer queries about Owens' situation, instead saying "Next question!" thirteen times.

I'm still not convinced this is worth all the bickering, especially as this article is suffering in many other areas (such as the mostly unsourced "Touchdown celebrations" section). Lizard (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are all good points. It is definitely time to get to the rest of the unsourced stuff, and the TD celebrations seems like a good place to start. The other advice is good too. Rockypedia (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the article protection wears off (or if Oshwah would be so kind as to remove it now) I can rewrite that Eagles controversy section as a third party editor. This seems like the best option to end this dispute, since it would eliminate the chance of my suggestions being misconstrued (or accusations of misconstruction). Lizard (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If everyone agrees to stop their edit warring tomfooleries, I'm fine with taking the gold lock off the gate :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deed is done. Thanks for discussing the dispute and coming to a consensus - happy editing ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone and rewritten the section. It's a bit more wordy that I anticipated but I think I've trimmed the trivial stuff, original research, and claims I couldn't find sources for. Although there definitely wasn't a lack of sources discussing the ordeal, so I'm not sure why we had resulted to YouTube videos. If there's any errors, even simple factual ones, they should probably be discussed here first. Lizard (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allen Wranglers[edit]

"On May 29, 2012, Owens was released for showing a lack of effort both on and off the field. He was a no–show to a scheduled appearance at a local children's hospital with other Wrangler players and coaches, and that was the final straw for the team." This is not adequately supported by the source. One of the team's co-owners claimed "the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back" was him not showing up, but someone's publicly stated reason is not enough to use wikivoice. Tommy Benizio's statement was a PR statement, and those are subject to PR spins. If Donald Trump fires someone and states a reason, we don't just use wikivoice to repeat Trump's publicly stated reason; we attribute it to Trump. The reason being, we don't know what, if any, ulterior motives could be involved (note that Owens was due a 30% ownership cut if he had remained with the organization to the end of the season). (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a co-owner states the exact same thing that is written in the article, that's a reliable source. The rest of what you said is textbook WP:OR. Start an RfC if you want to have the reason for his being cut removed, because it's in a reliable source and that trumps your conjecture about what "ulterior motives" could be involved. Rockypedia (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"When a co-owner states the exact same thing that is written in the article, that's a reliable source." It's only a reliable source that the co-owner said it. It's not a reliable source to state a reason something was done in wiki voice. Again, would you be comfortable stating in wiki voice the reason for some White House employee's firing based on a public statement by Donald Trump? Moreover, you continue to misuse the WP:OR term. It does not refer to finding additional information in other reliable sources and weighing it against information in other sources to determine the validity of whatever sources are involved. It refers to not writing conclusions on wikipedia based on leaps of logic. What I am doing is exactly what a wikipedia editor's job is supposed to be. Reliable secondary sources clearly show that Owens was due a 30% ownership cut. Reliable secondary sources show that Owens played the next three games after the missed hospital visit. I am not saying to write that Benizio's statement was, in fact, based on ulterior motives. I am saying that these are ample reason not to use wiki voice for this claim. The wikipedia BLP guidelines are clear: When in doubt, use in-text attribution. (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mysterious IP User Deletions[edit]

I think it's obvious that Rockypedia is using IP sockpuppet accounts to remove my edits here because he can't stand the fact that consensus went against him. I would assume good faith, but this is just too blatant to ignore. By the way, I moved to a new apartment a few days ago, hence my new IP address. (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current dispute(s)[edit]

I've requested full article protection again. Could someone please explain the current dispute(s)? --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFLExpert49 (talk · contribs) has been blocked and the article reverted. Do we need the article fully protected? Is there anything to discuss? --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell this was less a dispute than someone behaving like a 3 year old with a keyboard. Page protection is for persistent disruptive editing that can't be effectively dealt with by other means. The article was already semi protected indefinitely and I have indeffed the disruptive editor. For now, I think that is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I agree. If there is a policy-based dispute here, I don't see why it can't be resolved with normal dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a review of the exigent circumstances including a detailed explanation from NFLExpert49, the block has been lifted. I have blocked another account apparently created to impersonate them. I am keeping an eye on this page but any editor should feel free to alert me if they see any suspicious editing going on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I wish would have commented here rather than just reverting. I'll start some new sections for discussion of some of the problems that I see in the disputed content. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

Just a general comment: The section shouldn't exist per WP:CRITS, and the content should be instead included in relevant (or possibly new) sections. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversy with the Eagles section[edit]

Per WP:CRITS, the content should be included in the "Philadelphia Eagles" section (or possibly a sub-section).

The amount of detail seems a bit WP:UNDUE at best.

I've not looked closely, but there's seems to be a great deal of reliance on sources published at the time of the events. If details aren't important in the larger historical context as verified from later sources, then they probably don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you're going to go that route, there are a **lot** of things in this article that haven't been discussed much since the time of events. NFLExpert49 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ronz: When I rewrote this section earlier this year to resolve the above dispute, I also questioned its due weight. But as I sifted through the sources it became clear to me this was definitely something that deserved its own section. Details of the event have since been written about in several books, but I chose to use contemporary sources as they're usually the most reliable. But I'd be all for moving it to a subsection under the Eagles section and doing away with the toxic word "controversy" if possible. Lizard (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving it into a proper subsection would be an improvement.
Any thoughts on comtemporary vs later sources? --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the sources provided should suffice. They're all high quality (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, etc). Frankly I'm baffled as to why this particular section has been the subject of so much strife over the past few months. I suspect sockpuppetry, but even then, why one person would go to such lengths is beyond me. Lizard (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't escalate this to ANI[edit]

Several months ago I gave a third opinion regarding the controversy with Eagles section and rewrote it. I also suggested that any changes to the section should be discussed here first. Since then, several reverts and rewrites have happened with virtually no discussion. We have 3 options: (1) Agree to keep the version of the section as written by me. (2) Discuss here any changes that should be made. (3) Take this to WP:ANI, where things can (and usually do) get messy, and blocks could be handed out. Lizard (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018[edit]

It says he signed a pact with the Dallas cowboys, should say contract RacSocvvv (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done L293D ( • ) 12:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Combine Data" Is Inaccurate/Unreliable[edit]

The website used as a source for that information contains a disclaimer that the information is unreliable. "Accuracy is not guaranteed, but we make every attempt to have complete data for users to analyze." Considering the fact that there weren't even official 40-yard-dash times prior to 1999 (before electronic timing, they used to get several different times on players from different scouts with stopwatches), I don't think this is reliable information for the article. NFLExpert49 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He also was number 10 with the Seahawks[edit]

We need to add that on to his page Daboss71305 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He didn't play in a game for the Seahawks so his training camp number with them isn't notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022[edit]

Can you edit his current team on the infobox? 2601:180:201:5DC:F4DC:4C10:DF4C:2D8C (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven or eight?[edit]

I think a correction is needed. The text reads " seasons..." [with the 49ers]. I count eight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]