Talk:Cade McNown

Grammar in this article

Repeated use of the word "would" to mean "did" is very confusing. Did the bears announce that they would put someone on waiver, or did they put him on waiver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.238.233 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cause of his downfall

I'm guessing that this player's downfall is distantly connected to a video game called Backyard Football 2002. Shortly after the game was released, McNown was traded to Miami. Any proof about this? 216.165.236.141 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No - not at all. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect request

McNown should redirect here. It should fall under the category, "Redirects from surnames". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.224.138 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Legal trouble"

I've again removed the bit about the point shaving accusations. The FBI investigated said accusations and apparently concluded that nothing happened. Thus in no way does this constitute "legal trouble" for McNown, and to even mention it in what is a very short BLP article strikes me as a problem of undue weight. Additionally, even though he was cleared, a casual reader will just be left with the impression that McNown might have been connected to some nefarious activities which is not really fair to him. BLP policy is important.

I'm also not wild about mentioning the handicapped pass issue, but at least he was actually charged in that case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. It's not saying he was involved in the point shavings, but rather he was investigated and cleared for the ordeal. This event happened and is sourced. The article makes no claims that he actually committed the crime. If your investigated, questioned, pulled out of your normal life, and polygraphed, then its kind of a big deal. That does not happen to most people. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Retitling the section away from "legal trouble" is a slight improvement in one respect but also problematic in another and I still don't agree with the inclusion of this. We now have a section of the article called "personal" which basically says he was once suspected of a crime but deemed not to have committed it and then another time he did commit a crime (hardly a major one). I think that gives undue weight to his experiences with law enforcement, since those events do not actually constitute 100% of his personal life, or even 5% for that matter. So by not making this section focus solely on legal trouble (which the point shaving incident was not) we run into another problem. We need to be very respectful of BLP figures—imagine if you had once been arrested for marijuana possession and paid a fine and community service, and another time you were convicted of using a fake ID to get into a bar. If you had a Wikipedia article, I think you'd be pretty unhappy if the entire "personal" section of your article mentioned only those facts because they happened to appear in the newspaper. That's basically what's going on with McNown here and I think it makes for a bad encyclopedia article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the majority of this article points out that Cade was a draft-bust and NFL-screw-up, the last thing he has to worry about is mention of an investigation and a run-in with the law. Of course, that's up to the reader to decide. --StarScream107 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, that's completely beside the point, and you are not responding to what I am saying. We do not decide what McNown or other living persons do or do not have to worry about and neither does the reader, actually—we have specific guidelines and policies that guide us on these questions. I've explained my arguments based on those policies above, and I hope you can actually respond to them.

Second, even considering your point, I think it's rather wrongheaded. McNown was a bust in the NFL—yes. But presumably he is doing something else with his life now and will continue to seek work and/or involvement in various activities. The fact that he was an NFL bust might not matter much in the "real world" where most people don't care how well you played football, but a skewed presentation of his "personal life" that only mentions brushes with the law actually could. Our entire section on his personal life is about him getting in trouble, or being investigated. Would you be okay if that was how your Wikipedia bio was presented? That's not a rhetorical question, and this is indeed a serious issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe its up to the reader to form their own opinion on Cade given the facts in the article. I see your point in that a short "personal life" section, which only contains two mentions of run-ins with the law could damage his image. Perhaps you would be willing to let the information stay if other information could be added to section - his early life and family? I generally do not compromise when it comes to withholding information about a person's life, but... most personal life sections have more than two factoids in them. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cade McNown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131204053031/http://sports.yahoo.com/news/chicago-bears-top-five-turkeys-franchise-history-153900262--nfl.html to https://sports.yahoo.com/news/chicago-bears-top-five-turkeys-franchise-history-153900262--nfl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)