Talk:Aaron Rodgers

Latest comment: 2 months ago by The ed17 in topic Adding a further reading section
Former good article nomineeAaron Rodgers was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 25, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
June 6, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
July 11, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
October 22, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
May 2, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
August 15, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Covid 19 POV "false statements" problem

edit

In the article, "One such interview in 2021 made headlines after Rodgers made several false statements about COVID-19".

Using the term 'false' is completely POV. Deleting the word would be appropriate. Let article readers decide for themselves if the statements are true or not. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:E036:8D74:1813:F4CC (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. False statements must be referred to as false for neutrality. Otherwise, it would not be neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

sources on rodgers SAT score

edit

2 of the 3 cited sources do not work and or have been taken down and the 3rd (ny times article) does not mention his SAT score. it doesn't appear the claim can be substantiated by any sources. I suggest removing the claim of his 1310 SAT score. 2605:A601:A692:E200:CC87:CCFF:FE67:8029 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The NYT source does mention his score. "Despite his athletic prowess, an A-minus average and an SAT score of 1310, Rodgers did not receive an N.C.A.A. Division I scholarship offer coming out of high school." --Onorem (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding a further reading section

edit

I added this article as a new further reading section as a work "that a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject." It meets several of the points in "Considerations for inclusion of entries" as well, and I don't see it as that helpful as a citation as it's more about Aaron Rodger's hometown's feelings on Aaron.

However, I was reverted, and so I'm bringing it here for additional discussion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Further reading is an essay, not policy or even a guideline. Aaron Rodgers page has a lot of detail already and 512 citations. At this point having one article listed in its own section gives it undue weight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Correct, it's an essay that's linked from MOS:FURTHER. It exists to be as an extended explanation of the MOS guideline, and that's exactly how I've used it here. Usefully, we can always let other editors fill out a further reading section over time per WP:NOTFINISHED, although that's a proper essay.
Also, your mention of 512 citations did give me the thought that this article would actually benefit from a further reading section. MOS:FURTHER calls out the potential for using a further reading section for cited and uncited references when "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list". Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The essay mentions {{Refideas}} as an option to place source ideas on talk pages. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
To me, this piece isn't the most helpful source for the article, but is nevertheless an in-depth portrayal and deeply reported profile of the subject, some of his impact, and where he came from. Hence the further reading proposal for a link that meets the topical, reliable, and balanced criteria at WP:FURTHERREADING, and meets the "publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend" standard. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
My primary concern is that creating a new section with just one citation lends itself to undue weight on that article. If you want to go through and pull out like 5 good overview articles and create a Further reading section, I would have no qualms with that. However, I think there could also be a strong argument that Aaron Rodgers is very well-covered, if not too much (325k bytes right now) and that since this topic is a biography, there really isn't too much "further reading" on the subject. If anything, all it will do is regurgitate mostly what is already written in his article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Undue weight refers to "fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints" about an article subject within the article. Emphasis on viewpoints. I am struggling to see how it applies in this case unless there's a specific minority viewpoint that you believe the Athletic article is espousing about Rodgers, but that's not an opinion piece, just a deeply reported profile. I also don't see how that duplicates the article. There are other potential further reading options out there, such as this New Yorker piece from a few days ago, this Milwaukee Magazine profile from early in his career, or this Mina Kimes profile from 2017 (which is used in one citation about Rodger's religion but is a much wider piece). Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply