Talk:Norv Turner

Following first head-coaching job

Some explanation of what that phrase means would helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.72.135 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Turner was fired by the Redskins with three games left in the 2000 season. He was replaced by assistant Terry Robiskie. Schottenheimer succeeded Robiskie at the start of the 2001 season.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Teams Table Needs Fixing

I'm not really a pro at this yet, so I will leave this up to someone else. Anyway, the table named "Team(s) as a coach/administrator" doesn't line up the dates properly with the teams Norv Turner was associated with. Maybe if it was an actual table with individual cells instead of using the <br> code, it might look better? BucsWeb (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I just lined them up Mikesd (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Added

Hi. I just added a redirect from the term "Norv". If you searched on the word "Norv" on wikipedia, the first few results were Marty Schottenheimer, Richie Pettibon and Terry Robeski. So it just seemed appropriate to acutally have the search term "Norv" go to this article, since wikipedia's search engine already kinda thought that's what the user was searching for anyways. AstroZombieDC (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page, the nate kaeding page, and the SD Chargers pages keep getting vandalized (possibly due to playoff performances?). Should they be locked?71.10.237.49 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkey Neck

What's wrong with his face and neck? Why does he have a turkey neck? Shouldn't the fact that he has a turkey neck be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.232.109 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone needs to research Norv Neck Syndrome(NNS) and include it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.83.68 (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OR insertion of 'most games coached by coach with losing record'

That is a very odd statistic that could be read in multiple ways, both positive (e.g. that Turner's won-loss record was misleading, and hence he kept getting hired) and negative. It's OR to insert it into the lede, since there is no evidence that RS discussion of Turner emphasizes that statistic (they would have to emphasize it constantly to justify a spot in the friggin lede). The article should proceed by describing his overall coaching record (losing) and records with the Redskins (losing), Raiders (losing), and then Chargers (winning). There is no need to add our OR on top of the facts. Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. ESPN (pretty reliable in this context) states the fact directly: "With a .483 winning percentage over 237 games, the former Redskins, Raiders and Chargers head man coached more games than any other head coach in NFL history with a sub-.500 record. " Calling this OR is beyond ridiculous, when an authoritative source supports it directly, and with crystal clarity. Roccodrift (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confused. The OR is the idea that this deserves prime emphasis by putting it in the lede. Any number of statistics regarding his record can be dug up. We should only emphasize those that have often been discussed by RS. Steeletrap (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not the definition of OR. In fact, it isn't even tangentially related to OR. I suggest you actually read the policy: WP:NOR. As to the rest... are you again suggesting that ESPN is not RS for sports facts? That's what we have to assume you believe in order to make sense of your argument. Roccodrift (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is OR, and it's also WP:undue, to advocate the insertion of this statistic in the lede. Please do not make straw man arguments regarding the reliability of the statistic, or that of the sources which cite it, as this is not in dispute. Steeletrap (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no original research argument here. Especially when you've just acknowledged that the stat is reliably sourced. Don't be ridiculous.

As to the rest... ESPN found it significant enough to mention. That suffices. Roccodrift (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No it does not suffice. Otherwise we would have to cite all the thousands of other things about Turner ESPN has ever published. We need to show that this statistic is (according to RS, not your personal opinion/OR) is seminal to Turner's career in order to put it in the lede. Also, please try to be less combative in making your points.Steeletrap (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Not everything that ESPN reports is worth mentioning in a biography. This particular statistic (which represents a summary of Turner's career) documents a remarkable fact. And it isn't my opinion that it's significant; it's ESPN's opinion (a reliable source). Roccodrift (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your source is an opinion piece regarding 'worst coaches ever'; such a piece should not be used to determine the weight of the statistic on Turner's life (WP:NEWSORG admonishes us to avoid using opinion pieces to establish matters of fact). We need a neutral, factual report (not an opinion piece) about Turner's career. If such pieces do not emphasize that statistic, it's cherry-picking to put it in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what NEWSORG says. Tellya what, why don't we attribute the material to its author and move it down out of the lead. Would that work for you? Roccodrift (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)