Talk:Aaron Hernandez

Career highlights and awards addition.

2011 NFL AFC Champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2cb3:ec10:e13c:b5a:2481:1a0c (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2017‎ (UTC)

References

Renaming of section legal issues

I think that the title of section legal issues is misleading and should be changed to something that better describes the situation. An issue is usually a talking point; this noun is used to describe legal aspects usually to minimize the impact of the word. It should be something more directly linked with the crimes that Hernandez committed: Crimes and misdemeanors comes to mind.--Gciriani (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The word "misdemeanor" is redundant in the phrase Crimes and misdemeanors because all misdemeanors are crimes. However, Legal issues might still be better than a title like Crimes because Hernandez was not found guilty or even charged in relation to some of the incidents discussed. It's likely that subtitles such as 2012 Boston double homicide and 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd are sufficient to provide clarity to those who do not read further. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point about misdemeanors being crimes. What about using instead the word problems as in Legal problems and crimes? I find the word issues almost a weasel word, trying to mitigate the impact of what happened.--Gciriani (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

Olequefacil (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC) I want to put all Aaron Hernandez NFL stats.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality

Rather than edit warring, can we discuss here? For example, https://www.outsports.com/2017/4/24/15386576/aaron-hernandez-suicide-patriots-gay-lover doesn't think the NYDN report is credible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dwest25: Looking at the available RS news sources, Hernandez called a fellow prisoner, to whom he wrote a suicide note, his "heart" and also wanted to address the truth of certain things that were said about him. This can be included in the text if properly sourced and written. But removing the current sourced material as "unproven" is not an option, since "proven" is not the claim, and our standard is WP:VERIFIABILITY; not TRUTH. Please seek consensus for any other changes. Any further unilateral reversions will result in an immediate report to WP:AN3. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no way that speculation about Hernandez's sexuality should be included in the article without high quality reliable sources. The New York Daily News source falls well short of that. WP:BLP covers recently deceased individuals and edit warring to reintroduce this controversial information without consensus could easily be considered a violation of that policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition, μηδείς, you need to catch up on policy. WP:VNT was deprecated to an essay and is not policy following Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for a week. If more editor input is required, consider using WP:BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Update

The Boston Globe is now reporting that "Hernandez’s attorneys said their client was 'very concerned' that his sexuality might be discussed in court," and that the lawyer said "This man clearly was gay." I understand in the past that there were some issues about the quality of sources who were reporting on his sexuality, but this seems to me to be enough to at least raise the issue. Does anyone else have any thoughts? --BrianCUA (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the Oxygen channel recently aired "Aaron Hernandez Uncovered", a two-part documentary that corroborates some of these details. You can read more about it here. Not sure to what extent this should be covered (if at all), but it likely warrants further discussion at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe called the documentary "not exactly definitive" about his sexuality.[1] Outsports brings up some dubious points about these reports.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think enough conversation about that topic has happened in reliable sources, that it is more justified to include it in the entry than keeping omitting it.Rafe87 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Can you list the sources here for discussion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) https://nypost.com/2018/03/19/aaron-hernandez-lawyer-and-ex-say-he-struggled-with-being-gay/ 2) https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/new-england-patriots/report-aaron-hernandez-left-suicide-note-for-gay-prison-lover 3) http://www.newsweek.com/aaron-hernandez-documentary-gay-death-851435 4) https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/03/19/aaron-hernandez-lawyer-this-man-clearly-was-gay/y27mA4yM7WbztnJpI1hcFM/story.html Rafe87 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears the most recent coverage was because of the documentary. As stated above, The Boston Globe called it "not exactly definitive" about his sexuality. At best, this might be OK if proper neutrality was applied to cover all points of view. However, the amount of text to make it neutral might make it undue coverage. Although he's dead, WP:BLP is still relevant (per WP:BDP). I'm wary of adding anything per BLP: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Also see others' concerns above.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60 and Bagumba, although Hernandez is no longer alive and therefore WP:BLP no longer applies to him, I am concerned about some of the "he was gay" material that Slugger O'Toole keeps adding. Some of it is based on the brother's book. As seen with this edit, I gave it the WP:In-text attribution it should have. Slugger O'Toole has also added other material as fact without in-text attribution; I ask that Slugger O'Toole stop doing that when it's hearsay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Warned. If this type of editing continues, the matter will be going to an appropriate noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoa. I don't think I've ever had a run in with you before, Flyer, but if I have ever done anything to upset you please let me apologize. You seem to be coming out very aggressively here and on my talk page. I am not sure why. Only a very small portion of what I have added has been about his sexuality. I've used multiple sources. There are other reliable sources already on the page that say the same thing. That he had sexual relationships with other men doesn't seem to be a controversial statement at this point. His outing may even have lead to his death. All of that said, I am not perfect. If I ever err, I would greatly appreciate you fixing it. If my prose could be improved, please do so. If I ever run afoul of one of the five pillars or other policies, please point it out. At the same time, if you could tone down the rhetoric and assume good faith, I would appreciate that as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, it matters not that you've never run into me before. I've told you more than once now to stop making claims made in Wikipedia's voice. To stop quoting people without WP:In-text attribution. And yet you are still doing it, which is unacceptable. Using multiple sources doesn't take away from something being hearsay or opinion. Something stated in sources does not mean that it's fact. You haven't even read WP:YESPOV and other rules I've pointed you to, have you? You do not have to be perfect to follow this site's rules. Hernandez being dead doesn't give you a license to add any and every claim about him, especially in Wikipedia's voice. Being "very aggressive" is apparently needed since you continue to edit this article inappropriately. It is a mess with quotes that are not given in-text attribution. Readers will have no idea who stated what, unless they search in the source. You additionally need to read WP:Copyright and WP:Close paraphrasing. And given your history with homosexuality topics, I am not surprised by some of your editing at this article. "Only a very small portion of what [you've] have added has been about his sexuality."? Um, no, unless you are comparing the sexuality pieces to all of the other material you've added to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just trying to understand your hostile tone. I have read the policies you've cited, both before and now that you've pointed them out. I may be in the wrong, or we may have different interpretations of them. I'm not sure. I also don't believe every statement requires in text attribution. In fact, WP:In-text attribution's example about the sun says they don't. I include it when I think it is appropriate. I don't in places where I don't think it is appropriate. That said, I will try to do better. I ask that you try to assume good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, and I am trying to understand your inability to comprehend the rules. Yes, you added in-text attribution with this edit, and yet that edit also has the following without in-text attribution: "Football's 'hyper-macho, intolerant locker room culture' also played a role." Why in the world would you think that such material doesn't require in-text attribution? It is quoting a source. It is the source's opinion. Of course, we should not give in-text attribution for something like "The sun sets in the west each evening." That is completely different. That the sun sets in the west each evening is an indisputable fact. It's interesting that you go on about how aggressive or hostile I'm supposedly being for having an intolerant attitude with regard to how you've been editing this article, when we can see that an editor (Contaldo80) on your talk page called your editing aggressive, and stated, "I have never come across someone so aggressive and un-collaborative in all my years of editing Wikipedia." Have you ever heard of WP:Civil POV pushing? I will give you some time to start editing this article more appropriately, and that (among other things) includes removing all of the quotes that don't have in-text attribution or at least giving the quotes in-text attribution, but you should not be surprised if I take this matter to the broader Wikipedia community because you have failed to do so. This edit was the start of you editing the article better than you've been editing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am unable to comprehend the rules (though I may be wrong about that, too). What we have is a difference of opinion. I didn't attribute that quote in the text because there is a citation at the end of the sentence. Anyone who wants to know where it came from can easily find out. It is not sourced to an opinion piece, but to a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team. They are reporting facts, not opinions or suppositions. I don't believe it needs in text attribution; the citation at the end is sufficient. If you feel differently, you are more than welcome to edit the text to reflect that belief. That would be much more constructive than simply going through and deleting everything you don't like. I'm very willing to work with you, but we need to WP:AGF on both sides. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You are unable to comprehend the rules if you think that the things you've added that should have in-text attribution are comparable to "The sun sets in the west each evening." And since you apparently do think that, I do not see why I should state anything else to you on this matter. You just are not getting it. Stating "Anyone who wants to know where it came from can easily find out" is not enough because you have quoted the source, and because there is the matter of WP:YESPOV. Sources can report on facts and state their or others' opinions or hearsay; that should be obvious to you. You should read WP:Close paraphrasing since you don't seem to understand WP:In-text attribution. This is not about a difference of opinion, not being civil, or not assuming good faith. It's about editing the way you are supposed to edit. I have not deleted everything I don't like; that is not how I edit. I have repeatedly tweaked your text, only for you to at times partially revert or add the text back in some other problematic way. I deleted this for reasons noted above. You restored it, and only added in-text attribution for part of it. Look here in the Academics section. The statement that "Hernandez was always trying to be 'the life of the party'" should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the statement includes quotation marks and therefore leaves readers wondering who made the comment. It should obviously have in-text attribution. So should "plants, gardening and you." What is "and you" supposed to mean? I'll go ahead and ping Isaidnoway, who is an excellent editor with an excellent grasp on the rules, and see if he is willing to weigh in on this, but I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it. Like I stated, I will take it to the wider Wikipedia community if need be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am also going to alert the associated WikiProjects (the ones this article is tagged with) to this discussion. That way, I will have taken the steps of querying the opinions of the projects before taking this matter to a noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)