Talk:Chad Johnson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the third game of this run Chad gained 129 yards from scrimmage, but only 123 receiving yards according to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JohnCh01/gamelog/ He had a 6 yard run to bring him to 129 from scrimmage.Bostonjoker (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I side with him. But I can take a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.14.186 (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I work in the front office with the New England Patriots, I can confirm this information is true add it to Chad's profile.

On

When you can provide a reliable source then you can add it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you were in the Pats' front office and reported it here before it was official you'd be fired and the team would face tampering charges. Come on man! I know my comments are 5 months late, but it seemed too funny to pass on. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there's a section devoted to the riverdance jig thing why not expand it to include all of his more famous celebrations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvde (talk • contribs)

One thing for certain is that it is unreadable.

There should be a section for celebrations and fines. His continual head-butting with the league and escalating fines are well known and referenced. He just got another fine for $30,000 today (with the last one being $20,000). It's clear he enjoys post-TD celebrations and enjoys antagonizing the league (he changed his name just to have OCHOCINCO on his jersey after the league fined him, clearly playing 'chicken' with them). While I haven't read his book (or asked him on twitter), I would imagine even he considers his celebrations an important part of his game (and easily worth mentioning on his Wiki since I'm sure many people come here to read up on past celebrations and history of fines). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.187.4 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be featured in the beginning of the article as a summary of the person. Maybe lower in the article. Perry 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Need I justify my actions? ;) The article was tagged for Clean Up for its grotesque presentation and unilateral juxtaposition of random facts.  ;) If one feels the facts pertaining to Johnson's flamboyant actions over his career should really belong in the article; consider re-polishing it and re-adding each entry in bullet point format. Personally, Show-Boating part of the article makes the article seem like it's from a fansite - as opposed to a Wikipedia Entry.

Oh Yes, the Quotes section of the article should be moved to WikiQuote --ShadowJester07 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving the quotes to WikiQuote. And I agree that much of the stuff was certainly editable, but I don't think we should delete almost all of what is there until it is in the ideal format of a Wikipedia page. Perhaps leave what is there and slowly transmute it to what it should look like and add cite requests where applicable. VegaDark 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the trivia section for a reason. It is frowned upon for featured articles to have. While this obviously isn't a featured article, that is the ultimate goal for all articles and it should be removed again and the info should be added to the body of the article as I had originally done. Also, you removed the following without explanation: "Having been named to four consecutive Pro Bowls, Chad is widely considered to be one of the best wide receivers in the NFL." This is not opinion, this is fact. Being named to the most recent Pro Bowl, let alone the last 4, inherently means you are widely considered to be one the best wide receivers in the NFL. VegaDark 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Randy Moss was named to five Pro Bowls ;-) I give him Kudos for the biggest disappearing act in NFL history during '05 Season. Nathan Vasher recorded a plethora interceptions, complimented by a stellar defensive performance during his '04 season, because of his teammates' horrific. Pro Bowl appearances are just a matter of popularity and razzle dazzel. However, the fact that he has lead the AFC in Rec. Yards for the past three years is something. While adding the sentence might lead to a whole pandora's box of latter controversy, let's just leave it out until he retires. :-p --ShadowJester07 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to add a picture of chad to the article. DvdBengals 18:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Luck finding a fair use image. --ShadowJester07 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

According to other pages, it's Keyshawn Johnson that is cousin to Samari Rolle, not Chad Johnson. Anyone have verification? TheGoogler 02:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Keyshawn and Chad Johnson ARE cousins, and Keyshawn Johnson IS Samari Rolle's cousin. They're all cousins. http://www.bengals.com/team/player.asp?player_id=8 that's official, on the Bengals website. I'm so proud of myself for checking a fact.--DavidFuzznut 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I noticed it said this was incorrectly stated on the Bengals media guide just now, so here is an article with quotes from both of them that should confirm their relationship http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/sports/102846,5_2_WA19_NFLBRIEFS_S1.article--DavidFuzznut 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On

Quadzilla99

03:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In a pregame interview before the Bengals/Panthers game in 2006 Chad and Keyshawn denied being cousins; it would appear Chad is Samari's cousin who is Keyshawn's cousin. The Bengal's media guide is not a particularly strong resource, since it's marketing.Aliquidparadigm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In the game the bengals played against carolina, Keyshawn said that they weren't really cousins. He said that everybody was thinking they were cousins because of their last names, so they just went with it.

Agreed, that would require a firm factual basis to make inclusion in this article, removing until someone gets a source. (and that will be a while).

someone should remove the "chad Johnson is the shit yaaaaaa" from the main part. I don't seem to know how. 139.142.48.152 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They're second cousins I'm pretty sure Keyshawn is Samari Rolle's cousin. Incidentally showing Chad handling a firearm isn't going to help the Bengals image lol.

Quadzilla99

20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

THEY ARE NOT COUSINS!!

His official website in the "personal bio" section says he is cousins with both. We can't get much more of a reliable source than that. VegaDark (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the proof that Chad "it is well known that he calls his girlfriend between quarters?" Website? ESPN? Specter01010 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's likely a falsehood. --ShadowJester07 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but if Chad Johnson's profile on NFL.com is correct, then he was born in Los Angeles, Calif.68.248.40.254 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't. The NFL page is wrong, he talks a lot about MIA and how he was born and raised there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splintersag (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure, because both ESPN and NFL.com say he was born in Los Angeles (though raised in Miami)? Moreover, neither of the sources that supposedly verify his birthplace actually verify his birthplace. So, there are currently zero sources that state that he was born in Miami and there are two respectable sources saying he was born in L.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.72 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently, a user moved this page to "Chad Johnson (wide receiver)" because of the article "Chad Johnson (cornerback". However, I think this page should remain at "Chad Johnson", and this is why: the Bengals receiver is by far the MUCH more notable football player - he's a four-time Pro Bowler and arguably one of the best receivers in the game. The cornerback is an undrafted free agent who was on the Vikings but is now a free agent. 99.9% of NFL fans have no idea who he is.

Because of this, I feel it is fine to leave this Chad Johnson as plain old Chad Johnson. Compare it to the aritlce Chicago. There are other uses for the word, such as Chicago (2002 film) but since the Illinois city is the most notable at all, it is located at simply "Chicago". I believe moving this page to "Chad Johnson (wide receiver)" would be like moving Chicago to "Chicago (U.S. city)."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually was considering this when I made the move. I suppose that since Chad Johsnon, the wide receiver for the Bengals, is the most popular one, doing a page move now would cause a bunch of soft redirects, which I'm sure nobody would want to resolve. Keep it the way it was before I moved it. Ksy92003(talk) 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chad Johnson should direct here, he is way more none than the other Chad Johnsons--Yankees10 02:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that chad might possibly be traded to the dolphins...any truth in this because if it is true then we need to add something about itBLUEballsBOY (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. he wishes he was traded. Cinnicinati is too smart to trade him. Don't worry about it cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a collection of OCHO CINCO cards and im pretty certain his birthplace is not in FloridaBLUEballsBOY (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

His website lists his hometown as Miami, Florida. While that does not necessarily equal birthplace, we have no sources to determine otherwise. If you find one, feel free to cite it and change appropriately. VegaDark (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NFL.com says Los Angeles. Given the fact that he grew up in Miami, what has likely happened is that he was born in L.A. but his hometown has been described as Miami, and that's gotten mistakenly represented as his birth place.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Should his birth place be changed then since, in fact, he was not born in Miami?BLUEballsBOY (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is, because Miami has been mistakenly passed around as his birthplace, both locations can be "sourced" as his birthplace.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would think it was LA cuz he went to oregon state. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant... he was still raised in Miami so that means jack.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, a "hometown" doesn't have to be where you were born. So he could have been born in LA and moved to miami. Nelson, my other post was relevant. Your just not thinking fourth dimensionally. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doc Brown.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a rumor in the sports blogging world that Chad Johnson has taken steps to legally change his last name to Ocho Cinco. Should such rumors pan out, it can be inserted into the article. Until then, it is just speculation that does not meet

It's been verified now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the criteria for moving the page to

Chad Ocho Cinco? Should the fact that it's now his legal name be enough to justify the move, or is he too well-known and established as Chad Johnson to move the page right now? --Savethemooses (talk

) 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

this rumor is not confirmed. it's still only a rumor, moreoever, he hasn't gotten his name change approved -user:theglobalcowboy —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. It has been reported, not rumored, but a reliable source that he legally changed his name. It does not need approval from the NFL.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should remain Chad Johnson per

WP:COMMONNAME. I created the Chad Ocho Cinco redirect. --Endlessdan

12:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 14:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it needs to be govt approved. And ESPN.com and all other mainstream sports outlets are not covering it yet. -user:theglobalcowboy —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong sir. In many ways.--208.51.72.2 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I saw them talking about it on ESPN's First Take this morning. -- SonicAD (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also being officially reported on bengals.com - Ocho Cinco 2.0. Weters (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think based on the fact that most people still know him as Chad Johnson and wikipedia says to use "

most common name of a person". Im pretty sure that most people know him as Chad Johnon and not Chad Ocho Cinco. We should change it back. Joesixpac (talk

) 12:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's time for Ocho Cinco on wiki. I can't believe he actually changed his name! What a guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't he still be referred to as Johnson for everything before his name change, and Ocho Cinco for after it? [Almty1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.12.235 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he won't change it back to Johnson eventually, but perhaps the Muhammad Ali entry can be used as an example. That entry seems to fairly consistently use the "Ali" name, not "Clay".Rbernard80 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I requested a page protect. A lot of the IP edits need to be reverted. Ie, the Bengals drafted Ocho Cinco.... This is incorrect, the Bengals draft Chad Johnson. --Endlessdan 12:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad Ali page refers to Ali as such multiple times before he changed his name to such. I think that if that is the case there, that referring to Johnson as Ocho Cinco before the name change can be just as ok. Whammies Were Here 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be Ocho Cinco throughout the article, as dumb as it sounds when reading it. 20 years from now, he will just be Chad Ocho Cinco, so when his name was changed will be irrelevant to talking about his past. The Ali example is a perfect one. You wouldn't refer to him by one name through part of the article and then by another name through the rest of it. He is Muhammad Ali.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should refer to Chad as "Ocho Cinco" throughout. However, in external references, the

2001 NFL Draft article, for example, I believe it should still say "Chad Johnson" because at that point in time, he was Chad Johnson. Same goes for the navbox on this page {{2007 Pro Bowl AFC starters}}. — X96lee15 (talk

) 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference between the article and the template. If you had a "Famous people from Lousville" template, would you put Ali or Cassius Clay? You'd put Ali, because now he is Ali and that's how he's known. In 20 years, he will be known as Chad Ocho Cinco.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely hilarious that he changed his name. I've been laughing hysterically all night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this jumping the gun a little bit? Shouldn't we wait until he's called this more widely by the press? I'm not so sure that I like the idea that we move an article two seconds after it's reported, and before we really know if the wider world will call him this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's common sense. The media will run away with this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, what one person deems common sense is nothing of the like to someone else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You could deem something else common sense if you felt like it, but it doesn't change what actually is common sense.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting such edits a bit, namely a big one a few minutes ago. it appears I'm in the wrong, although I'd suggest keeping everything at "Chad Johnson" and saying "Chad Johnson" until we're 100% sure everything is official and we're positive it'll stay official, and it's not a "September Fools" type thing. Semi-protect, edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop? Calor (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything prior to the name change should be "Johnson", not "Ocho Cinco".

This page is making me laugh so hard. 71.191.135.10 (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When he changes his name back to Chad Johnson after a month/season/trade to a team where 85 is taken, this talk page and it's assertion that he'll be known exclusivly as "Chad Ocho Cinco" in 20 years will be laughable. Also, comparing this to Muhammed Ali is laughable! It may be his legal name, but come on... it's a joke. -MichiganCharms (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that this will fail

WP:COMMON, as if you'll be hearing Phill Simms break down "Chad Ocho Cinco's" performance against the Browns at some point. -MichiganCharms (talk

) 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Michigancharms. Ali is referred to as Ali because that is what he is actually called. Do you think for a second that anyone is seriously going to refer to this guy as Chad Oucho Cinco for a prolonged amount of time. Not to mention, the sudden change makes part of the article laughably(sp?) bad. "On October 25, 2006, in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month, Ocho Cinco announced he would prefer to be called, "Ocho-Cinco" ("8-5" in Spanish)." SirChuckB (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you are wrong. To stop editing the article based on the likelihood that he will change his name back later sounds to me like a violation of

WP:CRYSTAL. Fishyfred (talk

) 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the assumption. First of all, it fails

WP:COMMON to constantly refer to him as "Chad Ocho Cinco" as though that name were serious. We don't have to be slaves to verifable facts, use logic and reason. Things like this are why people think this project is a joke. -MichiganCharms (talk

) 06:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's his damn LEGAL name. It doesn't matter if it's a joke. It doesn't matter if it's the most asinine name you've heard in the entire existence of your being. What matters is that legally, on his bank accounts, on his paycheck, on his legal documents, on his driver's license, it will now say Chad Ocho Cinco. You can call it the dumbest thing to happen in the history of humanity, but it's not the same thing as your examples, because this isn't a nickname that we're trying to pass off as a common-place name used for him. It's his legally recognized name. To not recognize him as such for any reason you ASSUME will happen in the future is not a legitimate reason because of

WP:CRYSTAL. The whole world could assume that he'll change it in six months. Doesn't matter. THIS is his legal name. Period. President David Palmer (talk

) 06:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to you bringing the articles on

WP:COMMONNAME --MichiganCharms (talk

) 07:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's legal name is Bob Dylan. President David Palmer (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider Cat Stevens as well... his official name is Yusuf Islam, and it has been for years, but his page is still listed as Cat Stevens. More over, in his article, he is referenced as both Stevens and Islam. Personally, I think this whole name thing is ridiculous and that he should remain Chad Johnson for now... 20 years from now when he MIGHT actually be known as 'Ocho Cinco', the encyclopedia can recognize him as it then. --pl07442

nfl.com hasn't changed it yet. Corvus cornix_talk 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Cat Stevens example is a strong one.

talk

) 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think though with Cat Stevens being his stage name, and not his real name, I would think that would be taken into account. Whammies Were Here 10:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To the person that asked above, yes, I guarantee you the commentators will call him Ocho Cinco. They might actually say Johnson at times, but the media will comply with this and call him Ocho Cinco. Cat Stevens is called Cat Stevens because that's how he is known. Chad Ocho Cinco is not the equivalent of Yusuf Islam, it's the equivalent of Cat Stevens.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And not no one is saying the article doesn't read like a joke now. It does. It sounds stupid as hell. But talk to Chad Ocho Cinco about that, not us. Blame him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreal. No one should take that guy seriously. Someone smack the judge that allowed him to do it. Take a look at

Yusuf Islam. They still use Cat Stevens as the title of the page. I think we should do the same. At least he did it for religious reasons. Chad Johnson is just a media attention whore. I bet ESPN will have half hour specials focusing on the name change. Ridiculous! --FourteenClowns (talk

) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should the judge be smacked? It's his right to change his name to whatever he wants. We might think it's dumb, and maybe it is, but there's nothing wrong with him being allowed to do it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to go along with his absurdity.

WP:COMMONNAME gives us an out. Powers ^T

15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A minor question--if he changed his name to Chad Ocho Cinco, but without a hyphen between the last two names, shouldn't he be refered to as "Cinco" throughout? --mcglotda —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because his full surname is Ocho Cinco. Think of it as... Van Buren.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the ESPN article referencing the name change, they say he changed his name to "ocho cinco", but continue to use "Johnson" throughout the article when referring to him. I'm curious as to what the box scores will use; I have a feeling he will remain as "Chad Johnson" in print and announcers will make the obligatory "Ocho Cinco name change reference", then continue to call him "CJ". — X96lee15 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously they'd still call him Johnson in the article about the name change, as he's just becoming Chad Ocho Cinco. Once people find out about the name change, then he'll be called by his new name. It wouldn't make sense to call him Ocho Cinco in the article about his name change, because the article is the first piece explaining the name change.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And because of that reasoning, I'm inclined to think the article right now should be named "Chad Johnson". — X96lee15 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:TheChad89 made a good point when it moved the article. He pointed out that Chad Johnson no longer exists. That is a key difference between a pen name (like Mark Twin) or a stage name (like Cat Stevens). Chad Johnson is not the name of an NFL football player anymore. Chad Johnson no longer exists. It is not a pen name, stage name, a nickname. It is his former legal name, which has since been replaced.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How can Chad Ocho Cinco be more common than Chad Johnson? Please some show me a policy or guideline to back up moving the article to Chad Ocho Cinco. Per

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 19:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected. Will somebody please correct the following, "Ocho Cinco is a cousin of former NFL wide receiver Keyshawn Ocho Cinco-Uno Nueve and current NFL cornerback Samari Rolle." Keyshawn Johnson has not changed his name. Kevin.j.hutchison (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the title of the article has been officially changed to Chad Ocho Cinco, I want to start a new section about the naming convention. Referring to

I think we should let it go since it's inevitable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave at

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Chad Ocho Cinco, not Chad 85.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, I know that... 85 is easier to type Chris.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you wouldn't want to pass out from the exhaustion of typing Ocho Cinco.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooohh "sarcasm," that works real well over the web Chris...

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That response made no sense.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "Sarcasm, when used on the internet, usually does not properly convey what the writer intended, as the receiver of the sarcasm cannot read the body language of the writer, nor can they understand whether the intended affect is a small joke or a snide comment. If one wants to avoid drama and confusion, one should just clearly state what they intend to convey." Why are we even discussing this?

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You immediately identified it as sarcasm, therefore there was no confusion. Hence, your comment made zero sense. Why are we discussing it? Because you made an senseless comment and I'm trying to help you. I believe in you.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of you dilweeds stfu. This is getting annoying...

I think it should be changed to Ocho Cinco. It is his real name now. Chad Johnson doesn't exist anymore. He's Chad Ocho Cinco now, which is actually eight five, not eighty five. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from gheying up the talk page. As far as I'm concerned your just a spam nub. I wish I had Pierces powers to lock this section... HPJoker Leave me a message 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If I ever make a personal attack, I'll take that into consideration.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, i fail to see how being called a tasty seasoning is a personal attack, but HP, you know you're calling an admin a Gay and a Spam n00b? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I do, and do I really care? No. I have a game to watch and this is getting pathetic. You guys use AIM or something and if this has to do with what I left on your talk page, don't put it on Chad's page, put it on my talk page. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 19:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Chad Johnson is nobody now, not a real name. Just like how former Cardinal Robert Moore is a nobody now because he changed his name to Ahmad Rashad, which Wikipedia uses. Johnson is a nickname and nothing more, just like The Rocket is a nickname for Raghib Ismail, but Raghib is the name used on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think the name should be one way or another because this is intended to be a non-opinionated website. Furthermore, because his current name will be used on jerseys and other apparel and in sports booths and stat sheets, it will become his better known name. If Johnson had become Muslim and changed his name because of that, it would be changed on Wikipedia and this wouldn't even be an issue. The issue is that many people are of the opinion that this is a joke and don't want to support it, even though it's a serious issue because it's been taken to a serious level.TheChad89 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep on saying that this is a non-opinionated website, yet you keep on asserting your opinion without giving evidence to back up your assertion. You also state "it will become his better known name," again that is your opinion. Wikipedia needs

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I love the way you guys debate this as if it had the least amount of impact on anything meaningful. Seriously, it makes me feel better about my own life. 71.187.217.155 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to know someone ends up happy... Back on topic, stop the move and revert warring. Leave it as is, wait until the NFL season starts, and watch Bengals highlights. A week, ten days tops won't kill anyone. If Phil Simms says "Palmer throws the deep ball to Ocho Cinco", and everyone else follows suit, so be it, move the page to Chad Ocho Cinco. If Phil Simms says "Palmer hooks up with Johnson for the score", then so be it, and leave the article at Chad Johnson. Edit warring gets nobody anywhere, and the end result is a bunch of frustrated people shouting at each other, with little progress made. Calor (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is just hilarious, really. I think Calor hit the nail on the head; just be patient. If they start calling him "Chad Ocho Cinco" on TV, newspapers, etc., then we can move the page. Seriously, this much wikidrama or whatever it is is just unnecessary. Just be patient and time will tell what this article will be called; all we can do is wait.   jj137 (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying anything should change based on this one occurrence, but the AP has adopted the practice of calling him Ocho Cinco. Could have a domino effect.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Bengals announced that Chad Johnson will be referred to as "Chad Ocho Cinco for all club business" from here on.

Johnson will wear "Ocho Cinco" as his last name and will be listed as such on the team website."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And he is now listed as such all over the site, including his personal page. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with keeping the current arrangement (Johnson in the title, Ocho Cinco in the text) until consensus can be reached? -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Having title saying A and text saying B is just messy and unencyclopedic. Both the title and the text should read the same name. I would immensely prefer it stays Chad Johnson until we're week or two into the NFL season and we see what Chad is predominantly called by the media, and then fix the article accordingly when consensus backed up with sources is reached. I am, however, perfectly willing to help transition the article to Chad Ocho Cinco if he is indeed called "Chad Ocho Cinco" or "Ocho Cinco" by the majority of journalists and broadcasters, but I would like to see

reliable sources calling him Ocho Cinco before we change the article. Calor (talk

) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what journalists call him, the fact remains that his LEGAL NAME is Chad Javon Ocho Cinco, and that's how he should be filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.118.226 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all irrelevant; read

WP:COMMONNAMES, and look at Mark Twain, Jeb Bush, and Cat Stevens, none of which are titled with the subject's legal name. Powers ^T

13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And another thing: Why is the page titled "Chad Johnson" and yet he is referred to as "Ocho Cinco" all throughout the page? Danno2530, 12:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 05:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(

WP:COMMONNAMES. I give you Shoeless Joe Jackson. Do you think his legal first name was "Shoeless Joe"? I think not. I also give you Mitt Romney

. His legal name is Willard Romney, yet his page goes by his most common name. If George Bush was widely known as Hunga Bunga Georgie Boy, not as George Bush, his article would be at Hunga Bunga Georgie Boy. Right now, he has always been called Chad Johnson, and the newest incident is often introduced in the news as "Chad Johnson has legally changed his name to Chad Ocho Cinco". That may change, but for the time being, he is widely known as Chad Johnson, and his article should reflect that fact.

As for the title being Johnson and the text being Ocho Cinco: I have no clue. Calor (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This page currently reads ridiculously. I don't care what he changed his name to, replacing every instance of Johnson to Ocho Cinco makes it seem as if he has been named that throughout that whole time. I think we should only start using "Ocho Cinco" when talking about events that occurred after the name change (meaning 99% of this article should still use Johnson). VegaDark (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed some of the uses to pronouns, because in either case it just read weirdly. Regardless of whether we end up using "Ocho Cinco" or "Johnson", it doesn't make sense for five sentences in a row about the person, in an article on the person with no ambiguity, to conspicuously avoid saying "he". --Delirium (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a lot of users who don't understand Wikipedia policy. Anyway, the common use of Chad Johnson can be sourced... look at his NFL.com player page, the Bengals website, his personal website and numerous press reports from just yesterday about Rudi Johnson's release. On the flip side, all of the Google hits for Chad Ocho Cinco are articles about the name change and this Wiki page. We should go with what can be sourced. --MichiganCharms (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ESPN currently reporting on Chad Johnson's shoulder injury. -MichiganCharms (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another argument against calling him "Ocho Cinco" throughout. If you look at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's page, when discussing his college career and rookie year in the NBA, he's referred to as "Alcindor." He is only referred to as Abdul-Jabbar for events that take place after he had changed his name. Iowamutt (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

However, you look at the Muhammad Ali page, like I mentioned earlier, and he is called Ali, even in his Cassius Clay days. Whammies Were Here 10:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I second all of the above arguments against using "Ocho Cinco" repeatedly in the text. It looks ridiculous. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ridiculousness" is subjective and not a legitimate reason. It's irrelevant.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I ask you to walk down the street wearing backwards pajamas, a 70s leisure suit, a Darth Vader helmet, a devil's tail and a rubber glove stretched over your head. If anyone laughs, tell them ridiculousness is subjective and irrelevant. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But ridiculousness is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. You don't exclude information you find to be ridiculous because that is not objective, nor would you avoid calling someone by their legal name if you happened to find it ridiculous. "Ridiculousness" is nothing more than an opinion, and therefore without question irrelevant to the encyclopedia. You're wrong, it's as simple as that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We should include ridiculous facts, but we should not write in a ridiculous manner. To refer to #85 as Chad Ocho Cinco throughout the article when all of the media outlets are still calling him by his given name is ridiculous, or whatever you want to call it, and inconsistent with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Note that comments like "You're wrong, it's as simple as that" do not contribute to the solving of this issue and are contrary to the Wikipedia culture of cooperation and mutual respect. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article being written in a "ridiculous manner" is, once again, only your opinion. There's not an issue for me to contribute toward solving.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously people, this stuff needs to stop. What do you expect to get accomplished with this much arguing going on?   jj137 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The roster at the Bengals website has changed now, as has the AP's standard. Is it time to pull the trigger?

Led His Team?

Is it appropriate to say that he "led his team to an 11-1 record"? Don't get me wrong, I'm an Ocho Cinco fan, but he is a wide reciever, and that's not a position that people generally say "leads" a team, such as a quaterback might. Before you ask, I don't have any particular fix in mind. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that kind of language should not be used.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Retitle?

Since his name is now legally Chad Ocho Cinco should the article be retitled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See the above sections. Let's not start another huge argument. Calor (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Bengals officially recognizing the new name

The Bengals have said they will call him Ocho Cinco from now on: [1]. Corvus cornix_talk 21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's enough for me. I was against the move before; now I am for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, I don't think. Most people still know him as Chad Johnson, and per

WP:COMMONNAME that means we should still call him Chad Johnson. If a couple of months pass and it becomes clear that the new name has caught on, we can still change it back. -- Mwalcoff (talk

) 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's legally Ocho Cinco, and the NFL recognizes it as such, and he wants to be known as such, why can't he be referenced as such? I don't get it - I don't even see the argument for the other side. It doesn't matter how it reads. Vamsilly (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)vamsilly

Please read

WP:COMMONNAME. -- Mwalcoff (talk

) 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; he has LEGALLY changed his name;

WP:COMMONNAME does not apply in that sense. --Mhking (talk

) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Mark Twain and all the other people whose articles are not titled with their legal names. Powers ^T 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The name has been legally changed Chad Ocho Cinco; also, the NFL and the Bengals recognize the name [2], [3]. I would suggest moving to the new name and redirecting the old name there. --Mhking (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The same thing happened earlier this baseball season when

Fight on!

00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems this would be a great chance to use

WP:IAR Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!}

00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every media outlet across the country (ESPN.com, Yahoo!, etc.) is now recognizing him as Ocho Cinco. I think it is embarassing for Wiki that they are refusing to make this change. The site is losing a ton of credibility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.169.20 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change. Wikipedia has not "lost credibility" because of this though.

masterka

00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Snuck it in before the move protection, huh? Nice. Why did you make a change that obviously does not have consensus? Powers ^T 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- you're an admin, so you get to move the article even though it's under move protection? Nice. Real nice. Powers ^T 01:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one opposing it.

masterka

01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, Mwalcoff opposes it, too, but I think there's a consensus to move it. Corvus cornix_talk 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several more in prior sections; you can't expect them all to have chimed in in the last five hours. Regardless, I maintain that overriding the move protection was bad form. Powers ^T 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

reset indent

I agree with the change, especially now that the NFL and the Bengals recognize the new name. However if the title is "Ocho Cinco," then the references in the text should be Ocho Cinco as well, e.g. "Ocho Cinco had 1,000 yards" as opposed to "Johnson had 1,000 yards." The page would look more consistant and neat. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, a point having to do with

WP:COMMONNAMES, Ocho Cinco, the Bengals, and even the No Fun League, recognize him as Chad Ocho Cinco. If he continues to be referred to as Chad Johnson by the media on an almost unanimous basis, then move the page back, however it should be O. C. for now Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me}

01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm too tired of this to argue, I still have yet to see a media source refer to him as Chad Ocho Cinco besides mentioning that was now his legal name... but consensus wins out. Viva Ocho Cinco --01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCharms (talk • contribs)

The official Bengals page for him [4] calls him "Chad Ocho Cinco" at the top but still refers to him as Johnson in the text on the page. Corvus cornix_talk 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody PLEASE put a space between his last name and the parenthesis in the very first line? It's such an obvious grammatical flaw that needs to be fixed. celticsfan1983

?? There is a space. Corvus cornix_talk 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Bengals have said they will call him Ocho Cinco from now on, that is his correct name, at least in regard to football. Raggz (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Current status

Yahoo Sports: Chad Ocho Cinco [5]
ESPN.com: Chad Ocho Cinco [6]
Cincinnati Bengals: Chad Ocho Cinco [7]
NFL.com: Chad Johnson [8]
Fox Sports: Chad Ocho Cinco [9]

It appears there's been some changes since this debate began. It's official, the world has gone crazy. Anyway, I can see the logic behind renaming the page to Chad Ocho Cinco and referring to him as Ocho Cinco in the present tense, even though I would be more conservative than those media outlets and wait a couple of weeks to see if his new name catches on before doing so. Either way, I still think it's anachronistic to talk about what "Ocho Cinco" did in college, since he was still named Chad Johnson at the time. I suggest we take the approach of the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar article and refer to him as Chad Johnson when discussing his career before his name change. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having it change in the middle of the article reads worse in my opinion. You just have to think about how it will read 20 years from now. He'll be Ocho Cinco to everyone, and no one will think anything of a sentence like "Ocho Cinco attended high school in Miami" or whatever. You're talking about a man's entire life, but that man is currently named Ocho Cinco and therefore it's perfectly acceptable to call him that when referring to any point in his life.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so using that logic, suppose I am

Tony Gonzalez. I am a reliable TE with good hands, correct? But suppose this year I drop 30 passes, and receive the name butterfingers. Now, would it be fair to refer to me as butterfingers earlier in my career, when I was a reliable TE with good hands? Or should I just be called butterfingers when talking about that point in my career? RC-0722 ^361.0/1

03:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure it does, you're just not thinking fourth dimensionally. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Chris, it made as much sense as your comment. :D Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my comment was logical. His example was not comparable. A player earning a nickname of Butterfingers would have nothing to do with the naming of his article or his name throughout it. His example makes no sense at all and is in no way similar to Ocho Cinco's.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, "Ocho Cinco" should be used throughout this article, even for events that occurred before the name change. However, on article such as

2001 NFL Draft and {{2007 Pro Bowl AFC starters}}, he should be referred to as "Chad Johnson" since, from their perspectives, he was "CJ" at that time. — X96lee15 (talk

) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't know what will happen 20-30 yrs. from now, Chris. We should focus on the here and now. I do agree with having it say one name all through the article though. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 04:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. My point was not that things will be different years from now. My point was that, once this is old news and the name change itself has taken a backseat to his public name, it will not seem weird to refer to him by his current name regardless of the point in life about which you're talking. I believe the recency of the name change is the only thing that makes it feel odd to call him that at any point.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To try and make that a little clearer: at this point, he's just become Chad Ocho Cinco, so in our minds we still think of him as Chad Johnson and feel like we should refer to him by his old name for certain points in his life. However, years down the road, as has happened with people like Muhammad Ali, the name change itself becomes only a minor detail and in our minds he simply is Muhammad Ali. I don't think anyone here would say there's something wrong with saying "Muhammad Ali grew up in [location]" or "Muhammad Ali won a gold medal in 1960." It's not weird because, although his name was not Muhammad Ali then, his identity to us now is that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I understand now. Thanks. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand, I was worried I was only making it more confusing. It makes sense to me and I know what I mean, but it's difficult to articulate in text.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Chris' talkpage. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what makes it feel odd is that it's a dumb publicity stunt. Your prediction that in 20 years everyone will know him as "Chad Ocho Cinco" may come true, but it's ridiculous to assume it will. Powers ^T 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering it's his legal name, it's certainly not ridiculous to assume. Nothing has to change for him to be named Chad Ocho Cinco in 20 years.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you're seriously insulting everyone's intellegence if you believe that people in the future won't know the difference between someone who changed their name because of a religious conversion (like Ali) and someone who changed their name to get their nickname on a jersey. If you honestly don't see a difference, well yeesh. And since you want to play the guessing game, there is nothing to prove the NFL negotiates an exemption to let him do it and be named Johnson and he changes it back. Or that after the novelty wears off (which it's already starting to) that he just says forget it and changes it back. There are far too many variables here. Not that baseless specualtion belongs on wikipedia at all, see

WP:CRYSTAL --MichiganCharms (talk

) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He's legally changed his name to Ocho Cinco. Unless he says in an interview that he has plans to change it back, than it should stay as Ocho Cinco, per

Wikipedia's Crystal Ball policy. Yes it's a publicity stunt, but the article clearly states that. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk)

22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, we don't care what someone's legal name is. Why does everyone keep bringing it up? There are countless other articles in which we don't use the subject's legal name as the title. Powers ^T 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the title of the article, I understand the reasons for the change. But I still think that in order to maintain a professional tone in the body of the article it should still refer to him as Johnson, or at the very least Chad. The entire thing reads like a joke right now. Quote any wikipedia policy you want, articles that sound unprofessional will carry little credibility. Sometimes you just have to 'see the forest' and go with substance over legal form. 208.103.249.247 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's his legal name how does it read as a joke?--E tac (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what his legal name is; if the media uses it and it's his common name it should be used entirely here. Whether or not you think it reads ridiculously is subjective and irrelevant.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, my thoughts are subjective and irrelevant and of course yours are not. Thank you for showing me the err of my ways. I now know not to express my own thoughts and ideas because they are subjective and irrelevant and in the future I will consult with you first to make sure that they are in agreement with what is right.--E tac (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are being a child.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(9/21/2008) Yahoo Sports: Chad Johnson [10]
ESPN.com: Chad Johnson [11]
Cincinnati Bengals: Chad Ocho Cinco [12]
NFL.com: Chad Johnson [13]
Fox Sports: Chad Johnson [14]

Way to violate wikipedia's no personal attacks policy by calling me a child and look at when your sources are dated (which by the way meant nothing to you when they went against what you thought belonged in the article). At the time of my post he was being refered to by yahoo sports and the like as Chad Ocho Cinco. The only reason they changed back is because Reebok wont let him wear it on his jersey due to there still being Chad Johnson jerseys on shelves at stores.--E tac (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted this on the original Chad Johnson page but it didn't seem to take:

Interested persons should review (again, as I'm *sure* you've done it already) the page on [[|Wikipedia:Naming_conventions|Wikipedia's naming policy]] and in particular the criteria on

common names)

.

This page in a nutshell: Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous. Titles should make linking to the article simple.

I've been following this for the past month and it appears that all major news sources continue to refer to said football player as Chad Johnson. (Where are the folks who used the apparent prevalance of Ocho Cinco in the "major news sources" *for* the change now??) And it would be hard to convince a reasonable person that Mr. Johnson is commonly referred to as Chad OchoCinco (as opposed to his nickname Ocho Cinco). This is why we have pages called Tom Cruise and Meg Ryan, among other countless examples. It also affects the page's functionality as the linking criterion suggests. Finally, controversial name changes (in real life and in wikipedia) should err on the side of caution and status quo, as the naming policy indicates. I am open to opposing arguments, of course. Huangdi (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5483/news--E tac (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though there is far from a consensus among news sources. Compare the results on news.google.com for Chad Johnson (about 10,669 this moment) vs Chad Ocho Cinco (about 3,678). But of course there's the minor detail that on Sep 28 his jersey still read "C. Johnson" and the announcers kept calling him "Johnson".

"Ocho Cinco" advocates comparing to Tom Cruise or Meg Ryan totally miss the point. Those people became famous under their adopted names. "Chad Ocho Cinco" has only existed for a month and hasn't made an impact on the public consciousness that even approaches "Chad Johnson". The man can't even wear his new name because his sponsors don't want to lose the marketability of his old one. That should be a sign of what his "common" name is. A better comparison might be Ol' Dirty Bastard announcing that he would change his name to "Big Baby Jesus". It takes more than saying it to make it so.

Also missing the point are debates over legality and motivation. How or why he changed his name is not important. Neither has anything to do with WP:COMMONNAMES. You would have to argue that there are more searches going on for "Chad Ocho Cinco" than for "Chad Johnson" and I don't see anyone claiming that is the case. --squirrel (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ocho Cinco vs. OchoCinco

TheSmokingGun claims to have the legal documents in the name change, and it has the new legal name as Chad Javon OchoCinco, with no space. There are limitless reports already that his last name is Ocho Cinco. Does TSG article hold any weight? --Zimbabweed (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NFL calls him Ocho Cinco so theres that --Twlighter (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is just further proof of what a massive farce this is. Regardless, the opening sentence should use his real name and it should be explained. His name is Chad OchoCinco. -MichiganCharms (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But the legal documents changed his last name to Ochocinco, not Ocho Cinco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.155.27 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It should still be Ocho Cinco per common name. There is no media outlet I know if that does it without the space.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an article move to

WP:MOSBIO. --Zimbabweed (talk

) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that says his name is "OchoCinco"? Powers ^T 10:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CNBC, among others, although it looks like it's Ochocinco (all lowercase). --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely, so now this article is at a completely absurd title (instead of just mostly absurd), and still move protected. What ridiculousness. Powers ^T 15:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing ridiculous about it. If you have a problem with it, maybe you should try and get the U.S. government to outlaw name changes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He is saying it's absurd because it is titled something other than his name, which is apparently Ochocinco with no space. I'd say, fix all occurrences to at least match the title (with space), which is also what is on his jersey. ShinyHubCaps (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's a little odd that the name of the article is different than the lead sentence. Enigma^msg 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to revisit this issue once again, but several recent edits have eliminated the space from his name. Technically "Ochocinco" is his legal name. And according to this [15] his jersey will use the single name version of his last name. Should the article be using Ochocinco instead of Ocho Cinco? –

Megaboz (talk

) 04:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't allowed to wear Ocho Cinco today

The NFL said that, due to some sort of contractual obligations with Reebok, which is their official uniform company, Chad had to wear "Johnson" on his back today. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title is clearly wrong

Completely ignoring whether or not the article should be titled using the person's legal name or his former name, can we at least agree that the current title is wrong? Sources (linked above) are now reporting consistently that the name is "Ochocinco", not "Ocho Cinco". Can we at least get this moved to that slightly less ridiculous name? Powers ^T 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bengals website says its Chad Ocho Cinco, so no. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 23:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because Ocho Cinco is the common name.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? [16]. Powers ^T 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, change the article body to match the title. The fact that it's mismatched is the dumb thing. Not only is it "Ocho Cinco" everywhere else, including the Bengals' roster and Yahoo! sports rosters, but it is on the back of his jersey with the space. One rumor says that it has no space, and we all conform to that? I doubt everyone else is wrong and we're the only ones who are correct. Add the space throughout the article. ShinyHubCaps (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The name in the body doesn't have to match the title, nor is it "the dumbest thing" when that happens. The title is usually the common name (*eyes rolling*) and the name in the body is the legal name. Check out Tom Cruise or Diablo Cody. Huangdi (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-name change references to "Ochocinco"

I'd just like to point out that on most other pages for people who underwent prominent name changes - such as those for

Hillary Rodham Clinton (formerly Hillary Rodham), , Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (formerly Lew Alcindor), and Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam, formerly Steven Georgiou) - the practice seems to be to refer to the person in their biographies by the name used during the time period in question. The only exception I can find seems to be for Muhammad Ali (which should also be changed, IMHO). Using the contemporary name is standard practice in biographical writing, which makes eminent sense, because contemporary press reports and other sources obviously use will use the contemporary rather than the "final" name. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I've never seen the reasoning for using only the "final" name. Niremetal (talk

) 15:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly agreed. Name changes are not retroactive; he's Chad OchoCinco now, but he was Chad Johnson until August 28 of this year. — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I was just about to ask about that. Nhdrumline11 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Degree for Men?

the link to the website TrashTalk85.com does not lead to 'The List' but to a Degree for Men deoderant product placement page. There is abolutely no reference to Ocho Cinco on the site. Should this link be removed or simply referred to as having existed in the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.81.62 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nuke it.--
  chitchat^seemywork
  11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

so

Will his jersey read "Ocho Cinco" during the 2009 season? Ringerfan23 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No - as the article indicated, his jersey will read "Ochocinco" since he apparently misspelled it (without the space) on the court papers. SixFourThree (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Please stop edit-warring over the name

It's getting very tiresome. The early references should be Johnson without a doubt (whatever occurred when he was Johnson) and the ones from summer 2008 and on should be Ocho Cinco. Some IP changed it all again but I don't really feel like going back and figuring it out again. Enigma^msg 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Page has being protected for 1 month because of the persistent dispute. --JForget 20:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we really this lame. I guess I'm just as lame for ecen adding to the discussion, but don't we as editors have more important duties to perform than to argue and edit war over what some overpaid athlete with a God complex wants to be called?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ochocinco" or "Ocho Cinco" ?

I don't wanna unilaterally make a big change without a notion of agreement from folks, but I think the name references should be "Ocho Cinco" except where it says his legal name up at the very top. (This is aside from the question of his name in references before the name change.) I realize it's all still current events-y, but it's obvious he prefers "Ocho Cinco," as that's what all his jersey antics and merchandise and such say. And the name used should be the name he most commonly goes by. (For instance, Bob Dylan's article refers to him as "Dylan" and not as "Zimmerman," even though he underwent no legal name change whatsoever.) Is there agreement on this? WallyCuddeford (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know. We'll see. I'm leaning towards "Ochocinco," since that's his legal name, and that's what his jersey will say this season. SixFourThree (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Late Show appearance/autobiography

There needs to be a mention of Chad's recent appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, as well as something about his autobiography, Ocho Cinco: What Football and Life Have Thrown My Way. Croenix (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chad Johnson

He isn't even that anymore, so why does Chad Johnson redirect here. Not only that, but they are other Chad Johnson namely a current goalie for the New York Rangers. I propose we move it the disambiguation page to Chad Johnson. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Chad Johnson should point to the disambig. I am going to make the change now.—NMajdan•talk 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um, this is not the page to request that (I came here from WP:RM thinking you wanted this page moved). If you think Chad Johnson should not redirect here (which I disagree with you on), bring it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. TJ Spyke 19:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

incidents

Is there anyone who can create a list of incidents or fined incidents involving Ochocinco? Maybe I just need a more complete article to read, but I lose track of all the statements by the NFL league office about his escapades.--

WP:FOUR

)

Is there any real reason to devote an entire section to this? It was just one of his many, many stunts... it doesn't seem like it's really one of the key things people write and say about Ochocinco. If no one objects I'll reduce it to a few sentences and put it in the section about the 2005 season. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)