Talk:Herschel Walker

Direct quotes of incoherent statements as policies

@Cullen328: @Marquardtika:

There is concern about recently added content of incoherent statements made by Walker being presented as political positions. It's all sourced to an article by GPB [1], titled "Herschel Walker's 'bad air' comments the latest in series of policy gaffes." I think there is a relatively simple solution to this. The way these quotes are being introduced now is not beneficial to the article or the reader. Reliable sources, including the one cited, refer to these as part of a series of policy gaffes, not policy positions. I think we should write up a paragraph about Walkers gaffes, which have become significant to his campaign. I introduced such a paragraph yesterday, only for it to be reverted. It read: During his campaign, Walker has repeatedly made verbal gaffes, and CNN has described Walker as a "walking gaffe machine." When questioned about climate change, Walker gave a nonsensical answer about "bad air" floating to China. Additionally, he has made policy gaffes about gun legislation and school shootings. I believe this is a fair and comprehensive solution to this issue.

References

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This man is a major party candidate for one of 100 seats in the United States Senate. He is not some hapless individual who needs to be protected from what he has actually said. Compare this matter to Ilhan Omar which devotes far greater attention to her "It's all about the Benjamins" comment, and all of that is in the "Political positions" section. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that various answers to questions about policy positions are "incoherent" and to exclude them on that basis. Walker freely chooses to express himself on policy matters as he sees fit, and readers are better informed by seeing what he actually says about policy, instead of anodyne "summaries" of things he did not actually say. We need to summarize what reliable sources covering Walker's campaign say about his stands on various issues, and these quotes are a major part of that coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not we see it as coherent or not. It's about how reliable sources are presenting these comments. GPB: Walker's most recent gaffe made the rounds..., CNN saysHerschel Walker is a walking gaffe machine. and follows with the quote. It's unheard of to be presenting gaffes as policy, that shouldn't be the standard here in the same way it's not the standard at Political positions of Joe Biden or Political positions of George W. Bush. Should we go add to Nancy Pelosi's page that she believes China is the "one of the freest societies in the world"? [2] Obviously, not. Also, no one is trying to protect Walker. Protecting him would be advocating for no mention of these gaffes. This is just providing out of context comments about someone that make them look stupid. Statements by candidates need to be presented in a manner similar to RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Out of context"? I do not think so. The correct context is articles in reliable sources trying to describe and present what Walker says about policy. If reliable sources report in days and weeks to come that Walker has said something about policy that people might consider more coherent, then of course those new comments can be added to the article. I fail to see how including direct uncontested quotations from the candidate is inappropriate. It is not as if I am cherrypicking quotes that reflect poorly on him. You are perfectly free to add well referenced quotes that are "more coherent" as you see it. I would happily add such quotes myself, if only I could find them in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The lack of context is the lack of mention that these quotes has been described in RS as gaffes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, to add context, I have added a sentence to the beginning of the section saying that many of his policy comments have been described as "gaffes" and "head scratching". Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As for your comparison to Nancy Pelosi’s China comment, that is ludicrous and spurious. Pelosi has a four decade record of vigorous opposition to the human rights abuses of the People's Republic of China and it is clear to all well-informed people that she was referring to the Republic of China AKA Taiwan instead of the Beijing dictatorship. Walker, on the other hand, has an exceptionally thin record of comments on public policy. I know that to be true because I have been sincerely searching for such comments. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the "walking gaffe machine" quote. Since you want context, I have added that for context. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that appropriate framing for most of these statements is "gaffes" rather than "political positions". The word salad he said when asked about school shootings isn't a political position because it isn't, well, anything. Political positions are more along the lines of votes taken, platforms published, campaign talking points, etc., rather than a one-off response to a question at an event. I'm fine including various gaffes if they were widely covered in the media, but agree they should be labeled and contextualized as such rather than presented as "political positions". Marquardtika (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

They are his campaign talking points though, and they are his positions. Just because it's word salad, doesn't mean it's not part of his material. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

To everyone discussing the merits or legitimacy of including Walker's gaffes under his political positions section, please refer to Wikipedia's own guidance on this very question: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality

This is a politically charged moment in time and Walker is currently a player of great import to the political composition of the U.S. Senate -- personal opinions and feelings have no place in the maintenance of this Wikipedia page. Please follow the guidelines of the editorial board and maintain an editorial voice of neutrality in your upkeep of this page, regardless of your political affiliation. Glenstorm85 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you run for Senate, you should expect to find your gaffes covered. To do so, as long as we report what the sources say, it is not violating NPOV. Andre🚐 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Glenstorm85, you are incorrect about Wikipedia:Quotations and neutrality. Read the notice at the top of that page. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. Rather, it is an essay written in 2015 that expresses the opinion of one editor, and no other editor has made any substantive contribution to that essay. It has only been mentioned in discussions three times in seven years before now, so it definitely does not enjoy enjoy widespread support. Every quote in that section of the article is referenced to a reliable source and if you can find coverage in reliable sources reporting that Walker has made some policy statements that are more coherent and articulate, then they can certainly be added to the article. Nothing now in the article reflects any "personal opinions and feelings". It is all verified facts. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently we are re-litigating this again and @Morbidthoughts hasn't bothered to read this discussion, so I'm bringing it back here. Again. Following the original removers block and edit warring...cc @Cullen328, @Andrevan and everyone else who participated. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Count me as another !vote for keeping this stuff in. I am concerned we're going a bit long with it, but given the proportionality of the coverage of his political life, I think we need to have something that looks substantially like this section. It can always be improved, of course, and reasonable minds may differ, but I don't see how we can excise the quotes entirely and adhere to WP:NPOV. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion I've read on this page and the BLP noticeboard, I'm also on the !keep side of things. It ultimately seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The contested sections are well sourced and neutral, some people just don't seem to like how it makes Walker look, but we can't control his stances on various issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to revive this topic specifically for this quote in the page: "When asked about his position on gun control legislation, he replied "what I like to do is see it and everything and stuff."[97]". When following the link and watching the video, it's clear that Walker had not had a chance to review a specific shooting when responding to a question about it, and the setting is at a function with a lot of movement and noise, but the quote's position in this page paints the picture that he has no stance on gun control and faltered at the mention in a controlled environment. I think it is a very fair quote to include, but I am proposing to change the intro to the quote to instead read "When asked to respond to a recent shooting, he replied "what I like to do is see it and everything and stuff."[97]". 10 November 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.116.146.113 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear 163 IP, per the actual question, I have rephrased the referenced text to: When asked if he supported new gun laws in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting, Walker responded: "What I like to do is see it and everything and stuff." starship.paint (exalt) 06:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Exaggerated business success

Paragraph on overstating Renaissance financial performance conflates sales (revenue) with profits (net income) 2601:681:8380:7EA0:B914:84D9:55CA:28DF (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, why has this not been changed since being flagged in the beginning of September. This is a blatantly misleading incorrect. And the article is locked to prevent correction. Could an editor respond why they think it should stand like this. Switchbackforfun (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what should be changed? Andre🚐 23:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Lies and abortion scandal belong in the lead

The current article comes across as rather one-sided. As a non-American, the thing Walker is known for is him paying for an abortion and the lies he has told. These aspects have made headlines in many countries, where most of us had never heard about him before the past few weeks. Leaving that out of the lede looks very strange. I can understand that his sports career might be known to Americans, and of course that also belongs in the lede for that reason, but to leave out his latest scandals seem strongly biased. Jeppiz (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM. He's still best known for his Heisman-winning college career. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That is probably true in the US. I don't even know what Heisman is, and I assume that to be true for at least 95% of all people. That's why I mentioned that his sports career is no doubt noticeable in the US and should be mentioned. However, virtually all media coverage outside of the US concerns his run for senate. Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Jeppiz, the United States has a population of 330 million people and is by far the country with the most English as a first language speakers. You may not be familiar with the Heisman trophy but hundreds of millions of other people know about it. That trophy has been famous worldwide for a very long time, at least in part because O.J. Simpson won it in 1968. I assume that you may have heard of him. American gridiron football is the biggest sports moneymaking machine on Earth. Walker has been famous in the United States for over 40 years. This abortion controversy (which certainly deserves due weight coverage) only came to public attention less than a week ago. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We also know him for the Herschel Walker trade and his NFL career. We are now knowing him for his Senate race. In a month, we'll (hopefully) know if he won or lost the election and update accordingly. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Walker claimed that he supervises six hospitals across the United States (a statement that appears not to be true). Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your source is the Huffpost, which is not considered to be generally reliable at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

What you linked to says the following:

In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics.

Are there better sources? Maybe. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that Wiki has made a decision on unreliability. Wozal (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Idk if there are any better sources. The WP:ONUS is on you to provide them. I will say I briefly looked yesterday and didn't find any. I didn't say Huffpost had been declared unreliable for US politics, but that it's not greenlit as generally reliable. I'm merely saying that you are going to have provide more than Huffpost to establish this is (1) accurate and (2) noteworthy in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

GA article

I took a look at a GA article nomination and there were a few pieces of content that caught my attention:

• 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,
• The MMA section needs some follow-up - he won two fights and then he stopped? Why?
• 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?

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, @Andrevan, @Muboshgu, @Ser!" would like to here your thoughts here. Wozal (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You have my blessing, but I recommend not nominating it until after the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, after the election. There are still a lot of recent events. Andre🚐 01:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu @Andrevan

I agree that this page isn't ready and have no plans on nominating any page for GA status during the next 2 months. I was wondering if either of you would be interested in helping edit the information above to potentially be added to the main page. I think the Carl Lewis thing, the bobsled thing, and the attempted 2011 comeback are interesting, but I can't seem to figure out where to best place them. I think it might help battle some recentism and help break down some of his business activities which seems to be the last remaining section that seems slightly out of proportion. Wozal (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO, this article is simply not a good article, and I don’t see it as being one in the near future. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 13:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers 2603:7080:D73F:C27E:E488:29AA:1D10:3000 (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Last paragraph of "Abortion allegations" section

How do we square this with WP:PUBLICFIGURE? All we have here is: an anonymous woman accuses him, he denies vigorously. Is that really encyclopedic? I know Gloria Allred has credibility.

The NYT and CNN both covered the allegations, but they couldn't interview the woman ("on background"), and they couldn't corroborate the story. Sure, the story wouldn't be completely out of character for Walker; but we already cover far more substantiated allegations. Do we need that one? DFlhb (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb It was a MAJOR story that had a significant impact on his political campaign (and perhaps political fortunes). I'd argue that would make it necessary to include.

Is the fact that Michael Dukakis wore a helmet in a tank on its own Encyclopedic? Probably not. But its impact on his campaign (the image of him in a tank) is an essential fact when discussing him and his 1988 political campaign due to the impact it had on the campaign (the impact and lore that followed that mundane incident is perhaps one of the most notable things in the politics of that era).

Similarly, this allegation was a major story in Walker's campaign. Erasing it from coverage of the campaign would be a major disservice, painting a very incomplete picture of the campaign.

Nuance should certainly be given though. SecretName101 (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• @DFlhb: - after your post, the second accuser appeared at a second press conference and introduced evidence. It is more substantial now. starship.paint (exalt) 01:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Solid. DFlhb (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This article needs more political content

There seems to be a lack of political content practically there is very little of his pre Senate politics and needs to have a expansion on his pre Senate politics. Qwv (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Was he politically active in any significant way before his Senate campaign? Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Complete sentences

The article is a typical left-wing hit piece that makes it seem like Walker is incapable of formulating complete sentences. I think there should be a Complete sentences section showcasing examples of him managing to do that. Asterisks and stuff could draw special attention to utterances exhibiting subject-verb agreement and similar rhetorical skill. EEng 23:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I give it a thumbs up! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume this is ironic. Because it seems like a pretty blatant NPOV violation. I’m not a frequent Wikipedian, so I can’t cite the policy; but I will bet an arm and a leg that it exists. Calumapplepie (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think it's ironic? EEng 03:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This whole article seems to exhibit political bias against Walker. So much hearsay is presented as fact. Personal information about his violent behavior with no basis of fact. You should work for MSNBC or CNN. 75.90.5.167 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Of course it is biased. And it will be tag-teamed to keep anyone from making it more neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Either of you is free to bring forth coverage in reliable sources that provides different coverage of Walker in 2022. As for Walker's violent past, he has acknowledged it himself. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@75.90.5.167, @Niteshift36 It's better off you leave it alone, nothing's going to change. The article is screaming for other opinions, so you should edit where applicable and hope for the best. Now if you want to get a stroke, it's best to watch those channels you mentioned. Wikipedia should be a relaxing place to come to. Maybe it's just me. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I find that Wikipedia is indeed relaxing, and all that is required is a modicum of epistemic humility. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm out of it. The only things I've done it keep adding back his post nominal as an Olympian (why people remove that is baffling) and made one entry about a TV show neutral. Meh. Not a battle worth fighting. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not with that attitude, no. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND so not approaching it with the "battle worth fighting" mentality" should help. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• It's a figure of speech, not a definition of attitude. Please don't feel like you can lecture me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• There is plenty of grumbling and moaning here, but literally nobody is bringing forth any coverage in reliable sources saying that Herschel Walker is a highly qualified candidate who discusses political policy in an articulate and coherent fashion. Where are such reliable sources? Do they exist? If so, bring them forward and let's evaluate their credibility. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the post-nominal is very reliably sourced and yet keeps getting removed. I wonder why that is? I'll repeat: I'm not going to get into the political stuff. I've seen how it goes often enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  The post-nominal just strikes me as a bit beside the point in the article; his Olympic participation is not a main factor in his notability. I would also favor removing it in the name of parsimony, though I understand the argument for inclusion and don't doubt your good faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Being a main factor in his notability isn't a criterion at all for displaying it. Elton John and Michael Caine were indisputably notable before acquiring their post-nominal, yet they are included immediately after their given name, just as I have done here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Both Michael Caine and Elton John received theirs as a direct result of the things that make them notable. One could argue that Stephen Colbert should have PhD appended to his name as the recipient of an honorary doctorate, but I would oppose that as well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid: There is a difference between honorary degrees awarded by institutions and honorary titles awarded by national governments/monarchies. Caine and John have the latter. SecretName101 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Walker received his for doing things that made him notable. Being an Olympian in the US is often a path to notability. We don't disregard that merely because he attained notability before the Olympics. And no, an honorary degree is not the same. Colbert didn't actually earn a degree. Walker DID actually earn a spot on the team and compete in the Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

• Hi @Niteshift36,

  I think you're making good faith edits.

  It's documented that Herschel Walker did participate in the Olympics but that isn't his claim to fame. Nor is there any proof that has been presented that he's signed the appropriate code of conduct forms to allow him use of those letters. (If you have a source on that, please provide so!)

  According to WP:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The participation in the Olympics isn't why he's notable. Most people wouldn't associate the Olympics automatically with Walker like they would with Olympics like Phelps or Biles. Most Olympians don't even have the postnominals listed on the page even though people only know them for the olympics. I think part of the issue here lies with the fact that the placement of the postnominals prominence in the lead gives the impression that the postnominals are the most important factor whereas I don't think it would place anywhere near that high when the lead also establishes his notability in college football, the NFL, and politics.

  In someways, the lead might be spending too much time on some of the detail (including the Trade) that is almost copied word for word later on in the article. Wozal (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Again, where did a "claim to fame" become a reason to include a post-nominal. Using Michael Caine, again, he was clearly notable before his and the lead doesn't discuss it. The same for Margaret Atwood, Quentin Blake or Paul Nurse. The very fact that people may not immediately associate Walker with the Olympics is a reason to include. That expands the knowledge of the topic. Putting it after Biles or Phelps is almost pointless since, as you say, everyone already knows. It also raises awareness of the post-nominal itself, which is kind of unique in its newness. In any case, you're clearly going to ling to this "has he signed the paper" part. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood Just want to note, articles are never screaming for "opinions" of editors. The goal is to avoid our opinions. But I get your sentiment, that editors have inherent bias and balance is needed from editors with varying viewpoints. SecretName101 (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101 Thanks for that. I hear what you're saying with 'opinions', that really would turn out disastrous. But I'm glad you knew what I meant in general. A quick question. The first message you sent me regarding honorary degrees, Caine and John etc. I'm not sure if that was meant for me or not. I never remember asking a question regarding that topic. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101 Ahh, I thought that might be for Dumuzid. Thanks for cleaning that up for me. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, pinged the wrong user at first. SecretName101 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we go back to the "where are the reliable sources for this" part?

• Is there an RS that says he's formally entitled to use this postnominal (which sounds hilarious even as I write it, since Walker can't even spell "postnominal")?
• Do the majority of high-quality sources use the postnominal when referring to him in formal contexts?

"Raising awareness" is an absurd argument -- you're practically admitting that readers will be not informed, but rather puzzled. (I personally figured it meant he prefers a particular brand of beer [3].) The third paragraph of the lead notes his Olympic participation, so what in the world is the hurry to let people know about it four words into the article, especially since (as noted already) it's just about the least significant part of his career? Any argument that inclusion will somehow benefit the reader is truly strained. EEng 21:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Raising awareness is hardly an absurd reason. It is the very foundation of why we Wikilink terms that aren't commonly used. If you go to the examples I gave above, those are all Wikiinked. I can assure you that the first time I read the Elton John article, I did not know what Order of the Companions of Honour was. I merely knew he'd been "knighted". Why "in a hurry"? That is exactly where postnominals go according to the style guide. I don't make that stuff up, but if you look at examples of those invested with titles that get displayed, that is exactly where they are placed. Now about the sources...no, I don't have a source specifically saying Walker signed a paper. "Signing of the agreement" is merely checking a box on the online form. If the name matches, a PDF certificate is sent via email. That is the only part of your resistance that is actually based on policy and not your opinion about where it should go. . Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The function of Wikilinks is to elucidate potentially unfamiliar terms, phrases and concepts which naturally belong in an article; we don't artificially force them into an article in order to "raise awareness" of them. Meanwhile, you haven't addressed my two bullet points, which of course are the heart of the question: where are the RS for styling Walker this way? EEng 15:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Walker is famous worldwide for his seventh place Olympic two person bobsled finish. People just can't stop talking about it on all seven continents. What was the name of his team mate again? It must be a conspiracy that it is kept out of the first sentence of his biography. Yeah, right. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, more sarcasm and nonsense. Nobody has claimed that was his source of notability. Being knighted is also not Elton John's source of notability, yet the postnominals are placed immediately after his name. Why there? Because the style guide says that's where they belong. Go read the style guide and come back with something real to talk about instead of fabricated nonsense and failed attempts to look witty. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would suggest that there is a clear consensus here and that simply restating your views is not helpful. Just a suggestion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, let's look at what WP:POSTNOM says:

When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued ... by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section.

So (for the third time): show us the evidence that reliable sources "regularly associate" Walker with the Olympics? EEng 15:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Would a PDF of the certificate from the World Olympians Association that they send out help? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  While it would be some evidence in favor of your argument, it would not actually be responsive to EEng's query directly above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Other athletic stuff in lead

The editor can't because reliable sources don't, and reliable sources also do not use this postnominal when writing about Walker. The postnominal, after all, was created 25 years after Walker's single Olympics appearance. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Rereading everything, WP:LEAD also mentions: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

I don't think Walker's participation in the Olympics nor in Strikeforce are notable. (Two matches and only participated for a year in Strikeforce? Matches were about a year apart) The Olympics thing is only mentioned for 2 lines and the Strikeforce thing is mentioned for 4-5 lines; about half are about announcements. I fail to see how this is lede-worthy.

By contrast, his business activities are covered more in-depth as are his abortion allegations but neither are currently covered in the lead. Based on the first paragraph, I can see an argument being made for including the business activities or abortion activities but we currently don't cover either in the lead. Wozal (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• I actually agree that participating in Strikeforce shouldn't be in the lead (not lede). The statement that his participation in the Olympics is not notable is...let's just say questionable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

An extensive online search for "herschel walker oly" produces zero hits. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I disagree about removing all mention of the Olympics from the lead. I've restored that, plus brief mention of his other post-football activities. I agree the lead should cover his hypocrisy, lying, threatening to kill people with razors, multiple personalities, blackouts, and ability to form complete sentences now and then. EEng 14:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Perplexing language

Julie Blanchard said from 2012 that she was Walker's fiancée; Walker married Blanchard in 2021." is not a properly worded sentence. What does this mean? Does it mean that she was engaged as far back as 2012? Or that, in the year 2012, she made statements she was engaged to Walker? SecretName101 (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• @SecretName101: - the latter (Julie Blanchard, was identifying herself as his fiancee as early as 2012) and I have rephrased the article. Sorry for the confusion. starship.paint (exalt) 15:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Herschel Walker 2022 full.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

Herschel Walker helped the University of Georgia football teams win the de facto national championship his FRESHMAN year over Notre Dame, NOT his JUNIOR year, as the current article claims. 2601:640:C901:28F0:D5B4:BCB5:4A21:259D (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Who deleted his entire college career section? Some woke idiot trying to cancel him. You let people come in and erase all his accomplishments in college?

Why is his College Career section been edited out. Is this someone's way of trying to cancel him? Davidbirdsong31 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)