Talk:Cam Newton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

panthers[edit]

With NC Panthers having no. 1 pick of this evenings NFL draft, Cam is expected to be drafted by Panthers as no. 1 0 Prince William Sr, of Wailz 20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk)

Cecil Newton, Sr[edit]

On this page it says his Dad played in the NFL but on his brother's page it says he didn't. Which is it???

He did play - here is the definitive reference with the position - this meets the reference requirements so I am adding it back to the site. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1248540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kn0wtruth (talk • contribs) 23:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Heisman Trophy candidates" through six weeks[edit]

This is an encyclopedia article; please resist the urge to include claims that are speculative in nature and keep this article factual. Including a single writer's opinion that Cam is one of the top candidates is non-notable, especially if it is being used as an over-generalization as has been the case in recent updates. If there is a direct quotation from an independent, credible source (e.g. in a feature article by Dennis Dodd, Stewart Mandel,etc.) that he is the leading candidate midseason (See: Denard Robinson), please feel free to quote it, with proper WP:V citation, while maintaining WP:NPOV. If there are none, please wait until the finalists are announced.....Just keeping this article sound. Thank you, Obamafan70 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, please see WP:RECENT and WP:OR. Please do not revert without discussing here first.Obamafan70 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the player articles contain content relating to predicted draft status based solely on rankings. Heismman speculation is based on actual player performance and it's a big part of Newton's notability. He's having a stellar season. It should be included in the article and is properly sourced. Tigersarecomingforyou (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are new here, and so I don't to want bite the newby (WP:BITE). I also want to assume good faith on your part (WP:AGF). Speculation -- the exact word you used -- is not encyclopedic. Neither is the WP:OR fashion in which the source is being used; there were 5 players mentioned and only 3 players were listed. As mentioned, the edit violates WP:SPECULATION which is part of the broader issue of WP:OR. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation that he's among Heisman candidates, it's fact as noted in reliable independent sources. It's entirely appropriate for the article and we are failing our readers when we exclude significant and important content that is crucial to a subject's notability. Tigersarecomingforyou (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tigersarecomingforyou, it appears you either do not understand my comments and/or are constructing straw man arguments as indicated by your previous comment. You've also implicitly contradicted yourself -- Heisman speculation is....It's not speculation that. As a new Wikipedian, perhaps you should take a break from editing and re-read some of the core policies here which may be instructive. I wish I had followed similar advice and saved myself from a few minor spats. Obamafan70 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so adamant that we can't include well sourced content about article subjects being among the contenders for their sport's top prize then go remove that content from the other Heisman contender articles. It's not speculation any more than talking about candidates running in elections. Cameron is a leading contender for the prize because of his onfield performance as discussed in reliable independent sources. It's not speculation, it's fact. We know he is in the discussion because that's what th reliable sources say. If that changes we can make an update. Stop wasting peoples time and read the policies. You're obstructionism and silly arguments aren't constructive to writing an accurate and up to date article about this subject's most important and significant accomplishments. Tigersarecomingforyou (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL and see the appropriate article for straw man. Other users will surely tire of me pointing out that you are arguing against positions which I don't hold. By way of a compromise, I've included a sentence which should properly illustrate how to write for an encyclopedia. To some reasonable people, it still violates WP:RECENT and possibly even WP:SPECULATION but it's at least not stated in the deceptive way originally written.Obamafan70 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the original sentence:

He is considered a candidate for the Heisman trophy along with Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith and Boise State quarterback Kellen Moore

The problem is that there is only one source for this original sentence and it lists 5 candidates not 3....pretty clear case of WP:NPOV violation by (talk), in addition to the fact that it puts undue value on one

journalist's opinion at this moment in time. The way (talk) stated it now is stated factually, though I don't necessarily agree about the recentism in WP:RECENT. Not to bring up a spectre of WP:COI given the user's moniker, but there might be issues here.Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heisman Winner[edit]

Announced 12 11, 2010, that Newton won the Heisman trophy winner, with a vote approx 2 to 1 over next place person, Stamford QB Luck. 10 % did not vote, and of the 90 % that voted, 92 % voted for Newton for first place. /s Jean Chiz Jr 69.121.221.97 (talk)

why were the sections on previous colleges removed[edit]

see edits by 108.67.98.189 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.67.98.189 72.92.226.11 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why. Maybe someone is trying to re-write his history? They also changed him from a Junior to a Freshman. I copy/pasted all of the original text back into place. Why the hell would someone do that? BeaverYabor (talk)


Washington Post report 11 17 2010 7:55 PM $ 180,000 Payment Plan[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111706326.html << Report: Booster received payment plan for Newton By The Associated Press Wednesday, November 17, 2010; 7:55 PM ">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss St & Auburn Connection[edit]

This Wash Post revealed payment plan was by Miss St, its supporters; and note, if Cameron were then by such arrangements , attempted arrangements disqualified from playing at Miss St, he would also be barred from playing at Auburn, so there is that connection to present playing at Auburn Univ...and these plans predating

the present season, would cause change in whole season for Auburn Un and bowls, rankings, etc. /s/ "Shug" Joanz, Zeek Smith, Jakie Burquette, Pattie, Lil "Bo" 69.121.221.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Pay for Play rumors[edit]

ESPN is reporting some gossip. NCAA is declining to comment. Until they do, this is mere rumor. There's no deadline and as yet we have no reliable source for anything, so I've removed the rumors. --TS 03:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how far is your head buried in the sand on this issue? 74.163.37.5 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of verifiability. It doesn't matter what you think the truth is, this is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column. Truth will out in good time. --TS 21:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that light, I move that the last part of the last line of the Auburn University section be removed. Any Heisman speculations at this point are just gossip, and this is an encyclopedia. 74.163.48.100 (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do remove that if you're uncomfortable with it. I don't feel good about it either. --TS 00:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These rumors are credible enough to be mentioned in the article at least. The NCAA is conducting an inverstigation after all--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI is also investigating. A controvery/scandal does exist, and it involves Cam Newton. It does not matter if the allegations have been proven or not. It is proper to include them in the article. CH52584 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. There are rumors regarding the matter, but it doesn't change the fact that a controversy does exist. Existence is all the matters here. --Mr. Brown (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources for that actuality of an FBI investigation, produce them. I've had enough of this repeated reporting of rumor as fact and use of the fact of a rumor to make a statement on what I remind you is a BLP.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/09/fbi-sniffing-around-cam-newton-situation/. Well that was an easy task130.39.0.200 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5813734&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines--216.165.3.147 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC) We'll have facts to report in good time. To report facts, we need facts, not rumors of facts or facts about rumors. Facts may appear in due course and will then be verifiable and will be reported. --TS 22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard dscussion[edit]

This matter is being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard. So far, the consensus is that the Newton situation is being investigated by the NCAA. However, this is a very recent news story, and we ought to wait and see how it pans out. Wikipedia is not a news source, and recent events should not get undue weight here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

Please add to article, any, upcoming NCAA ... disqualification of Auburn and ban of Newton further playing if Canm Newton found to be PAID PRO quarterback /s/69.121.221.97]] comment added 06:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia awaits reliable sources, and will not settle in the meantime for wagging tongues. --TS 22:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tony. I know fans of the rest of the SEC are champing at the bit for this to turn out badly for Auburn, but until something actually happens here, we can't speculate. Dayewalker (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, after reviewing this thread, I'm changing the speculative header to something more neutral. If another editor disagrees, feel free to revert. I just feel stating something that hasn't occurred yet (and may be a BLP violation in calling Newton a Pro Quarterback) is a bit confusing. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember my wikipedia login (i haven't made edits in over a year... so sorry this is anonymous). There is a NYT article reporting that the FBI is investigating. Not sure if that is helpful to this discussion, but here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/sports/ncaafootball/15colleges.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.1.46 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TS has been around for quite a while an knows the policies. You should listen to him and wait until the facts are known. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some statements supposedly sourced to AP, because the cited AP report does not support the statements that were in this article. There is neither confirmation nor denial from CNAA that an investigation is being conducted. All the article contains is rumors and claims by a fellow called Bell--the guy with the soggy cellphone.

Sorry to be such a stickler on this. The rumors may eventually be replaced by facts, but at the moment there's no sign of facts. --TS 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should exclude any speculation as to the consequences of NCAA action. I have inserted two sentences in the Blinn College section because that is the point when the alleged payments occurred. There are no allegations that he was paid by Auburn, just that his father propositioned Mississippi State. So we should limit coverage to that until more develops. Racepacket (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. The information you have added is based on a Mississippi State fan's comments that were only made in an attempt to clear his team's name in this investigation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the information I added were from the Associated Press and the Washington Post. Our job is to assess the source and accurately reflect it. It could be that the father was speaking without the son's knowledge or that alumnus Bell is lying. You can view Bell as trying to harm Auburn/Newton, or you can view Bell as implicating Mississippi State as having a Booster organization that entertains such proposals. That is for the reader to decide for him/herself. Racepacket (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be the reader's decision if it wasn't already made for them. You added one (very biased) side of the story without adding the other. And if you add the other, you are adding speculative rumors that should be removed until confirmation is made for them. This information should not stay in the article, regardless of its truthfulness. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: we don't pass on tittle tattle and "let the reader decide." --TS 12:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the summary of this article: http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/2/25/2014667/cam-newton-investigation-cecil-auburn-mississippi-state-john-bond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayou don (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) SOME ONE CHANGE THE PHOTO HE IS NOT IN COLLEGE STILL!![reply]

Not sure if I am doing this right, but the listed height on Cam's combine results is 6'6". According to NFL.com as well as every other source of information I could find Cam Newton is 6'5" and was measured as 6'5" at the combine. CharlesRay71 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC) CharlesRay71[reply]

add stat charts to article[edit]

Please add statistics charts to article showing Cam performance at Fla and Jr College and Auburn Univ, etc thanks, s/ Wette Wile Willie Sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blinn College[edit]

It says under the Blinn College section that he was "hotly contested for by Auburn and Mississippi State." By all reports he wasn't even looking at Auburn until a week before he signed with them. It doesn't even mention Auburn in the citation article. And even if it did, It's B/R, which is an open source sports outlet and not a credible source. 74.249.76.141 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree on Bleacher Report. As I understand it anyone can register at the site and contribute reports. As it happens the contributor there is identified as one Brad Locke, who according to his profile "has covered Mississippi State athletics for the the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal in Tupelo, Miss., since 2008." The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal has a total daily circulation of 37,000. Not bad considering, but he's presumably contributing these reports in his spare time. The name "Bleacher Report" really says it all. And even if we used it, the piece doesn't mention Auburn at all. --TS 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More speculative stuff[edit]

I've removed recently added material that is in effect a single source speculating on the precise reasons why Cameron Newton did not return for a senior season at University of Florida. This is great journalism but it is still rather speculative and, as we see, single-sourced. It is in essence one journalist's analysis of the reasons given by Newton for stepping down from Florida. --TS 13:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on all accounts. First, it is clear from the citations I added, there were two sources: The New York Times and FoxSports.net. As the opening of the New York Times articles states: "A person briefed on Newton’s situation confirmed Tuesday the FoxSports.com report a day earlier that Newton left the University of Florida after the fall semester in 2008 rather than face suspension or expulsion in part because of three instances of academic cheating." The New York Times got independent verification of an earlier news report, so that's not a single source. Cam Newton was offered an opportunity to explain his withdrawal and he declined. Next, it is a fact that Newton stated that he withdrew from the University of Florida after Tim Tebow declared he was returning for his senior season. It is not speculation to say that that was false; he withdrew from Florida before Tebow made his decision. In accordance with BLP policy, an unflattering but relevant fact belongs in a Wikipedia article. —Ute in DC (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so now a sports scholar is being accused of "academic cheating"? How unusual. It's still speculation and we don't write into an encyclopedia material attributed to people whose name is merely "a person briefed on Newton’s situation". Otherwise we could simply transcribe Judith Miller's nonsense into Wikipedia and magically transform pre-invasion Iraq into a country with an active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program. We have Newton's words and his father's words, attributed to them, and no named person acquainted with the facts gainsaying them. So we wait until we have actual facts, not speculation and unsourced accusations. This is a biography of a living person. --TS 21:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment implies that news accounts must have someone speak on the record in order for the news account to be a reliable source. That isn't Wikipedia policy. Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. The New York Times gave Newton the opportunity to respond to their report and he declined, which is a tacit admission of its truthfulness. —Ute in DC (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
News accounts aren't in general of much value at all, frankly, no matter who is speaking and irrespective of whether he's on record. And we don't, we really don't, consider that X published in newspaper Y is reliable for all X and a subset of all Y, irrespective of what is being said and how it is said. Absolutely not. Verifiability which is policy, means that what we write is verifiably true and that certainly doesn't mean "some anonymous source quoted by a journalist claims it's true." --TS 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You may want news accounts not to be considered reliable sources, but current Wikipedia policy says that news accounts are. A reader can follow the citation and can check that this material was published in a reliable source. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just supposing for a moment that your representation of the verifiability policy were to be verbatim and complete, then the written policy would be out of step with the spirit of the policy and we'd have to change it to say what we actually do, which is to make sure we don't put unverifiable stuff into Wikipedia. If by some chance an editor thought that the verifiability policy permitted us to insert rumor and gossip into Wikipedia, and our written version of the policy supported his view, then obviously we'd change it. I don't think we need to change it. Wikipedia isn't the place for rumor and gossip, even if that rumor or gossip was procured by the most exceptional and advanced investigational methods available. That is to say, if you think Wikipedia would have hastened the resignation of the 37th American President, you're wrong. Wikipedia would have lagged the news media. Try Wikileaks, or a blog, or something. This is an encyclopedia. --TS 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My quotation of the verifiability policy was verbatim. The policy language continues, but you have yet to point to any language in the policy that supports your position that this is non-verifiable. The spirit of verifiability is summarized in the nutshell at the top: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The edit in question was attributed to reliable, published source with an inline citation. It was neither rumor nor gossip but rather facts supported by reliable sources. You hint that you find all news sources to be unreliable, but that's not Wikipedia policy. Your Watergate analogy fails because I am not trying to include original research. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ute in DC is correct. There is a well-documented controversy with coverage by major news organizations. Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living persons provides that with public figures, such as Mr. Newton, a multitude of reliable published sources will be available. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article--even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
While some of the articles do cite unnamed persons, it doesn't change the fact that a controversy exists and that controversy is being covered by a multitude of reliable sources. A discussion of said controversy needs to be included in the article. It's almost like there is a certain group of people attempting to bend over backwards to keep this information out of the article... --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1. It's really rather absurd that there is no mention of the controversy in the article. The article shouldn't come down on either side of the controversy, but it should document that it exists. Here is a prominent biography page where a controversy is mentioned: Jimmy Wales. Furorimpius (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing we don't seem to have here is a well documented controversy. We don't even know for a fact that the NCAA is investigating Newton, although there is a lot of speculation on the subject. If NCAA is investigating Newton they'll release a report and then we'll have some facts to put into the article. We're not going to report as fact a heap of gossip that has been published as gossip in newspapers. We're writing an encyclopedia article about a living person, not about gossip and rumor pertaining to that person. --TS 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This notion is borderline absurd. Not only is this controversy getting major airtime on news and sports networks/radio shows, it's also making front page headlines on sports media websites. AP wires state the NCAA investigation as a fact. An employee at Alabama was fired over playing inappropriate songs directed at Cam Newton and the controversy around him during last Saturday's game (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5864754). The Mississippi Secretary of State is meeting with former players that may be involved (http://versus.stats.com/cfb/story.asp?i=20101130214838240000101&ref=hea&tm=&src). In that article Rogers's lawyer admits that Rogers has been interviewed by the NCAA. Rogers is a key element in the controversy. This proves that an NCAA investigation is going on. Even If the NCAA investigation is just gossip, the fact of the matter is, it is being discussed and is probably one of the biggest stories surrounding college football this year. It most certainly belongs in the article as an ongoing controversy.Jamhov (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been handled well. We waited for the NCAA statement and then reported it. I think we should probably trim it a bit. For instance the current text says "MSU disassociated itself with an unnamed booster, believed to be Rodgers", which isn't really relevant to Newton and in any case is speculation (who exactly believes this, and why is their belief a fact relevant to Cameron Newton?) --TS 02:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean that negative allegations have to be confirmed to be true by reliable sources before being mentioned here. It means that we're not to include the allegations as fact in the article. The fact that notable allegations exist, as confirmed by reliable sources, is always acceptable to include under BLP. If the allegations were either non-notable or not reported by reliable sources, excluding them would have been reasonable. But that was far from the case with the pay-to-play allegations about Newton. And the NCAA's statement has hardly ended the controversy either; sportswriters have noted that the NCAA's decision differs considerably from their stance on the previous case of Reggie Bush, who also claimed not to know about the benefits that were given to his family; in that case the NCAA said it didn't matter if he knew. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not mean, never has meant, and never will mean that negative allegations have to be confirmed to be true by reliable sources before being mentioned here. - in essence BLP does mean that. What it means is that there is a much higher threshold for verifiability. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, using that logic, we should go over to O.J. Simpson and delete every trace of his murder trial, since he was proven innocent? 74.163.37.231 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you draw that odd conclusion. While there was no trial here there was an investigation and we have written about that as soon as we were certain that such an investigation concerning Newton had been conducted. Prior to that there was gossip, and we don't do gossip. --TS 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The person I replied to said (rather, implied) that BLP dictates that allegations be proven true to be mentioned. Simpson was never convicted, thus the allegations were false and using aforementioned logic should be removed. 74.163.35.173 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Marek, that's not what BLP means at all. BLP certainly means that negative allegations can't be included as fact without strong proof from reliable sources. But the fact that the allegations have been made at all doesn't require proof of their accuracy. Only proof of their notability. An unproven accusation can still be very notable, and that's the case with the allegations against Newton. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, "Notability" is just a guideline. BLP is a policy. We don't put unverifiable BLP crap into Wikipedia articles, that's the policy. The ridiculous nonsense of Apollo denial is "notable" in that vast numbers of stupid people believe in it and books have been written about it. That doesn't mean we put crap like that into the article about the Apollo project. --TS 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a policy that doesn't say what you think it says. And notability is not just a guideline, it's one of the two basic standards for what can be included in any Wikipedia article: it has to be notable and verifiable. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Notability. You'll find it's just a guideline. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that says the topic of an article must be "notable". Its contents must be verifiable, contain no original research, and conform to the neutral point of view. That's the policy. --TS 02:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline for determining what is notable, not a guideline for whether notability matters in the first place. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Proposal[edit]

Should this article be moved to Cam Newton since that is what he is commonly called now? His Auburn bio and ESPN.com page both say "Cameron," but many news articles refer to him as "Cam" (Los Angeles Times article; New York Times article; in this article "Cam" in title, "Cameron" in body; [1]; [2]; [3]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a valid point. After all, the article on Bob Dylan is not titled "Robert Zimmerman" BeaverYabor (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. This page should be at his shortened first name. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about father[edit]

In response to a comment at WP:BLPN, I've removed the following unsourced sentence from the lead: "His father, Cecil Newton, Sr., also played in the NFL (for the Dallas Cowboys)." This shouldn't go back into the article without a solid footnote. Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC) The entry for Cecil Newton, Jr. specifically states that his father did not play professional football. I cannot find any reference to Cecil Newton in the archives of the Dallas Cowboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.101.195 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dallas_Cowboys_players —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.101.195 (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating Scandal[edit]

I've removed the sentence on the scandal during his tenure at Florida. The sentence had one source, which was written by Thayer Evans, who wrote numerous articles attacking Newton. Furthermore, the article had one source, which was unnamed. I think the cheating needs to be proven, as most people involved (including then-head coach Urban Meyer) have denied it. If the cheating scandal is to be mentioned, then it should have more than one UNBIASED source and should only be stated as being allegations and not as a fact. --BeaverYabor (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Thayer Evans' cheating story remains on the Cam Newton page, this item refuting the claims of his anonymous source also needs to be included to provide balance. "Two independent sources with detailed knowledge of the UF academic discipline system during the period in question have disputed the Evans story. According to the sources, no allegations of academic impropriety regarding Cam Newton were sent to the Florida Student Conduct Committee at any time either during or after Newton's time at UF." http://college-football-blog.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/25757720 [1] Nukeboot (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://college-football-blog.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/25757720

Theft Charges[edit]

The article stated that Cam Newton was charged with buying a stolen computer. He was charged w/ theft. Second footnote added by me states that police intercepted a cell call in which he said that he stole it. Newton claimed that he had purchased it. The article soft-pedaled the issue and misstated the charge. He did complete diversion and there's been no repeat. Tapered (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Cam Newton. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Cameron Newton → Cam Newton (American football) — Move over redirect. Newton is always referred to in the media as "Cam", not "Cameron". --Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a better idea than my idea. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No longer plays for auburn[edit]

Article currently states: Cameron "Cam" Jerrell Newton (born May 11, 1989[1] in College Park, Georgia) is the Cing quarterback for the Auburn Tigers.

 Done Changed lead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text on eligibility controversy[edit]

There is a discussion on the reporting on the NCAA controversy in both this article and in Cecil Newton, Sr.. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.#Change article to deal with the scandal instead of BLP about Cecil Sr.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Cecil Newton may be deleted based on current AfD. I'm copying potential new sources for the eligibility scandal from Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. in the event the article is deleted. Some believe that a summary of the controversy is more suitable in Cam Newton, since he was exonerated of any involvement, with details in a spinout like Cam Newton eligibility controversy. Here are the other details that could be used: Cam having played for Mississippi St coach Dan Mullen at Florida, Cam wanting to reunite with Mullen at MSU, Kenny Rogers problems with NFLPA, Mississippi St notifying SEC in Jam 2010, MSU's delayed response to SEC query, FBI interest in the case, impact on Heisman and All-American votes, $170,000 in leagal fees incurred by Auburn, MSU booster Bill Bell details payment plan, loophole exposed of athletes being marketed withot their knowledge, impact to NCAA legislation, rethinking debate allowing payments to athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop theft controversy[edit]

Should information about the laptop theft controversy be included in the lead of this article? There are two major things to consider when thinking about this, WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.

The specific text related to this regarding undue weight is:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The specific text related to this from the manual of style on leads is:

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.

Questions to consider are:

  1. Is the laptop theft controversy a prominent controversy?
  2. How important was the laptop theft to his time at the University of Florida?
  3. How important is the laptop theft relative to his entire career including his professional career?
  4. Would including information about the laptop controversy in the lead give undue weight to the controversy?

Aside from pointing out these issues, I do think that more information should be given about his career at the University of Florida. Currently, there is more information about the laptop theft than his career at the University. I believe this gives undue weight to the laptop theft. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the laptop theft is what he is known for at Florida, it is not undue weight in that section. I would argue that it is not given undue weight in the lead either, since aside from his athletic career and the eligibility controversy, it is one of the things for which he is best known. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 04:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Newton did not do much as a player at UF, I don't necessarily think undue weight is being given to his off-the-field issues there. The section could be condensed a bit and perhaps rewritten, I tried to clean it up a bit last week.
The UF issues, however, simply don't belong in the lead section, particularly not as the first sentences of the second paragraph. If anything, the pay-for-play scandal could be mentioned in the lead, because it was a big story last year. The laptop issue only came to light at that time, and was lightly reported as an aside to the eligibility controversy. It is barely known by the general public who know of Newton - including those aware of the pay-for-play controversy - and is far from a prominent controversy. To say it is one of the things that Newton is best known for by the general public is simply absurd.
There is a small but vocal contingent of football fans on the Internet who either dislike Newton or flat-out despise him, so they blow his past troubles out of proportion. This usually simply takes the form of trolling on Internet message boards, but unfortunately it sometimes spreads to Wikipedia; I have seen numerous instances of NPOV and vandalism on this page during the past year. When someone has such dedicated detractors, extra care should be taken to protect their page from those who wish to disparage them, or at the very least attempt to present the story in a biased manner (this often occurs in pages for politicians, for example).
I see the user above with the NPOV problem has gone ahead and made his changes to the lead section without a consensus, even adding a very specific detail that might not even belong anywhere in the entire article, let alone in the lead. If he is so determined to make a mockery of this article (and the whole Wikipedia editing process), I'm not going to stand in his way any longer. Someone else needs to handle this, as I am currently very busy and I have more pressing things to do with my time. Thank you --72.186.190.220 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 February 2012[edit]

I just wanted to request that a registered user update this page. Cam was voted Offensive Rookie of the Year by the AP & Pepsi Rookie of the Year by the fans (http://www.panthers.com/news/article-2/Newton-earns-major-rookie-awards/83909fc0-1cd3-4841-bbe5-3ceecc288d16). Thank you. Sweetcn (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Hi. The {{edit semi-protected}} template is used when you want to have an auto-confirmed editor make a specific edit to a semi-protected article. This sounds more like a general suggestion to an editor interested in this page. You might want to C a new section with an interesting heading to get more attention. Regards, Celestra (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture Needed[edit]

The picture at the beginning of the article is of Cam playing with Auburn. In fact, it's just a cropped portion of a picture featured later in the article. He's been in the NFL for a year now and nowhere does it show a picture of him as a pro. There was briefly a picture of him with the Panthers but it was taken down for some reason. The picture at the beginning of the article needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaverYabor (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Accomplishments (Nominations)[edit]

Under his accomplishments in the NFL, nominations for player/rookie of the week are listed, which is not the custom on the majority of articles due to the cluttered effect. For instance, if you list every award nomination a player receives, by the time the player is in his later seasons of his career, it is just a grossly unorganized mess due to the number of nominations a player may receive. I believe it would be appropriate to remove this. Any thoughts before I continue? If not, I will remove these. Thanks. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stats not updated[edit]

He has thrown 28 touchdowns to 10 interceptions but it still is listed as 20 touchdowns to 9 interceptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthers2017 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College statistics chart[edit]

Is there a reason that the college statistics chart does not include the stats for his year at Blinn Junior College? the prose gives data, but it is not included in the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I can only guess they weren't included in the original barebones chart because even those Blinn stats were hard to find (though not impossible, as the body of the article shows). When his more complete college stats were included in the chart, that task became a bit harder. I finally found his complete Blinn stats on NJCAA.org. I provided the link in the external links section as well. Jhw57 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record set in first NFL game[edit]

The article calls Newton "the first rookie to throw for 400+ yards in his first career game". Surely it's OK to drop the "rookie" qualifier, right? Isn't everybody a rookie in their first career game? So that should say that Newton was "the first player to throw for 400+ yards in his first career game".

Right? TypoBoy (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cam Newton. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

matthew[edit]

matthew is cam newton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.80.252 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cam Newton. 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:

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) 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cam Newton. 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:

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) 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jourdan Rodrigue incident[edit]

I propose to delete the line "It later surfaced that Rodrigue had previously mocked Newton using a Twitter account with which she had also posted racist comments, causing the publication BlackSportsOnline.com to label her a hypocrite." This suggests that Newton's remarks were in retaliation for Rodrigue's criticism of him or her supposedly racist remarks. But no source indicates this, and I have seen no source which suggests that Newton even knew who Rodrigue was before he made the "routes" remark. --Shayno (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, and the potentially misleading wording and sentence order was fixed by User:Lizard the Wizard. The sources do not suggest that Newton knew of Rodrigue's previous comments about him, and Wikipedia does not suggest it either. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'd still rather her past tweets weren't mentioned at all. They suggest a justification for Newton that was never there in the first place. It's elementary school level "Yeah, but she said this! This makes what he said OK." It has nothing to do with Newton and should be left out. Lizard (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be easier to delete the whole thing, comments on either side included? Does not seem very important in the grand scheme of things. MPS1992 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think Newton's comment deserves a brief mention - he lost a sponsorship deal over it. Will I edit the whole paragraph down to 2 or 3 lines to avoid giving it undue weight?Shayno (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a trim down. Lizard (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead, but if Rodrigue ever becomes notable in her own right, I would expect her behavior to be added back in here. MPS1992 (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, added to her respective article. Lizard (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That too. MPS1992 (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Agency for Cam Newton[edit]

On the NFL's website, I found that Cam Newton had signed with the New England Patriots to a one year deal. Ringo Asinal - Nocead12345 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected page[edit]

Need to either remove the protection altogether, or make it semi protected. Newton confirmed his signing via Instagram story, and the NFL has already reported the signing. No reason to still have a full protection lock. Dylanstout39 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanstout39: The page is semi-protected now and has never been fully protected. You can edit it when your account is four days old and has made ten edits. It has been semi-proteced around 15 times, currently until 17 March 2021. The problem isn't just unconfirmed stories. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be semi-protected that long? Makes no sense at all. Dylanstout39 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism controversy[edit]

Why is the sexism controvery when Cam Newton mocked a female reporter's serious inquiry not mentioned? --Perrywinklebottom (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020[edit]

Change "who is a free agent" to "signed with the New England Patriots" Aronjo (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cam has confirmed on his Twitter account and a video on his YouTube Channel that he has signed with the Patriots: Cam Newton's Twitter Page, Farewell Carolina, Hello New England | Cam Newton Vlogs ComputerFreak34 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020[edit]

Change "who is a free agent" to "for the New England Patriots"

ESPN Twitter coverage of the signing: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Main Example

ESPN Article coverage of the signing: Example 1, Example 2 (including other NFL players reactions to the signing)

Cam Newton himself on twitter: Example 1, Example 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildman605 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots Official Website covering the signing: Example 1

 Not done The sources say it is a "reported signing", meaning it is not yet confirmed. IWI (chat) 18:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020[edit]

cam newton is in patriots whoever did not put him is stupid bugs panthers fans that say it still "breaking news" when its not he IS IN THE PATRIOTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2604:2000:6041:E100:6899:9A07:EA4A:83A9 (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not clear what changes you want to be made. IWI (chat) 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ImprovedWikiImprovment, let's keep an eye on this one. Likely more news later, in which case, we should endorse these requests. Ed6767 talk! 01:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots website confirms the signing. Stop being dense. Dylanstout39 (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanstout39: Personal attacks on anybody are highly unnecessary and are a good way to get yourself blocked. The Patriots website has not confirmed it, all the articles talking about it call it a “reported signing”. Until an article is posted saying specifically “We’ve signed Cam Newton” or “Patriots sign Cam Newton” he will remain listed as a free agent.--Rockchalk717 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Cam Newton's multiple statements not just as relevant as the team's word of an official signing? 73.17.139.242 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@73.17.139.242: Everything here is based on what is “official”. Teams announce signings after they’ve become official. After the years and dollar amount is agreed to, there is still so many steps left before an NFL contract is official.--Rockchalk717 01:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newton has confirmed several times on his Twitter and Instagram pages he signed. He has even arrived in Boston already. It’s ridiculous you guys are refusing to list him as a Patriot when it’s clear and obvious to everyone. Dylanstout39 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanstout39: What’s ridiculous is nobody understanding what the policy is for players when they sign with a new team and that it keeps needing to be repeated when we will update the page. Sorry to be blunt, but no matter many people call it “ridiculous” or people wanting it to be changed, we’re waiting til the Patriots make an official announcement, like it or not.--Rockchalk717 21:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a widely accepted policy that is getting enforced more strictly than in the past due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If you would like to change the policy, please make a post at WT:NFL.--Rockchalk717 21:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020[edit]

Change "who is a free agent" to "for the New England Patriots"

Official NFL Announcement of the signing via twitter: Example 1

Patriots Official Website Pro shop: Example 1 Wildman605 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Transaction has not been officially announced yet by the Patriots. The online pro shops for teams are run by Fanatics, a 3rd party separate from the team who will list products for players not officially on the team yet. We are waiting on the team to officially announce it.--Rockchalk717 18:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the NFL announcing it is not at least the equivalent of the team announcing it. My first example was the official NFL Twitter account saying that he was QB for the Patriots, so I think that would meet the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildman605 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wildman605: NFL social media accounts get their information from NFL Media employees (aka the people who work for NFL Network and NFL.com). When they report something it’s only after years and dollar amount has been agreed to. After that, is still so many steps a contract goes through before it’s official. The team announces it after it goes through all those steps.--Rockchalk717 01:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol for announcing signing[edit]

Glancing at the talk page, I've seen a bunch of requests to update this page with the info that Cam is a Patriot now. Most of the responses to this have been that the team has to announce it first. To this, I have a question: is there a written/established protocol that someone could direct me to that confirms this? Not trying to be combative, just want to know where this justification stems from. Thanks. Stavd3 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stavd3: It’s been discussed at WT:NFL multiple times. You’d probably have to dig through the archives to find a discussion but it has been discussed and most experienced members of WP:NFL are aware of this policy and enforce it when a news of a new contract breaks.--Rockchalk717 22:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stavd3: Please see WP:SPORTSTRANS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update the team![edit]

He arrived in Foxboro so please update his team! Mastergerwe97 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastergerwe97: That’s all fine and good, but the protocol for transactions always has been and always be we do not update until an official announcement is made by THE TEAM. This has been said repeatedly in edit summaries and as responses to edit requests. Please understand and respect that, that is the policy.--Rockchalk717 21:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at NFL transactions. On Tuesday June 30, 2020, the Patriots signed Cam Newton. Here is the link: https://www.espn.com/nfl/transactions Mastergerwe97 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastergerwe97: I’m going to this one more time, until THE PATRIOTS announce it, the article WILL NOT be updated.--Rockchalk717 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockchalk717:Stop being so dense, Cam Netwon is being talked about on the Patriots team website as if he was part of the team, so change the dang team already! 206.195.75.185 (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@206.195.75.185: Is a cop being dense when they issue you a ticket for speeding when you were going 10 over? No. It’s the same concept. I’m enforcing a policy that has been in been place for some time. Also, there is no need for personal attacks, especially since no matter what name you call me, how much you or anybody else protests, he’s not being updated until the Patriots officially announce him as a member of the team. Plain and simple. I will no longer respond to edit requests, nor should anybody else, for people requesting (or in your case demanding) the team be changed BEFORE the official announcement.--Rockchalk717 16:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life edit needs to be made[edit]

In the personal life section, it states that Cam has 7 children and the reference is his instagram post. Its needs to be clarified that Cam has 5 biological children but also claims the non biological children that belong to the mother's of his children Cococmc (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you find some WP:Reliable sources for that, you can propose a change using an WP:Edit request. Rummskartoffel (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official signing[edit]

Good afternoon, I have read through the talk pages on the hows and whens of listing Cam as an official team member. Posted at 5:31pm 7/8/20 on the official New England Patriots website. Is this what we were hoping for? Patriots Sign QB Cam Newton. Zaathras (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: Yes that is what were waiting for and the article has been updated to reflect the signing now.--Rockchalk717 22:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official signing 2021[edit]

The Patriots have still not announced Newton's re-signing, despite the "reports" that came out over three weeks ago. The references currently in the article only mention "reports" of his signing. Has anyone seen this transaction as official yet? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023[edit]

Change "He had a fatal heart attack on January 3, 2023 at his home. With his last breath he gave a shoutout to Michael Raminfard and bequeathed his entire estate to him." to "" 76.121.212.129 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To what? Lemonaka (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Not in the article. --Mvqr (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free agent?[edit]

Are you sure Cam Newton is a free agent? He hasn't played an NFL game since 2021. I don't think he's gonna come back. Shakatone2003 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of March 2023, former Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton has not officially retired from professional football. That's the most recent information I have. Thus, as he is still seeking employment as a football player, but has not landed with a team, he is a free agent. --Jayron32 18:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hes done dawg. No team is resigning Cam Newton in 2023 even as a second or third string QB. 2600:4040:5586:2400:1D5D:4690:6A3A:202F (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cam_Newton&oldid=1195437168"