Additions edit
Do people think we should be considering who we list on here? It's more than a little insane to put Michael Jordan on the list, given that he's, you know, Michael Jordan and has six rings and whatnot. I fear that this article is getting to be a little insane with the types of players we're throwing on here. --badlydrawnjeff 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have major problems with this article and some of the people on the list. For example, I've notice Peyton Manning, on the list. The only problem is, he hasn't missed a game throughout his entire playing career, so how could anyone say the Colts are "signigicantly better" without him. It is just so silly. It's fun for discussion, but there is no basis to the theory. It doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Ramsquire 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Manning was mentioned in the initial ET article for his college career at Tennessee, not his pro career with the Colts (although Simmons mentions Manning/Colts as a future ET candidate). Dujang Prang 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but back in January when I originally wrote that, only his NFL career was mentioned. That was my objection. I guess it is one of those "you had to be there" type things. Ramsquire 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Manning was mentioned in the initial ET article for his college career at Tennessee, not his pro career with the Colts (although Simmons mentions Manning/Colts as a future ET candidate). Dujang Prang 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- He's an excellent example of the problems. Someone like Manning shouldn't be listed here until the Colts do something when he's gone. My personal opinion is to leave the speculation out of this article entirely, but I don't know how workable that is for others. --badlydrawnjeff 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just revert the speculation, as you see it.Ramsquire 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I want to point out a fact. On wikipedia, we aren't supposed to add "original" content (in other words, content which haven't been published somewhere else). If the theory doesn't seem to be original, a lot of people who are quoted there seems to come from the mind of users instead of some published work. So, this article should be reduced and a lot of players should be removed. Poppypetty 01:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a great point Poppy, I suggest you post the rule in this forum, and then delete the original content from the article, pointing to the wiki-rule as your reason. Ramsquire 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's WP:OR. I don't have insider access, so I think a good place to start is to get the text of the article and find out who Simmons has noted as theory candidates. We'll have to be rather hawkish about future additions (i.e., find sourcing or delete), though. --badlydrawnjeff 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do. Here's the article[1]. The only problem is, Simmons is writing an opinon piece for ESPN and has no verifiable sources either. Maybe that should be incorporated into the Wiki-Article, by not allowing any future additions, and sum up the theory as belonging to one person.Ramsquire 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, being a theory created by an opinion columnist, he *is* the verifiable source. It's his theory, so he's the source. Using an extreme example, if someone added Tom Brady tomorrow, we would be correct in removing it because it isn't verifiably part of the theory. If Simmons was to write a column next week saying "Tom Brady has personified the Ewing Theory," then it wouldn't be bad. --badlydrawnjeff 18:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do. Here's the article[1]. The only problem is, Simmons is writing an opinon piece for ESPN and has no verifiable sources either. Maybe that should be incorporated into the Wiki-Article, by not allowing any future additions, and sum up the theory as belonging to one person.Ramsquire 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's WP:OR. I don't have insider access, so I think a good place to start is to get the text of the article and find out who Simmons has noted as theory candidates. We'll have to be rather hawkish about future additions (i.e., find sourcing or delete), though. --badlydrawnjeff 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a great point Poppy, I suggest you post the rule in this forum, and then delete the original content from the article, pointing to the wiki-rule as your reason. Ramsquire 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)