Jump to content

Talk:Kyle Eckel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.240.82.17 (talk) at 03:09, 12 March 2008 (→‎Legal issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion regarding military discharge

I would suggest that we try and centralize this discussion rather then carrying it on several other talk pages.

These sources all describe essentially the same version of events - that Eckel was involuntarily removed from service in the Navy:

(Feel free to add others.)

Obviously we do not want to include information that is untrue ... but are there any available sources that provide an alternate version of events? I have been googling and can't find anything. --BigDT 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone looking at this, please see previous discussion at User talk:Jaranda, User talk:BigDT, and WP:BLPN. --BigDT 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Every source listed above is not a valid source or official source of the United States Navy. The Navy Times, Military.com, and of coarse the Miami Herald are all privately own publications. They all use the Navy Times as the original source of information. However this is not an official source of information and since we now know that then it would not be ethical to further publish untrue material that has no beginning source of credibility. Again, there is absoultely nothing to suggest Kyle Eckel was "kicked out" of the Navy. That is pure word twisting and/or make-believe. It can be misleading that those publication might seem to be the official word of the entities they cover but they are not. And according to Wikipedia's page describing the biographies of living persons, these articles should be treated with a high level of sensitivity and should be strongly sourced. The additions made to Kyle Eckel are not. We can find a problem with these additions in almost every section in the Living persons instruction. Most notably: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Thank you for your time. "Navyfootball 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]


If these sources aren't valid, what sources are? What sources for ANY article are valid? Outside of eyewitness or first-hand accounts, these are as good as it gets. Should I have physically been there to watch Eckel get discharged from the Navy? I have my suspicions that 'Navyfootball' may be Eckel himself. Either that or he has some sort of obsession with him, considering his email is named for Eckel. So if you are Eckel, then you should prove it and I think at point your word would be pretty good in this case. Chris Nelson 06:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Navyfootball, I sympathize, but here is the problem. Three legitimate news articles - yes, not written by the Navy, but nonetheless legitimate sources of news - all say that he was involuntarily separated from the Navy. That would seem to, on the surface, meet a burden of proof. We're not talking about blogs or message boards - we're talking about mainstream news media sources. Do you have any source that refutes them? The news media sometimes gets it wrong - I'm fully open to that possibility, but if that's the case here, we need some kind of evidence of it. --BigDT 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[3]

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

These sources, which are not official words of the United States navy and its discharges/discharge policy should not even be used as sources in any way, shape, or form. All these quotes were taking directly from Wikipedia's instruction biography of living persons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LIVING

Yes, we know the policy on biographies. Yes, we know that news articles are not official Navy publications, but there is no requirement to use primary sources (Navy documents, eye witness accounts). These are three reputable newspapers all telling the same story. This is not a poorly sourced assertion - it's very well sourced. If it isn't true - in other words, if the media got it wrong - can you tell us (1) what really happened and (2) point to any source of information on the subject? --BigDT 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything I copy and pasted from Wikipedia's own page would be enough. To effect someone negatively due to a poorly sourced newspaper is not authorized through Wikipedia.

I, of coarse, can not offer any information whether supportive or incriminating but I can offer what has been stated by Kyle Eckel himself to a newspaper in Miami and the surrounding area. Kyle Eckel resigned from Naval service as his resignation was offered and accepted.

The term "kicked out" was never used as anything official. Its meerly a twisting of words done so by the Navy Times. And the credibilty of newspapers is arguable which is why Wikipedia's instruction clearly states that questionable matter should be immediately be removed unless offered by the subject itself. By explaining to you that these newspapers are not official words of anything or anyone I made enough case for these comments to be removed from the article titled Kyle Eckel because clearly there is a conflict. There is negative subject matter. The truth can not be assured through these newspapers or publications. So why would be added to an encyclopedia?

Appreciated, "Navyfootball 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

And I apologize for mispellings due to the speed of these posts. And a slight correction and/or clarification from my previous post. I can not add anything incriminating or supporting due to legal restraints regarding such a sensative matter where there is little to no official material released

Thanks again "Navyfootball 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Well if we can't trust the papers to accurate report on the subject, how can we trust them to accurately report what Eckel said? I thought they weren't good sources.Chris Nelson 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

  Lastly for this grouping of posts,

  I ask, what is the motovation for posting comments and/or ideas that we now know are not official. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a newspaper, blog, etc. It seems to be an attack or some other negativaly motovated reason to post such information that has never been said to be official.

  We know Kyle Eckel played football here/there. Went to school here/there. Was born here/there/when. Etc. There is no official word to suggest why he was released from the military other then his own brief comment. An explanation to why he was, sourcing someone else's constructed opinion, is wrong, unethical, unreliable, and is completely conflicting with Wikipedia's instruction.

Thanks "Navyfootball 06:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Honestly, I find the Navy Times article a little too detailed to believe it's just made up. I mean honestly, why would the Navy Times just make up this story? Why would they report something like this if it were 100% false? Why would anyone be out to get Kyle Eckel? I'm pretty confident this story is true (whether we end up posting it here or not, that's just my gut feeling).

Also, do you mind if I ask why your e-mail address is named after Eckel as if you were him. I noticed earlier you referred to him as "my client." What's the story here?Chris Nelson 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go ... check out this article column ... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/sfl-spmarvez25_cnov25,0,4229278.column ... googling on "resigned" has been more fruitful. --BigDT 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly. So then nthing should be offered. And unreliable or not, these comments made by you and these newspapers are not official word. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. And if you read the instruction offered by Wikipedia and biographies on living people then you'd see comments made by the subject are reliable. Newspapers, blogs, opinions, etc are not.

And I ask, what is the motovation for posting comments and/or ideas that we now know are not official. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a newspaper, blog, etc. It seems to be an attack or some other negativaly motovated reason to post such information that has never been said to be official.

We know Kyle Eckel played football here/there. Went to school here/there. Was born here/there/when. Etc. There is no official word to suggest why he was released from the military other then his own brief comment. An explanation to why he was, sourcing someone else's constructed opinion, is wrong, unethical, unreliable, and is completely conflicting with Wikipedia's instruction.

Thanks "Navyfootball 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

this profile and related information have been created to represent him. Whether the information(?) anywhere is detailed it stil fails to be official thus should not be considered factual and shouldnt be added to an encyclopedia "Navyfootball 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

None of this is opinion or guesswork. Please take a look at the current text and see if it accurately conveys the situation. "He served until October 31, 2006 when his letter of resignation was accepted [1] and he was administratively separated [2] from service in the Navy. [3]" Thanks. --BigDT 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's accurate though. "Kicked out", while informal and not encyclopedic, is how I would summarize those articles. "Citing privacy concerns, the Navy would not characterize the specific nature of Eckel's 'administrative separation,' saying only that it was 'involuntary.'" and "I was given the opportunity to submit a letter of resignation" make it clear the separation was not voluntary.--Prosfilaes 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what it appears, he was being kicked out and the Navy gave him the opportunity to save face. Metros232 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Navyfootball will be happy until there is zero mention or link to the events we originally had up there. Personally, I think it'd be best to present both sides on his page as being 'reported', but that's just me. I doubt that would satisfy him though.Chris Nelson 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last post highlights the issue here. This is not a debate forum. This is not a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia to state factual material. This is not someone's own personal blog to discuss issues or could bes/would bes. Regarding the new segment, I think that depicts the situation better then any of the previously offered changes especially the wreckless use of the term "kicked out" which I can assure you, and I'm sure everyone interested in this discussion already knows, has/will never be on any official document. Thanks for the discussion and resolution. A question, will this discussion continue to be displayed? Wikipedia's details are still unclear to me as this is my first issue dealing with the site. Thanks "Navyfootball 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

This page that we are on right now - Talk:Kyle Eckel - will continue to be here as a reference in case the issue comes up again. Eventually, if there is a lot of discussion about the article and it gets to be too long, the talk page may be archived. Talk pages for controversial topics - like Talk:George W. Bush - get archived pretty frequently. I doubt this one ever will. If you believe that anything said here is an issue, we can hide it (take a look at the second subsection of WP:BLPN for an example of a "hidden" discussion) ... but I think it's probably best to leave it here in case the issue ever comes up again. --BigDT 07:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the language to simply give the term that the Navy spokesman used and to give Kyle's response to it. Since there is a concern here, it's important that we not draw conclusions about what happened, but merely report known facts. The known facts are that (1) the Navy spokesman said that he was administratively separated and (2) Eckel told a reporter that he was offered the chance to resign, which he did. Since this is a source of contention, we need to work hard to avoid any speculation and only report the facts that are unquestionably true and verifiable. --BigDT 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charges against him were dropped in November 2006. Without any other information about the charges, I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. We err on the side of caution when dealing with BLPs. Any thoughts? --B 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm in presenting the known facts. It was a significant moment in his life and I think it's worth mentioning.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was it significant? I can't find any information about it other than its existence and so we don't have any context to offer. --B 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Navy was the reason he left the NFL when he did, and the chargers were the reason he left the Navy and returned to the NFL when he did. Considering he's an NFL player, I'd say it's definitely worth noting why and when he left and returned.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article the charges WERE NOT the reason he left the navy. The information adds nothing to an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.116.47 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The information adds nothing to an encyclopedia article." How about the fact that, at one point in his life, he was charged with a serious felony, regardless of the facts that they were dismissed? As a reader, searching for information on Kyle Eckel, I would be VERY INTERESTED in knowing that.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyle_Eckel&oldid=197637178"