Talk:Herschel Walker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dissociative Identity Disorder?

Might just be an exaggeration by the publisher to sell books, but FWIW: Walker says he has multiple personalities -- MyrddinEmrys (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

His ex wife, best friend and psychiatrist back this up. It's not just a ploy to sell books. Just how do you "exaggerate" having DID? You either have it, or you don't. This should be added to the main page, it's interesting that four months after first being mentioned, it hasn't yet. Ragreen (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, only one small problem: dissociative identity disorder is not a universally recognized psychological condition with unambiguous symptoms that cannot be subsumed under other headings, such as borderline personality disorder. Apparently it is clear that Walker has exhibited behavior that is aberrant, but calling it a disease that may not exist does not explain anything.Uniquerman (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Just how do you "exaggerate" having DID?"

By claiming to have symptoms that you don't.

"You either have it, or you don't."

This irrelevant tautology indicates very poor cognitive skills. Jibal (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Combined NFL and USFL Stats

Is it fair to combine his NFL and USFL stats and compare the totals against other players who played the entire careers in the NFL? It would seem that the level of competition in the USFL was much lower than that of the NFL, given the majority of USFL players could not make the transition into starting roles in the NFL. The totals compared against NFL players are interesting, but I question the legitimacy of the information being stated in an article. 75.26.177.154 (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Early Controversy

I want to see mention made of the controversy over his signing with New Jersey. The story was that he signed the contract, and then changed his mind and wanted to play more college ball. They agreed and told him he could do that, but the rule apparently was that, since he had signed the contract, he was bound by NCAA rules, and was now considered a pro, and was ineligible for college play.

I also want to see mention of his olympic aspirations. In college he was a top sprinter, though not THE top sprinter, in contention for a spot on the olympic team. Later in his life he tried for several spots in olympic sports, including bobsledding. Any info on this would be appreciated.

Also, he is an incredible workout enthusiast, and in his early career talked about doing basic exercises, such as sprints, push-ups and sit-ups, often having contests with his sister to see who could do more. He reportedly was doing 1,000 push-ups and sit-ups per day. Still does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just add that the above was written by me before I went ahead and signed up for a login id. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdatut (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Training Section

The section on training really needs to be cited or it should be removed. It reads more like a hagiography than a biography without a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.10.25 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More college information?

It can be argued that Walker is most famous for his superb career at Georgia. Shouldn't there be more info about it than one small paragraph? StanHater (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, why isn't his heroic saving of a 67 year old woman from a burning car, while on the Georgia campus in 1982, included in the write-up?

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/12/14/Herschel-Walker-a-hero-on-and-off-the-football-field/1349408690000/ 2601:246:C180:79C0:4D5A:4750:8977:104C (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Walker as a sprinter.

It is odd that no mention whatever is made of Walker's college track career. In the short sprints both indoor and outdoor, he was running neck and neck with Carl Lewis and was therefore one of the top sprinters in the world.Uniquerman (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Birthname Herschal Kendall Talker

I have come upon a source that claims his birth-name is Herschel Kendall Talker, which was changed to 'Walker' as an adult. Please do not remove this , until that information is sourced. I would appreciate it if someone were to help me relocate this source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't contradict the title of the article based on an unspecified source, that's just nonsense. Also, don't wheel-war please. FLHerne (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herschel Walker. 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/20071201222313/http://www.heisman.com:80/winners/g-rogers80.html to http://www.heisman.com/winners/g-rogers80.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 11:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herschel Walker. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110604072236/http://www.profootballhof.com/history/story.jsp?story_id=2371 to http://www.profootballhof.com/history/story.jsp?story_id=2371

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 14:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herschel Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thisistheusfl.com/1sundaysheroes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109174355/http://www.startribune.com/508/story/830500.html to http://www.startribune.com/508/story/830500.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122222054/http://www.hd.net/imma109.html to http://www.hd.net/imma109.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Numerical Error In Comment Regarding USFL Stats

The last sentence of paragraph 3 under "United States Football League" reads: "In his second season, his rushing yardage dropped to 1,339, but he caught passes for more than 800 yards giving him over 2,100 yards in total offense."

However, the stats represented in the table below this section, we see his reception yards were 528 and not anywhere near 800. Also, noting that his reception yards weren't significantly more than his other two years, I think this statement should either simply note his drop in rushing yards or be deleted. At a minimum the correct numbers should be noted.

Hinsonchris (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

“Ballet Dancer”

The lead paragraph describes Mr. Walker as

a former professional American football player, bobsledder, sprinter, ballet dancer, & mixed martial artist.

On reading the source article that was cited about Mr. Walker's ballet career, I find that he performed ballet only once, for a few minutes, as a publicity stunt. While I think it's reasonable to mention this in the body of the article, I don't think it's important enough to mention in the lead. It is simply inaccurate to describe Herschel Walker as a “ballet dancer”. I am shortly going to remove this from the lead. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

47.185.79.83 you have made a lot of edits to this page with very little explanation. Some of your edits have been reverted by other editors, including me, with reasons given. You have re-reverted without explanation. Can you please use this space to explain how you are trying to improve the article and build consensus for your proposed improvements? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herschel Walker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 14:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Regarding MoS conformance and article organization, the lede section is too short. For a subject like this, it should be at least two and probably three paragraphs, and include not just his football career but also his business career and political activities. The "Track and field" section is not really suitable where it is, because it includes college activities under high school. Maybe move to the "Sporting life outside football" section? The "Training and diet" material should be earlier in the article, because otherwise Walker created Renaissance Man Food Services because he wanted to make good quality foods for his strict diet makes no sense. I think Walker getting a B.S. degree from the University of Georgia should be moved to the college sections, even if he got it later in life, since it is relevant to his business and political career. "Reality televsion" does not merit being a top-level section of its own, but can be merged in with "Other athletic feats" and called "Other athletic and competitive activities" or something like that (maybe the training could go into it as well). Regarding prose, I did not take a close look at it given the other issues with the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Regarding the reference section, most of the cites have the necessary information but some are lacking full publishing information (for example fns 55 and 56) and a few are bare urls (for example fn 57). Regarding citations to reliable sources, I see at least four 'citation needed' tags in the article, and for a submission to GAN there should not be any. Moreover there are several paragraphs with little or no citations at all – the first paragraph in "High school career", the first paragraph in "College career", the first two paragraphs of "United States Football League", the first two paragraphs of "Dallas Cowboys (first stint)", the paragraphs in the "Philadelphia Eagles", "New York Giants", and "Dallas Cowboys (second stint)" sections, the second paragraph in "Football legacy", and so forth. Many of these paragraphs make non-obvious statements of fact (the best rushing game by a Viking back since 1983) or interpretation (but soon discovered that Walker wasn't elusive enough for the role. He couldn't play fullback either, because of limited blocking skills) and such material simply has to be cited. Regarding OR and copyvio, nothing jumped out at me but due to other issues with the article I didn't look closely.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Regarding coverage of his football career, I think the article does a good job of that. However there needs to be more about the mess that was his signing by the USFL, where Walker seemed unable to decide and may have gotten trapped and ended up asking for public forgiveness – see this 1983 column in the New York Times for instance. There also should be a follow-up on his 2011 interest in returning to the NFL (as in, no NFL team was interested). A good deal more should be said about his sprinting career, in addition to relocating the section. In particular, he dueled with Carl Lewis at times, see for example this New York Times account from 1983. And per the NYT column about his USFL signing, he had aspirations of making the 1984 U.S. Olympics team as a sprinter. More could be said about his Olympic bobsled participation - what got him interested in it, how well he performed compared to expectations, etc. The MMA section needs some follow-up - he won two fights and then he stopped? Why? The Renaissance Man Food Services section could use a better explanation of what Walker's role in it has been. Is he the hands-on active chief executive of it, or is he the public face of it while someone else actively runs it? (Some businesses started by sports stars are the former, but many are the latter.) Same information needed for Renaissance Drapery Manufacturing and H. Walker Enterprises, LLC. Regarding the politics section, a lot more information is needed. What attracts him about the Republican Party? Is it small government, emphasis on self-reliance and self-empowerment, what? What kind of Republican is he – social conservative or libertarian, interventionist or isolationist, deficit hawk or tax cutter, etc? What has Walker said about racial issues, such after the George Floyd killing? I've read other African American conservatives saying that it can be a lonely road to travel, has he said anything similar? And what specific policy positions or proposals has Walker put forward?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article neutrality is generally okay for the sports part of the article. But He is widely considered to be the greatest college football player of all time might be better phrased as "He is often considered ...", given that one of the three cites given does not have him at the top. Language like The Vikings gave away the store to get him, then refused ... sounds a little too much like disgruntled fandom speaking. But there are serious neutrality dangers with After Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Walker supported Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election results. Readers may interpret this as implying almost anything, from expressing views about the constitutional role of state legislatures to personally storming the Capitol. What exactly did Walker say about the election, when did he say it, what did he say should be done about it, and what if anything did he actually do himself about it? Finally, the "Mental health issues and advocacy" section gives too little information about how dissociative identity disorder manifested itself with Walker. The reader may unfairly assume a soap opera-like scenario of multiple distinct personalities. From what I see from this CNN piece from 2008, the reality with Walker was less like that but did include a number of violent and disturbing episodes, especially towards his wife. Moreover, some people have expressed skepticism about the diagnosis, and think that it is a vehicle for Walker to evade responsibility for his own actions – see this 2008 New York Times story, for example. The article needs to include all of this, and right now it does not.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article stability is a little iffy, perhaps because recent mentions of him as a possible senatorial candidate.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are dozens of images with Walker at Commons, yet this article only has two images in it. At a glance, File:Rep.Peterson and Herschel Walker.jpg, File:Alex Azar and Herschel Walker at US HHS.jpg, and File:Herschel Walker Ret Number.png (even though fan-created) would be good additions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The lack of citing, the organization of the material, the need for more coverage of non-sports activities, and the neutrality concerns around political and personal behavior are all major issues that will take considerable time and effort to correct. So this nomination is a fail.

@Anish631: - since you nominated this, see above, if you haven't seen this yet. starship.paint (exalt) 06:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Wasted Time R: - while I am aware that this review has been concluded, I would like to inform you that I have attempted to address the most significant concerns you raised in #4 regarding NPOV, at Herschel Walker#Political activities and Herschel Walker#Mental health issues and advocacy. Hope that it is better now. starship.paint (exalt) 08:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Campaign website

Please add an external link to Walker's campaign website, per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Note the article on Walker's political opponent, Raphael Warnock, presently has links to both his Senate website and campaign website. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

2020 election

In this edit and two identical prior edits, Imnraged68 removed two sentences about Walker's words and actions after the 2020 election. So far, they have explained their edit as removing "innuendo and opinion". This content is sourced to non-opinion articles in CNN and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Imnraged68, would you please self-revert, per WP:BRD? Can you help me understand what about the content is classed as innuendo or opinion? I'd be happy also to hear the opinion of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced removals of this section twice since; and now protected the page so user registration is required to edit it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If anything, the section should be expanded per well-reasoned analysis in the GA review. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Walker is not the only candidate for the Republican Senate nomination in Georgia to question the legitimacy of the 2020 results. But Walker has been particularly prolific and specific in his election-related dishonesty -- and he has by far the biggest megaphone. Walker has uttered false conspiracy theories on both Fox News and on Twitter, where he has more than 445,000 followers. And his dishonesty has not been limited to the subject of the election. Walker has also promoted false conspiracy theories about the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol and about Democrats. - https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/28/politics/fact-check-herschel-walker-2020-election-january-6/index.html

starship.paint (exalt) 07:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: does Walker have any children? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Explanatory notes" section is irrelevant

I don't think this article needs to have irrelevant footnotes, such as "Seniors Belue and Scott set the tone on the game's first play by hooking up on an 80-yard pass." Uh, okay? Also the first note doesn't even have a reference. It's not really notable that the dog Uga and Walker wore matching tuxedos. These notes are unnecessary and almost seem like Walker himself, somebody who adored his college football career too much (all notes reference his football days in college), or somebody who works for him wrote them. These should be removed. conman33 (. . .talk) 01:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. These seem to be items of trivia, worded inappropriately, and definitely not "explanatory". MartinPoulter (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Concur with the above, those refs should be removed because they're unreferenced and appear to be a bit of unencyclopedic fancruft trivia. Andre🚐 20:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them and reworded parts of the sections (1981/1982). Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought they were unnecessary trivia and irrelevant. conman33 (. . .talk) 01:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, it appears the same things are on the 1981 Georgia Bulldogs football team and 1982 Georgia Bulldogs football team pages. I'll sort those out later. It seems they were just transferred amongst pages. conman33 (. . .talk) 01:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Political bias

This page is politically bias. A lot of "claimed" facts on here. 45.37.13.66 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Every accusation is a confession." Also, that grammar error indicates someone following a GRU script. -- Jibal (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems like bias even to claim he's a politician at this point. He has no track record as a politician, has yet to be in any serious campaign and has only won one primary... If I were a gambling man, I'd have to bet against him clinging to the status of "politician" all the way until his first actual election in November. The article should say something substantive and "professional" about all of the years since he stopped playing football, but I don't see how to describe those years beyond "Nothing much." Shanen (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

CNN Bias

CNN should not be considered a credible source of information where politics are involved. Their bias towards the Democrat Party is undeniable. 2600:1005:B02C:61E8:B485:306E:4237:CD32 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:RSP, where CNN had been deemed reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Every accusation is a confession." Jibal (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Democrat Party"? Referring to the Democratic Party this way is so cute.2601:205:3:DEE2:E153:FA74:3AE2:F76C (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Democrat Party" term is an epithet, as well expressed in this Wikipedia article: Democrat Party (epithet)Dogru144 (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Walker doesn't "currently serve" on the President's council sports, fitness, nutrition science board

Herschel Walker was replaced on the President's council sports, fitness & nutrition science board in January 2022. He does not currently serve as the Wikipedia bio suggests.

REF: https://health.gov/news/202201/announcing-newly-selected-members-2022-presidents-council-sports-fitness-nutrition-science-board

DrNick31522 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022

Edit subject: Include Herschel Walker’s two previously unknown children as his children.

Suggested addition:

The 2022 Republican nominee from Georgia for the U.S. Senate, confirmed that he has two more previously unknown children, adding to another "secret" child that the former football star admitted to. Including these previously unknown children, Walker has a total of four children, only one of which was previously known (Christian Walker)

Walker has been repeatedly publicly critical of African American absentee fathers. This marks the third time he was forced to admit he had children out of wedlock after media reports of their existence.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/16/gop-georgia-senate-nominee-herschel-walker-reveals-more-children.html 24.192.170.21 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Based off a discussion below, there is currently an edit war regarding that topic, I would recommend joining the discussion below to offer your changes. Fbifriday (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

“He later lied” !!?

The sentence stating “He later lied”. Is not a professional statement, doesn’t reflect the truth and should be removed 2601:584:101:B0D0:B847:7BFE:B5ED:3019 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There's probably a better way to write that, but Herschel Walker did lie about his lie. "Fact check: Herschel Walker falsely claims he never falsely claimed he graduated from University of Georgia". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sentence about Walkers claimed law enforcement involvement

In June 2022, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that Walker's claims about working in law enforcement were either false or unverifiable. Despite his claim of being an honorary deputy in the Cobb County Police Department, the department did not have any record of Walker working with them.

The 2 sentences above are WP:UNDUE based on the current state of the section about his candidacy. This is just a minor news story about his candidacy, and there is no reason to believe it's particularly significant. Also most of the coverage of it dates to June 13-14, which raises concerns of WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying it's minor? Providing verifiably false statements in quite major, especially when it's regarding job experience. Banana Republic (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying it's insignificant because it's received little coverage and the coverage it did receive was over the course of like 2 days. It's just a news story.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the NBC News reference from today I put into the article regarding the other lying he's been accused of. Banana Republic (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a trivial mention. However, based on some of the coverage of his reported lying, there could maybe be a paragraph of similar length the current one that focuses on his lies in general rather than this specific one. That could be WP:DUE, but I think the WP:ONUS is with you to provide ample sourcing about his alleged lies for inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for substantial coverage to have endurance. Banana Republic (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Like it or not, The Atlanta Journal Constitution gives his lying about his job experience a good bit of coverage in a story today. Banana Republic (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How about we have a small paragraph under his campaign about his lying in general. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Related edit war on Walker lying about the existence of his children

After several attempts to insert the sentences about the lying into the article based on WP:RS issues, a rock solid WP:RS was found, but Iamreallygoodatcheckers reverted using the WP:UNDUE excuse.
Seems to me that if the children were unacknowledged, and he made the statement that children growing up without a father is a big problem, that lying about the existence of his children prior to acknowledging them is absolutely due. Seems to me that the removal of the content is agenda-driven, and the original removal based on WP:RS issues was a red herring. Banana Republic (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you know the children grew up without a father? Does the citation say that? Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that your question is related to the topic of whether or not including the fact that he lied about the children runs afoul with WP:UNDUE. If anything, it shows that we should add to the article the fact that he lied about the existence of the children. There would have been no reason for Walker to have lied about the existence of his children if they lived with him. We don't have to make that connection. The readers can make the connection for themselves. Banana Republic (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Abortion in campaign section

His view on abortion is WP:UNDUE. The section is about his campaign not necessarily his political views. Also, including it would make it the only view mentioned in the section, which creates an undue emphasis on that one issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is commonplace to include content about political positions in biographies of political candidates. Countless reliable sources say that banning abortion is among the most important issues in the 2022 midterm elections. If you want to create a new section for political positions, fine. If you want to add other political positions, fine. But removing this well-referenced and relevant content makes the article worse. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In what universe is this WP:UNDUE other than your own apparently dislike for it? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is not in the state right now where this position can be naturally introduced, and having a stray sentence just left at the bottom of the campaign section is not the way to do it. Until a more comprehensive section/paragraph can be constructed about his political views, we shouldn't be just giving the readers one. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please point me to the exact issues which make it unsuitable (as per established policy and accepted guidelines) because I am not seeing it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I already cited WP:UNDUE above, specifically this statement: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. This is being placed to prominently and proper details around it are not available. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Citing undue isn't enough when you can't explain how it's undue. As you've failed to do even still. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's about it standing solo with no proper content around it and lacking context. That's the point. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

So...move it to an appropriate section, that doesn't mean it's WP:UNDUE and in need of removal. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is I don't believe such a place exists in this article. At least such a place doesn't exist as of now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You...don't think a major issue that is at the forefront of US politics is relevant in an article about a politician and their platform regarding said issue? Why? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Walkers platform is not described in this article; though, I believe it should be. I think his view on abortion rights would certainly be relevant alongside the rest of his platform. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that this wasn't entirely in good faith considering your displayed ideology and lack of a reasonable explanation. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an ironic accusation. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I support restoring it (it's demonstrably due). I can see the point about it standing solo, but it's a problem best solved by expansion, not deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This USA Today piece briefly covers some other policy positions. Nothing as in-depth as the abortion coverage in the NYT. Otherwise, I'm having some difficulty finding coverage of Walker's platform. He's been in the news in a big way but it's mostly stuff that has little to do with his policy preferences. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed it can sometimes be challenging to find politicians platforms and ideologies being described in RS, but that USA Today piece looks pretty good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is also decent wrt this topic. So are these two from The Hill (newspaper), total ban article, National Right To Life endorsement article and one from The Independent PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you do not have consensus to cut way back on his political positions. What he says about the issues is relevant. I am expanding the section while you are slashing it. Gain consensus first. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: it wasn't really mass removal of content. The climate change, gun control, and school shootings sections are not policies they are gaffes, and they are described as such in RS. You reverted a well sourced paragraph I made detailing Walker's gaffe habit that include all 3 of the ones you put in. Additionally, the numerous little subsections looks kind of poorly constructed imo, and I think it's best to keep it in paragraph form. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That is how Walker expresses himself on policy. Three hours ago you were complaining about there being only one section on policy, and so I set out to expand it. Now, you are complaining about too many sections. If you want to add more on policy, do so. Please do not take things away without consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Technically, the WP:ONUS on you, but I'll regress. I think its fair to want the policy section to look better than subsection heading, followed by one sentence, and repeat. That's not how we handle the political views section at Joe Biden. I think it look better if we modeled it similar to Blake Masters. Also, Walker has made gaffes like many politicians, but they aren't policies. How can it even be said those are policies? They aren't even coherent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the comments by other editors in this discussion are supportive of expanding coverage of his stances on the issues. When he answers a direct question about a policy issue, then that is the best evidence we have about his stance. If he later answers in a clearer way as covered by reliable sources, then these sections can be expanded. I just added another sentence to the Abortion section and to the economy section, have added four references to significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and would like to expand the other sections as well. It takes work and I am doing the work. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

How can it even be said those are policies? Because they are literally part of his platform. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: wp:ONUS doesn't appear relevant here. And before citing wp:UNDUE and wp:10YT (which I think you did previously), please try to explain specifically why these criteria apply. A fact doesn't necessarily need to satisfy all notability criteria to be included. Also, it would be preferable for you to remain neutral on political articles generally, unlike this edit to Paul Pelosi, where you included his arrest in the lede, saying "this is lead worthy based on coverage of the incident" with no consensus, which Cullen328 himself later correctly removed, along with several other instances. And, as Praxidicae said above, you seem to be using wp:UNDUE when you perhaps mean wp:IDONTLIKEIT. And in this case, his views on abortion are relevant. Take a look at these: Chris Christie#Abortion, Political positions of Donald Trump#Abortion, Nancy Pelosi#Abortion, Chuck Schumer#Abortion, Mike Pence#Abortion...so, some precedent there. Nythar^T.C 10:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The decision to have Paul Pelosi's DUI arrest was overwhelming supported by the community in an RfC and if you looked at that RfC on I took the moderate stance of being hesitant about including an earlier incident Pelosi was in when he was 16, but that's not about this ariticle. Also in the state of the article right now, I do not object to having the issue mentioned. This is issue is largely a settled issue now. Just because I want Walker's views to be presented in an appropriate manner does not mean I have a neutrality issue. 10YEAR has nothing to do with this. Also I'm still trying to figure out what I allegedly DONTLIKE about Walker's stance on abortion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 11:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: You say "I want Walker's views to be presented in an appropriate manner". Hmm, would you call this edit, where you removed the part of his page which states his stance on abortion, as "views being presented in an appropriate manner"? You just removed the whole thing. In an unrelated topic, after Cullen328 removed that section from Paul Pelosi, it was reincluded to a more appropriate location in the article, instead of the lede. Imagine one of the most notable events he got involved in was a DUI. So, why include it in the lede? Moreover, I mentioned your argument of 10YEAR (I was mistaken here, you used wp:RECENTISM) on a previous incident unrelated to the current one just to emphasize the number of times you use such arguments to make major changes without consensus. I hope you now understand why other editors may have raised wp:NPOV concerns related to your edits. Nythar^T.C 17:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This content part of this discussion has led to improvement's in this article. The concerns I raised have led to improvements in this article. That is what matters here. There is no point in continuing this witch hunt. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, editors concerns about your POV pushing with regard to BLPs are relevant, and I'd encourage you to not refer to bringing up those concerns as a "witchhunt", as it definitely just lends credence to said concerns about your ability to edit. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: No, not a witch hunt. The essay you cite reads, "a witch hunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred". "Not already obvious"? I think it's easy to see POV issues in your contribs. Most involve the removal of sections about controversial topics from the articles of conservative politicians, and it's quite easy to see. The essay goes on to read, "it is a lack of assumption of good faith." Remember, wp:AGF is not a suicide pact. When editors raise concerns regarding multiple POV issues by the same editor, their concerns might have good reason, and wp:AGF doesn't force us to toss out these concerns. Nythar^T.C 00:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should abuse/abortion allegations should be in the lead and/or body?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To prevent the ongoing massive edit war from continuing: I'm starting a RfC surrounding the present abuse/abortion allegations about Herschel Walker.

Question #1: Should the abuse/abortion allegations be included in the lead?

Question #2: Should the abuse/abortion allegations be included in the article at all, including the body? KlayCax (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally under the conviction that it should be included in the lead and body. It's a clearly a notable part of both his life and political campaign: receiving overwhelming, significant attention. Similar allegations with overwhelming notability are included in other articles. KlayCax (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RFCBEFORE? I don't see any "local discussion" about this, other than the section I started below about a half hour before you added this section above it, for some reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm with M on this. I think it's too soon for an RfC, the presence of which is unlikely to deter edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bad RFC Andre🚐 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur that it’s too soon to add this to the lead. The current coverage in the body is sufficient.ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Herschel Walker allegedly paid for an abortion

Wouldn't this fit better in the "Personal life" section, rather than the "abortion" political views section? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, personal life would be more appropriate. I also think it needs to be condensed per WP:WEIGHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree it should be in personal life, and should have limited scope. Andre🚐 16:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

support move to personal life with limited scope per Checkers and Andrevan Anon0098 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Add a controversy heading

Recommending a separate controversy heading for a succinct listing of all the controversy 2601:145:C300:3D30:C1AA:70B3:4927:C794 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Having a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION impairs WP:NPOV. Let the "controversies" speak for themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: The reminder of the section reads:

Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section.

Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments".

In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.

Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy.

Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate. (bolded emphasis mine) Wozal (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No per Muboshgu. All his controversies can be fit into the personal life section, as they are now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Article Lead-Off

Why is Walker's win of the George primary in the second sentence of the article? The majority of the opening of the article deals with his football career. There is even a section after that starts "Outside of football, ...". This is jarring and unnecessary. 2601:19C:4E00:74B8:7C4A:1107:A5A6:5CF5 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed this to better match other articles and create a smoother transition. Wozal (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

The claim that Mr. Walker has spread numerous "conspiracy theories" is not a statement from a neutral point of view and is an opinion. It is obviously political bias and should be removed. The right to criticize any given narrative should not be dismissed in a truly open society. 2600:4041:4398:E800:424:BF54:50A5:27CD (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No, it is fact. We don't "both sides" that kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Just like how you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater unless there is one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You're comparing life safety to political bias. If there is no validity to what someone is saying then what is the reason for suppressing it? Wikipedia has become another arm of the "thought police" actively conditioning the perspective of its readers. 2600:4041:4398:E800:424:BF54:50A5:27CD (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is true insofar as our goal is to convince readers of things that are, you know, real. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So, we should be totally fine including "has spread numerous conspiracy theories" in the wiki articles of any Democratic politician? Stacey Abrams said that ultrasound was a conspiracy. Hillary Clinton said there was a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election and she's said the same about the 2024 election. Barack Obama said opposition to him was because his opponents were "bitter clingers" to guns and religion, a conspiracy theory that there is no rational opposition to his policies. Numerous notable Democrats on Twitter have claimed that Elon Musk purchasing Twitter prior to the election was a conspiracy he made with Vladimir Putin, and also that Ivana Trump's casket is filled with classified documents. Surely you'll support those edits and more based on your good faith support for including conspiracy theories in Wiki articles, right? I'll get right on those edits and look forward to your support in the consensus. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any objections relevant to the article's topic? If you've complaints about other pages this is the wrong place to air them.XeCyranium (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Herschel Walker 2022 full.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Link misspelled

Link #44, "Herschel Walker endorsed Brian Kemp for Georgia Governor", it currently reads "Brain Kemp". Would do it myself but it's locked and I'm anon. 146.115.84.237 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks! Correction made. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'm sure there's a great joke in there somewhere. EEng 01:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)