This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Health issues in American football article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Health issues in American football has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"fatalities are uncommon in football" "catastrophic injuries are rare" "Catastrophic injuries are not common in American football" "Fatalities in football are rare"
These strike me as weasel words. What counts as common? Rare compared to what? We have the specific numbers at other points in the article. As far as I can tell, these words only serve to slant towards a particular conclusion without adding any real information or context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas42 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Since nutritional standards and weight-training technique were already quite advanced even in the 1960's" This is wrong, beside how would you define "quite advanced". in the 1960's people thought the sun healed diseases, that eating banana's made you strong and that smoking cigarettes helped you relax and sleep better with no negative side effects. in the last 5 years alone nutritional information has grown rapidly and weight-training "technique" however irrelevant to gaining mass in this sense was virtualy the same, weight training routines were not.
perhaps you should reasearch body building and body building nutrition, start with other wiki's then go to forums and websites. It's non factual, thats for sure, you're in disagreement but thats because you've been stubborn ever since i never met you, fix it or i'll delete it.
Also "Contemporary football players are larger than their predecessors of only 30 or 40 years ago. It is quite normal, for instance, for all the members of the offensive line of a major college or professional team to weigh more than 300 pounds (136 kg.), whereas in the 1960s linemen who weighed only 270 pounds were common."
"only" 30 or 40 years ago? firstly which is it, 30 or 40? secondly thats a very long time, do you have any idea what has happened since then? you do also realize that in the early 1990's children began hitting puberty at much younger ages, the suspect being anti-biotics fed to cows and it was not uncommon, for instance, for 9 year old males to masturbate and 11 year old girls to begin menstration and get pregnant, whereas 30 "or" 40 years ago the children would have taken several more years to develop. you emphasize 300+ like its huge, like it HAS to be steroids, like theres no other explanation but then say "only 270 pounds were common".. "only" 270 pounds? A mod needs to put a higher standard message on this page at the very least, I wont stop bitching until this article is written from a neutral point of view, representing only facts and none of your bias.
(sigh) one more go " Such drugs are widely available even to little tiny babies" this has to be the absolute dumbest statement I have ever heard, incase you didn't know body building supplements (glutamine, creatine, amino acids, ect,ect) , pro-hormonces and phytonutrients are NOT steroids, synthetic anabolic steroids are about as easy to get in america as a fully automatic AK-47, possible? yes. widespread? what country, or world for that matter do you live in?
I pray for somebody with sense, logic and knowledge - preferably a mod as well to come and fix this. Mithotyn
I have a handicap with scripting articles, a terrible one otherwise I would. I'll leave it alone but somebody needs to put up a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" or the "conform to higher standards" message or something on it (whichever is best) so OTHER people, perhaps more talented writers than me that are interested in the subject can recongize it and do what I cannot and re-write it. Mithotyn
Apparently nobody gives a shit about this article, I know your position on deletions matt but if somebody doesen't re-write this soon I will feel compelled to delete it, its supplying false and biased (mis)information to people that might regard this information as being true when it is only speculation written as if it were to state fact. misinformation is dangerous and doesen't belong on the internet, its nearly everything thats wrong with the internet and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Mithotyn
Heres afew links that prove nothing of my point but may help bring a better point of view regarding the topic to whoever wishes to re-write it.
My point of course being that this article should not be written from a point of view that beleives a majority of athletes who play American football take or have taken steroids, the percentage of players that do are and have been incredibly low, beleived to be less than 3%. The part of this article I deleted also stated an assumption/theory that players who are 40-50 pounds heavier at the offensive line position are so due to steroids, the article at that point leaving no sources or factual information, written as if the author beleived it and is trying to make others beleive it. This edit should not be reverted without being fixed or without me being proven wrong regarding the "non factual" statements or wrong regarding my beleif that the article does not represent a NPOV. If problems continue long enough, we'll probably have to RFC because it seems as if only two people are reading this discussion page and that includes me.
Also I cant say I agree with the "Problems in football" section of the american football section, but just so we (the we is probably as ridiculous as the "you" but guess what? I don't know who i'm talking to) can try to get on the same page I will give a decent example of a statement I don't like and why. "Fans and critics actively debate the role of steroids in professional and amateur football."
So with that statement, what are you trying to say? (whoever wrote it) it sounds as if you're stating that FANS and CRITICS actively debate the ROLE (circumstances regarding a teams win/loss record? wether a player makes "the cut" or not? what "role"?) of steroids in football. if re-worded it could be right but not with a high enough level of participants to be very relevant unless you are refering to the people, social groups and organazations that debate the topic of steroids and sport, the only relevant sport in this case being American football.
I found a second statement I cant agree with. "Deaths and long-term disability attributed to illegal use of anabolic steroids have become a new factor in this picture, starting in about the 1990s."
No. Just... no.
No freaking way.
There's no way to resolve it. Mithotyn wants to remove almost all references to steroids, and our anonymous friend wants to put them back in (with no matching note in the talk page). I'm stuck in the middle (and stuck in the unfortunate position of not caring nearly as much about this as you two do). There's absolutely no way to resolve this.
Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, here we come. Matt Yeager 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind references to steroids on this page, I fully supported the article you wrote regarding the subject, although not fully complete with all the information it should have, it was a unbiased start. The previous article on the other hand, I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, is biased and not written from a NPOV, suggesting claims with no credibal sources and stating false/unproven information. Don't worry matt, It'll get taken care of. Mithotyn 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: I thought of that template before Matt - as well as afew others - it would do no good if he's not cooperating.
I just thought I should take each peice I don't agree with and state why.
Irrelevant
False
False, Although Pytonutrients and pro-hormones, which can convert to testosterone in the body are legaly availiable to purchase at any health store, they are not drugs nor categorized as anabolic steroids.
Like the entire bulk of that section this is suggestive and would need to be re-written from a neutral point of view.
It's not the topic that I disagree with, its the (mis)information and suggestive attitude being supplied regarding it. Mithotyn 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So many edits in one day. Anyhow I don't think this has as much to do with the article as it does 86.IP guy's disposition of me, I was arrogant, aggressive and very un-wikipedian like when I first objected to the article, and even later. I'm new here but thats no excuse I should have done my research regarding policy and conduct before-hand and even now I still have quite abit to learn - or get out of the habbit of doing.
Steroids and sport is always a controversial subject because theres too many POV's that have to be considered and too many of them are arguable, therefor that particular section, I beleive should consist of nothing but fact, otherwise there will never be any benefit for somebody who writes a long and well researched article if people keep slamming their opinions or perspectives of the topic in there. I told you I had a handicap scripting articles, what I meant is that i'm not a hypocrite and I truly beleive, because of the controversial nature of the topic that the article must be written from a neutral point of view representing only facts and including sources to verify those facts. I cannot do that, because I am biased on the subject and might inadvertently add some suggestiveness myself. For now as a start your contribution, Matt, to it is great and until somebody can make it even better I will protect it from the 86.IP guy. It seems we also have a NPOV observer considering he doesen't have any contribs to anything sports or steroid related, He reverted the 86.IP guy's last edit. I dunno if he'll ever be back but we can always RfC So don't worry about it Matt and don't get discouraged. Mithotyn 00:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned at the contention in the article that American Football has seen a higher injury and death rate than any other major American professional sport.
Since 1931, 1002 people have died directly from the sport [1]. In addition, the death rate per 100,000 participants is relaively low. I am not sure how this compares to other sports, but at this time the statement is conjecture. Someone has added the citation needed comment - but my feeling is that it should be removed altogether until the statement can be validated. Londonblitz 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the section so that the statistics are not related.
If statistics are integrated (new or current), they need to be written so that there is a relationship between them. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, I've been working along with my colleague, User:WWB Too, on behalf of the NFL Players Association to improve a number of football-related articles here on Wikipedia. They've asked that we take a look at this article, since it suffers from a few issues, especially a lack of solid sources.
I'd like to propose a rewrite of the first section of this article, Injuries, which is currently rather poorly sourced, although much of the information is correct. You can see the language I'd like to propose below, where I've added in citations and expanded on some of the information where it seemed relevant.
According to the NFL Physicians Society, the most common injuries in the NFL are "concussions, blunt injuries to the chest such as cardiac contusions, pulmonary contusions, broken ribs, abdominal injuries, splenic lacerations and kidney injuries." Additionally, orthopedic injuries to the knee, foot, ankle, shoulder, neck and back are also common, as are muscle strains to the hamstrings, quads, calves and the abdomen. [1]
An Injury Report section is common in American newspapers' sports sections, detailing injuries for each team and the amount of time each injured player is expected to be out. The injury report was created to prevent gamblers from gaining inside information about injuries from players. As a result, NFL teams must report on the status of injured players on a set schedule during the season. The standard severity descriptions are "out" (will not play in the coming game); "doubtful" (25% chance of playing); "questionable" (50% chance of playing); or "probable" (75% chance of playing). Teams have been known to downplay, exaggerate or overly detail their teams' injuries in an attempt to confuse or mislead upcoming opponents. [2]
Injured players may be placed on one of several injured lists. Players on the Physically Unable to Perform list may not practice, but do count towards the team's 53-man roster limit. If a player is injured in an event outside of a game or team practice, or during collegiate practice prior to being drafted, they are eligible for the Nonfootball Injury list. Players who have sustained major injuries and are not expected to will not play for the rest of the season may be placed on the Injured Reserve list. These players do not count towards the teams' roster limit. [3]References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
One query here—in looking at the article, there's currently a Statistics section, which seems like it mostly contains information that could be rolled into Injuries and the Brain Injury section. We could then get rid of Statistics entirely, since it's just a bulleted list without context. What do other editors think? Should we try to work the details from Statistics, where relevant, into the rest of the article?
And while we're on the topic, there's a paragraph at the end of the Statistics section under the heading Statistics on injuries other then concussions that's poorly formatted, unsourced, and doesn't seem horribly relevant to the section that it occurs in nor the article as a whole. I'd like to propose that that paragraph be deleted.
Because of my financial COI, I won't make any edits here directly. Instead, I'm hoping that volunteer editors can take a look at my suggestions—both the redrafting of the Injuries section and removal of the last paragraph under Statistics—and, if they seem okay, go ahead and implement them in the article. If you have any questions or concerns, though, I'm all ears! Cheers, ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Football is a full-contact sport, and injuries are relatively common. Most injuries occur during training sessions, particularly ones that involve contact between players.[53] To try and prevent injuries, players are required to wear a set of equipment. At a minimum players must wear a football helmet and a set of shoulder pads, but individual leagues may require additional padding such as thigh pads and guards, knee pads, chest protectors, and mouthguards.[54][55][56] Most injuries occur in the lower extremities, particularly in the knee, but a significant number also affect the upper extremities. The most common types of injuries are strains, sprains, bruises, fractures, dislocations, and concussions.[53] Concussions are particularly concerning,[57] as repeated concussions can increase a person's risk in later life for chronic traumatic encephalopathy and mental health issues such as dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression.[58] Concussions are often caused by helmet-to-helmet or upper-body contact between opposing players, although helmets have prevented more serious injuries such as skull fractures.[59] Various programs are aiming to reduce concussions by reducing the frequency of helmet-to-helmet hits; USA Football's "Heads Up Football" program is aiming to reduce concussions in youth football by teaching coaches and players about the signs of a concussion, the proper way to wear football equipment and ensure it fits, and proper tackling methods that avoid helmet-to-helmet contact.[60]
Please find below some improvements that I'd like to propose for the "Brain injuries" subsection of this article. As mentioned above, I'm currently working on behalf of the NFLPA in order to improve football-related articles on Wikipedia, so I won't make any edits myself.
As a quick overview of what I've changed:
Finally, the last two paragraphs of this section in the current article relate to injury prevention, so I haven't addressed them in these revisions. I'm thinking we should move those to the Prevention to Injuries section for now, and deal with it when we look at that section.
Here's the language I'd like to propose:
In 1994, the NFL established the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, which was later replaced by the Head, Neck and Spine Committee, to study concussions and brain injuries in professional football players. The committee and its leadership, including Dr. Ira Casson and Dr. Elliot Pellman, have been criticized by former players for stating that there is not enough research to determine if concussions lead to permanent brain injury. [1] [2] Pellman, who served as chairman of the committee from 1994 to 2007, was criticized because he did not have a background in neurology and because the research he published disagreed with the findings of independent scientists. [3] [1]
In 2009, a NFL-commissioned report showed increased incidence of diagnosis of memory loss and dementia among retired professional football players when compared to the general population. The study indicated that these symptoms were related to the effects of concussions. However, the NFL and the report's own researchers questioned the reliability of some of the data-gathering methods employed by the study, including the fact that the study was conducted by phone. [4] [5] The same year, the committee first acknowledged that concussions can lead to long-term brain injuries. [6]
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the issue of head injuries in professional football in a 2012 talk at the Harvard School of Public Health. In the talk, he highlighted the NFL's efforts to reduce head injuries by penalizing hits to the head, better assessing concussions on the sideline, and removing players from the game. He also discussed the need for increased research on brain injuries and long-term disorders, and called for a culture change in the league, saying that players need to be more willing to acknowledge their injuries to medical staff. [7]
Beginning in 2012, the NFL was the subject of several lawsuits initiated by former players who alleged that the league withheld information and misled players about the potential long-term impacts of head injuries. Six of the lawsuits were approved to be tried together. [6] In August 2013, the NFL reached a settlement with more than 4,500 former players, agreeing to pay $765 million. This money is to be used to pay for medical examinations for former NFL players and for research and education purposes. The funds will also be used to compensate former players who are determined to have significant cognitive impairment. [8]
Concussions are also an issue outside of professional football. In a 2010 study by Purdue University and Indiana University, an estimated 43,000 to 67,000 players suffer a concussion every season. However, because many injuries go unreported, that number may exceed 100,000. The study, "Functionally-Detected Cognitive Impairment in High School Football Players Without Clinically Diagnosed Concussion", published in 2013 in the Journal of Neurotrauma observed 21 high school players throughout a season and determined that even players who would not be diagnosed with a concussion based on their symptoms can display notable impairments via MRIs and verbal or cognitive testing, indicating that the current tests used on the sideline to assess concussions may not be adequate. [9] [10]References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
I'm definitely open to comments and questions, but if everything looks okay here, could someone move this over into the article? Thanks! ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 19:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've been taking a look at the Effects on post-career life section, and the last two paragraphs here aren't about post-career effects at all. The last one is about rules to prevent certain kinds of injuries—should we look at rolling that into the Prevention section?
The next-to-last paragraph is actually about heat-related injuries. I can take a look at shoring it up and adding citations, but where to put it? Maybe as a section paragraph right under "Injuries"? What do people think? Let me know and I can work on revising and sourcing it.
Finally, here's the slightly tweaked paragraph for the new post-career effects section. It was pretty solid in the first place, so I've only made a few changes to wording here. Note that the section previously had two references—a peer-reviewed study, and the other a blog post about the study. Since the blog post is a less strong source and unneeded, I've gone ahead and removed it.
Also, since the section is shorter, I moved the image to be right-aligned, which seems like it will cause fewer alignment issues, but not tied to that by any means—whatever looks best when the change is made good by me.
References
Let me know if you have any questions here! Cheers, ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey again Toa! Sorry again for the delay here, but I finally put together a short blurb about fatalities in high school and college football, based on a journal article:
References
What do you think? Cheers, ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 19:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought I'd go over the copy on this as an outside editor while you were waiting on the GAN. Something from the lead is rather striking off the top, however:
These two sentences clearly don't jibe, unless you want to make a weird semantic distinction between "catastrophic" and "severe." I understand citations in the lead are annoying, but in this case I think it worthwhile to look at the sources again and decide whether injuries are going up or down and cite accordingly at first mention. Dontreadalone ( talk) 04:55, 10 January 2014
Well, I'm not sure who's still watching as I got no reply to my last but I did want to detail some feedback on the main Injuries section. First off, the four subsections don't thematically match—does it make sense to have subsections on leagues under the heading "Injuries"? And aren't brain injuries actually a type of catastrophic injury? I find it unfocused. In a similar vein, I find the switch between a solely NFL focus to high school/college data a bit disorienting. The Brain subsection is all about the NFL; the next section doesn't even mention the league. I think most everything you need is here but the compartmentalization is off. Dontreadalone ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have a few additional suggestions for changes that I think could be made to this article. Most are pretty minor, but there are some thoughts about adding in new information—I'm curious about editors thoughts on these points. As previously indicated, I'm working on this article at the behest of the NFLPA, so I won't be making any edits to this article directly.
References
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
References
Let me know if there are any questions or comments. I'd appreciate if any changes that seem ok could be moved over to the article. Cheers! ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 20:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've drafted a few sentences about HGH and performance-enhancing drugs. After reviewing the article, I think it might make the most sense to include this general information in the Injuries section, just before the breakdown into NFL and high school/college, rather than having it inside those two sections, since much of it applies to both.
Performance-enhancing drugs are an issue in both high-school and professional-level football. [1] Use of steroids has been linked to greater musculoskeletal injuries among players. [2] Side effects of HGH can include diabetes and negatively impact joints and organs, though there have been no studies of human growth hormone (HGH) use in NFL athletes. [3] NFL players are routinely subject to drug tests in accordance with the NFL's two substance policies. Players found using performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, can face suspension and other penalties. [4] As of 2014, the league does not test for HGH. [5]
References
What do you think about adding this information into the article? Other input from any other editors who might be watching is also welcome! Cheers ChrisPond ( Talk · COI)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This has been under review for too long, so I'll give this a shot. It may take me a week or two to do the whole article though since my Wiktime is limited.
Wizardman
18:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are some issues I found to start off, just through the high school injury section so far:
Will try to knock out the other half of the article tomorrow, if not it'll probably end up being next weekend. Wizardman 03:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I read through the article a couple more times and, rather than add nitpicks, I just copyedited and made any small changes myself given that you had to wait six months for a review. The article now passes GA status. Wizardman 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Health issues in American football. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Health issues in American football. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Many of the studies and sources of information in this article are at least 5 years old , if not older. Now a days, technology is rapidly changing which means lots of things can change within a 5 year time period. The information and context of the article is great but I think newer sources and studies would make this article more current and better overall. Zakattak13 ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see a brief (perhaps stub-length) article on the Harvard Football Players Study [1] and on the Boston University ( BUSPH) Football Players Health Study. MaynardClark ( talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Devonte04 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Janaegreene3455 ( talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Health issues in American football article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Health issues in American football has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"fatalities are uncommon in football" "catastrophic injuries are rare" "Catastrophic injuries are not common in American football" "Fatalities in football are rare"
These strike me as weasel words. What counts as common? Rare compared to what? We have the specific numbers at other points in the article. As far as I can tell, these words only serve to slant towards a particular conclusion without adding any real information or context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas42 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Since nutritional standards and weight-training technique were already quite advanced even in the 1960's" This is wrong, beside how would you define "quite advanced". in the 1960's people thought the sun healed diseases, that eating banana's made you strong and that smoking cigarettes helped you relax and sleep better with no negative side effects. in the last 5 years alone nutritional information has grown rapidly and weight-training "technique" however irrelevant to gaining mass in this sense was virtualy the same, weight training routines were not.
perhaps you should reasearch body building and body building nutrition, start with other wiki's then go to forums and websites. It's non factual, thats for sure, you're in disagreement but thats because you've been stubborn ever since i never met you, fix it or i'll delete it.
Also "Contemporary football players are larger than their predecessors of only 30 or 40 years ago. It is quite normal, for instance, for all the members of the offensive line of a major college or professional team to weigh more than 300 pounds (136 kg.), whereas in the 1960s linemen who weighed only 270 pounds were common."
"only" 30 or 40 years ago? firstly which is it, 30 or 40? secondly thats a very long time, do you have any idea what has happened since then? you do also realize that in the early 1990's children began hitting puberty at much younger ages, the suspect being anti-biotics fed to cows and it was not uncommon, for instance, for 9 year old males to masturbate and 11 year old girls to begin menstration and get pregnant, whereas 30 "or" 40 years ago the children would have taken several more years to develop. you emphasize 300+ like its huge, like it HAS to be steroids, like theres no other explanation but then say "only 270 pounds were common".. "only" 270 pounds? A mod needs to put a higher standard message on this page at the very least, I wont stop bitching until this article is written from a neutral point of view, representing only facts and none of your bias.
(sigh) one more go " Such drugs are widely available even to little tiny babies" this has to be the absolute dumbest statement I have ever heard, incase you didn't know body building supplements (glutamine, creatine, amino acids, ect,ect) , pro-hormonces and phytonutrients are NOT steroids, synthetic anabolic steroids are about as easy to get in america as a fully automatic AK-47, possible? yes. widespread? what country, or world for that matter do you live in?
I pray for somebody with sense, logic and knowledge - preferably a mod as well to come and fix this. Mithotyn
I have a handicap with scripting articles, a terrible one otherwise I would. I'll leave it alone but somebody needs to put up a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" or the "conform to higher standards" message or something on it (whichever is best) so OTHER people, perhaps more talented writers than me that are interested in the subject can recongize it and do what I cannot and re-write it. Mithotyn
Apparently nobody gives a shit about this article, I know your position on deletions matt but if somebody doesen't re-write this soon I will feel compelled to delete it, its supplying false and biased (mis)information to people that might regard this information as being true when it is only speculation written as if it were to state fact. misinformation is dangerous and doesen't belong on the internet, its nearly everything thats wrong with the internet and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Mithotyn
Heres afew links that prove nothing of my point but may help bring a better point of view regarding the topic to whoever wishes to re-write it.
My point of course being that this article should not be written from a point of view that beleives a majority of athletes who play American football take or have taken steroids, the percentage of players that do are and have been incredibly low, beleived to be less than 3%. The part of this article I deleted also stated an assumption/theory that players who are 40-50 pounds heavier at the offensive line position are so due to steroids, the article at that point leaving no sources or factual information, written as if the author beleived it and is trying to make others beleive it. This edit should not be reverted without being fixed or without me being proven wrong regarding the "non factual" statements or wrong regarding my beleif that the article does not represent a NPOV. If problems continue long enough, we'll probably have to RFC because it seems as if only two people are reading this discussion page and that includes me.
Also I cant say I agree with the "Problems in football" section of the american football section, but just so we (the we is probably as ridiculous as the "you" but guess what? I don't know who i'm talking to) can try to get on the same page I will give a decent example of a statement I don't like and why. "Fans and critics actively debate the role of steroids in professional and amateur football."
So with that statement, what are you trying to say? (whoever wrote it) it sounds as if you're stating that FANS and CRITICS actively debate the ROLE (circumstances regarding a teams win/loss record? wether a player makes "the cut" or not? what "role"?) of steroids in football. if re-worded it could be right but not with a high enough level of participants to be very relevant unless you are refering to the people, social groups and organazations that debate the topic of steroids and sport, the only relevant sport in this case being American football.
I found a second statement I cant agree with. "Deaths and long-term disability attributed to illegal use of anabolic steroids have become a new factor in this picture, starting in about the 1990s."
No. Just... no.
No freaking way.
There's no way to resolve it. Mithotyn wants to remove almost all references to steroids, and our anonymous friend wants to put them back in (with no matching note in the talk page). I'm stuck in the middle (and stuck in the unfortunate position of not caring nearly as much about this as you two do). There's absolutely no way to resolve this.
Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, here we come. Matt Yeager 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind references to steroids on this page, I fully supported the article you wrote regarding the subject, although not fully complete with all the information it should have, it was a unbiased start. The previous article on the other hand, I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, is biased and not written from a NPOV, suggesting claims with no credibal sources and stating false/unproven information. Don't worry matt, It'll get taken care of. Mithotyn 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: I thought of that template before Matt - as well as afew others - it would do no good if he's not cooperating.
I just thought I should take each peice I don't agree with and state why.
Irrelevant
False
False, Although Pytonutrients and pro-hormones, which can convert to testosterone in the body are legaly availiable to purchase at any health store, they are not drugs nor categorized as anabolic steroids.
Like the entire bulk of that section this is suggestive and would need to be re-written from a neutral point of view.
It's not the topic that I disagree with, its the (mis)information and suggestive attitude being supplied regarding it. Mithotyn 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So many edits in one day. Anyhow I don't think this has as much to do with the article as it does 86.IP guy's disposition of me, I was arrogant, aggressive and very un-wikipedian like when I first objected to the article, and even later. I'm new here but thats no excuse I should have done my research regarding policy and conduct before-hand and even now I still have quite abit to learn - or get out of the habbit of doing.
Steroids and sport is always a controversial subject because theres too many POV's that have to be considered and too many of them are arguable, therefor that particular section, I beleive should consist of nothing but fact, otherwise there will never be any benefit for somebody who writes a long and well researched article if people keep slamming their opinions or perspectives of the topic in there. I told you I had a handicap scripting articles, what I meant is that i'm not a hypocrite and I truly beleive, because of the controversial nature of the topic that the article must be written from a neutral point of view representing only facts and including sources to verify those facts. I cannot do that, because I am biased on the subject and might inadvertently add some suggestiveness myself. For now as a start your contribution, Matt, to it is great and until somebody can make it even better I will protect it from the 86.IP guy. It seems we also have a NPOV observer considering he doesen't have any contribs to anything sports or steroid related, He reverted the 86.IP guy's last edit. I dunno if he'll ever be back but we can always RfC So don't worry about it Matt and don't get discouraged. Mithotyn 00:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned at the contention in the article that American Football has seen a higher injury and death rate than any other major American professional sport.
Since 1931, 1002 people have died directly from the sport [1]. In addition, the death rate per 100,000 participants is relaively low. I am not sure how this compares to other sports, but at this time the statement is conjecture. Someone has added the citation needed comment - but my feeling is that it should be removed altogether until the statement can be validated. Londonblitz 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the section so that the statistics are not related.
If statistics are integrated (new or current), they need to be written so that there is a relationship between them. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, I've been working along with my colleague, User:WWB Too, on behalf of the NFL Players Association to improve a number of football-related articles here on Wikipedia. They've asked that we take a look at this article, since it suffers from a few issues, especially a lack of solid sources.
I'd like to propose a rewrite of the first section of this article, Injuries, which is currently rather poorly sourced, although much of the information is correct. You can see the language I'd like to propose below, where I've added in citations and expanded on some of the information where it seemed relevant.
According to the NFL Physicians Society, the most common injuries in the NFL are "concussions, blunt injuries to the chest such as cardiac contusions, pulmonary contusions, broken ribs, abdominal injuries, splenic lacerations and kidney injuries." Additionally, orthopedic injuries to the knee, foot, ankle, shoulder, neck and back are also common, as are muscle strains to the hamstrings, quads, calves and the abdomen. [1]
An Injury Report section is common in American newspapers' sports sections, detailing injuries for each team and the amount of time each injured player is expected to be out. The injury report was created to prevent gamblers from gaining inside information about injuries from players. As a result, NFL teams must report on the status of injured players on a set schedule during the season. The standard severity descriptions are "out" (will not play in the coming game); "doubtful" (25% chance of playing); "questionable" (50% chance of playing); or "probable" (75% chance of playing). Teams have been known to downplay, exaggerate or overly detail their teams' injuries in an attempt to confuse or mislead upcoming opponents. [2]
Injured players may be placed on one of several injured lists. Players on the Physically Unable to Perform list may not practice, but do count towards the team's 53-man roster limit. If a player is injured in an event outside of a game or team practice, or during collegiate practice prior to being drafted, they are eligible for the Nonfootball Injury list. Players who have sustained major injuries and are not expected to will not play for the rest of the season may be placed on the Injured Reserve list. These players do not count towards the teams' roster limit. [3]References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
One query here—in looking at the article, there's currently a Statistics section, which seems like it mostly contains information that could be rolled into Injuries and the Brain Injury section. We could then get rid of Statistics entirely, since it's just a bulleted list without context. What do other editors think? Should we try to work the details from Statistics, where relevant, into the rest of the article?
And while we're on the topic, there's a paragraph at the end of the Statistics section under the heading Statistics on injuries other then concussions that's poorly formatted, unsourced, and doesn't seem horribly relevant to the section that it occurs in nor the article as a whole. I'd like to propose that that paragraph be deleted.
Because of my financial COI, I won't make any edits here directly. Instead, I'm hoping that volunteer editors can take a look at my suggestions—both the redrafting of the Injuries section and removal of the last paragraph under Statistics—and, if they seem okay, go ahead and implement them in the article. If you have any questions or concerns, though, I'm all ears! Cheers, ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Football is a full-contact sport, and injuries are relatively common. Most injuries occur during training sessions, particularly ones that involve contact between players.[53] To try and prevent injuries, players are required to wear a set of equipment. At a minimum players must wear a football helmet and a set of shoulder pads, but individual leagues may require additional padding such as thigh pads and guards, knee pads, chest protectors, and mouthguards.[54][55][56] Most injuries occur in the lower extremities, particularly in the knee, but a significant number also affect the upper extremities. The most common types of injuries are strains, sprains, bruises, fractures, dislocations, and concussions.[53] Concussions are particularly concerning,[57] as repeated concussions can increase a person's risk in later life for chronic traumatic encephalopathy and mental health issues such as dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression.[58] Concussions are often caused by helmet-to-helmet or upper-body contact between opposing players, although helmets have prevented more serious injuries such as skull fractures.[59] Various programs are aiming to reduce concussions by reducing the frequency of helmet-to-helmet hits; USA Football's "Heads Up Football" program is aiming to reduce concussions in youth football by teaching coaches and players about the signs of a concussion, the proper way to wear football equipment and ensure it fits, and proper tackling methods that avoid helmet-to-helmet contact.[60]
Please find below some improvements that I'd like to propose for the "Brain injuries" subsection of this article. As mentioned above, I'm currently working on behalf of the NFLPA in order to improve football-related articles on Wikipedia, so I won't make any edits myself.
As a quick overview of what I've changed:
Finally, the last two paragraphs of this section in the current article relate to injury prevention, so I haven't addressed them in these revisions. I'm thinking we should move those to the Prevention to Injuries section for now, and deal with it when we look at that section.
Here's the language I'd like to propose:
In 1994, the NFL established the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, which was later replaced by the Head, Neck and Spine Committee, to study concussions and brain injuries in professional football players. The committee and its leadership, including Dr. Ira Casson and Dr. Elliot Pellman, have been criticized by former players for stating that there is not enough research to determine if concussions lead to permanent brain injury. [1] [2] Pellman, who served as chairman of the committee from 1994 to 2007, was criticized because he did not have a background in neurology and because the research he published disagreed with the findings of independent scientists. [3] [1]
In 2009, a NFL-commissioned report showed increased incidence of diagnosis of memory loss and dementia among retired professional football players when compared to the general population. The study indicated that these symptoms were related to the effects of concussions. However, the NFL and the report's own researchers questioned the reliability of some of the data-gathering methods employed by the study, including the fact that the study was conducted by phone. [4] [5] The same year, the committee first acknowledged that concussions can lead to long-term brain injuries. [6]
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the issue of head injuries in professional football in a 2012 talk at the Harvard School of Public Health. In the talk, he highlighted the NFL's efforts to reduce head injuries by penalizing hits to the head, better assessing concussions on the sideline, and removing players from the game. He also discussed the need for increased research on brain injuries and long-term disorders, and called for a culture change in the league, saying that players need to be more willing to acknowledge their injuries to medical staff. [7]
Beginning in 2012, the NFL was the subject of several lawsuits initiated by former players who alleged that the league withheld information and misled players about the potential long-term impacts of head injuries. Six of the lawsuits were approved to be tried together. [6] In August 2013, the NFL reached a settlement with more than 4,500 former players, agreeing to pay $765 million. This money is to be used to pay for medical examinations for former NFL players and for research and education purposes. The funds will also be used to compensate former players who are determined to have significant cognitive impairment. [8]
Concussions are also an issue outside of professional football. In a 2010 study by Purdue University and Indiana University, an estimated 43,000 to 67,000 players suffer a concussion every season. However, because many injuries go unreported, that number may exceed 100,000. The study, "Functionally-Detected Cognitive Impairment in High School Football Players Without Clinically Diagnosed Concussion", published in 2013 in the Journal of Neurotrauma observed 21 high school players throughout a season and determined that even players who would not be diagnosed with a concussion based on their symptoms can display notable impairments via MRIs and verbal or cognitive testing, indicating that the current tests used on the sideline to assess concussions may not be adequate. [9] [10]References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
I'm definitely open to comments and questions, but if everything looks okay here, could someone move this over into the article? Thanks! ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 19:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've been taking a look at the Effects on post-career life section, and the last two paragraphs here aren't about post-career effects at all. The last one is about rules to prevent certain kinds of injuries—should we look at rolling that into the Prevention section?
The next-to-last paragraph is actually about heat-related injuries. I can take a look at shoring it up and adding citations, but where to put it? Maybe as a section paragraph right under "Injuries"? What do people think? Let me know and I can work on revising and sourcing it.
Finally, here's the slightly tweaked paragraph for the new post-career effects section. It was pretty solid in the first place, so I've only made a few changes to wording here. Note that the section previously had two references—a peer-reviewed study, and the other a blog post about the study. Since the blog post is a less strong source and unneeded, I've gone ahead and removed it.
Also, since the section is shorter, I moved the image to be right-aligned, which seems like it will cause fewer alignment issues, but not tied to that by any means—whatever looks best when the change is made good by me.
References
Let me know if you have any questions here! Cheers, ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey again Toa! Sorry again for the delay here, but I finally put together a short blurb about fatalities in high school and college football, based on a journal article:
References
What do you think? Cheers, ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 19:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought I'd go over the copy on this as an outside editor while you were waiting on the GAN. Something from the lead is rather striking off the top, however:
These two sentences clearly don't jibe, unless you want to make a weird semantic distinction between "catastrophic" and "severe." I understand citations in the lead are annoying, but in this case I think it worthwhile to look at the sources again and decide whether injuries are going up or down and cite accordingly at first mention. Dontreadalone ( talk) 04:55, 10 January 2014
Well, I'm not sure who's still watching as I got no reply to my last but I did want to detail some feedback on the main Injuries section. First off, the four subsections don't thematically match—does it make sense to have subsections on leagues under the heading "Injuries"? And aren't brain injuries actually a type of catastrophic injury? I find it unfocused. In a similar vein, I find the switch between a solely NFL focus to high school/college data a bit disorienting. The Brain subsection is all about the NFL; the next section doesn't even mention the league. I think most everything you need is here but the compartmentalization is off. Dontreadalone ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have a few additional suggestions for changes that I think could be made to this article. Most are pretty minor, but there are some thoughts about adding in new information—I'm curious about editors thoughts on these points. As previously indicated, I'm working on this article at the behest of the NFLPA, so I won't be making any edits to this article directly.
References
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
References
Let me know if there are any questions or comments. I'd appreciate if any changes that seem ok could be moved over to the article. Cheers! ChrisPond ( Talk · COI) 20:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've drafted a few sentences about HGH and performance-enhancing drugs. After reviewing the article, I think it might make the most sense to include this general information in the Injuries section, just before the breakdown into NFL and high school/college, rather than having it inside those two sections, since much of it applies to both.
Performance-enhancing drugs are an issue in both high-school and professional-level football. [1] Use of steroids has been linked to greater musculoskeletal injuries among players. [2] Side effects of HGH can include diabetes and negatively impact joints and organs, though there have been no studies of human growth hormone (HGH) use in NFL athletes. [3] NFL players are routinely subject to drug tests in accordance with the NFL's two substance policies. Players found using performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, can face suspension and other penalties. [4] As of 2014, the league does not test for HGH. [5]
References
What do you think about adding this information into the article? Other input from any other editors who might be watching is also welcome! Cheers ChrisPond ( Talk · COI)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This has been under review for too long, so I'll give this a shot. It may take me a week or two to do the whole article though since my Wiktime is limited.
Wizardman
18:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are some issues I found to start off, just through the high school injury section so far:
Will try to knock out the other half of the article tomorrow, if not it'll probably end up being next weekend. Wizardman 03:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I read through the article a couple more times and, rather than add nitpicks, I just copyedited and made any small changes myself given that you had to wait six months for a review. The article now passes GA status. Wizardman 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Health issues in American football. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Health issues in American football. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Many of the studies and sources of information in this article are at least 5 years old , if not older. Now a days, technology is rapidly changing which means lots of things can change within a 5 year time period. The information and context of the article is great but I think newer sources and studies would make this article more current and better overall. Zakattak13 ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see a brief (perhaps stub-length) article on the Harvard Football Players Study [1] and on the Boston University ( BUSPH) Football Players Health Study. MaynardClark ( talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Devonte04 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Janaegreene3455 ( talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)