Jump to content

Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Deletion of high school

Pats1, why are you deleting high school information from the Infobox NFLactive template? As I am sure you know, the high school field is built into the template. Personal preference again? C'mon, you're a WP administrator; you shouldn't be playing the personal preference reversion game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Aaron hernandez.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Aaron hernandez.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Height

His height measurement is listed as over 6'2" with a source in the Pre-draft section, and I edited the personal information section to reflect that, but my edit was reverted. Shouldn't his official height measurement be used? Aoa8212 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How is his draft measurement "official"? If anything, the official measurement would be what his team (or in this case, former team) profile says, which is 6'1". This is backed up by ESPN.com and NFL.com. How much more official can that get?  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories

I see that the Puerto Rican categories are for people whos parents are of Puerto Rican origin. It looks like the subjects grandparents are from Puerto Rico, so I removed these. --Malerooster (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe add categories for of Puerto Rican descent, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The 6th citation, Providencee Jouranal, says that his father was Puerto Rican. Is that of descent or actually from the Island? If his father was PR, then the subject could possible be in these categories. --Malerooster (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Then any article about his father could categorize him as such. This article is about Aaron, and not his father. Unless and until we have a reliable source which calls him such, with a special emphasis on his self-identification as such, it isn't really relevant to categorize him as such. The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans can trace their ethnic decent somewhere outside of the U.S.; it doesn't mean that it is relevant to categorize every article on every American based on where one of their ancestors may have been born. --Jayron32 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually totally agree with you, but it looks like some of the Puerto Rican categories say they are for those who are Puerto Rican or for those whos parents have Puerto Rican origin, ect, which I would assume means the parents were born there. Again, I would leave the categories OUT for now, but I was just trying to add information here on the talk page for both "sides" of the arugument. Do others have an opinion either way? --Malerooster (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What about shooting the guy in the face?

There are references for earlier gun attacks with other people. Why aren't those mentioned? Well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.80.28 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Gciriani (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have altered the subhead "Murder Investigation" to plural "Murder investigations" as another investigation is now ongoing as of today. I shall add the weapons charges and face-shooting charge to the subhead as well, since we are looking at multiple investigations at this time. It will all be clarified within a week or two, and can be rewritten at that time. Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Just be sure to include proper citations, ect, please. --Malerooster (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, Malerooster, i added no text and thus i added no refs. I simply reorganized the extant material in chronological order, leading sentences with hard dates ("On June 19, 2013 he was") rather than with the confusingly conversational style of narrative ("Four days before he had been...") that was there when i found the article. Also, since now there are more charges than murder, i have once more altered the subhead to reflect the additional charges. I realize all of this is temporary and i am just dusting the furniture as we move along. The real heavy lifting will come in the days, weeks, and months to come. Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode, although I applaud your initiative to list in chronological order the findings, I think they should be reported in order of when the facts allegedly happened, rather than in the order in which they were reported. Do you agree?--Gciriani (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what i have done. Your comment reflects one of my earlier passes through the data and the refs. After making my comment above, i broke the face-shooting lawsuit out into its own subsection, as it appears to be an entirely separate incident with its own legal trajectory -- unless, of course, the two incidents are later found to be linked up in some way. Please see the version now on public view. Thanks! Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, he is no longer a Tight End.

He "is NOT an American football tight end"

See also section

I also removed Florida Gators. There is all ready a link in the article to the football team, which covers this.

Also, as above, has the subject self identified as Puerto Rican? --Malerooster (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't say, or categorize him as Portirican. It say's his grandparents were Puerto Rican, and he is categorized into categories identifying him as Puerto Rican. Whether or not they are justified, is a different discussion. But he's not being called Portirican. He's being called Puerto Rican. --Jayron32 17:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
ok, good point, so I will remove those categories, thank you, also, sorry my spelling sucks, should have said Puerto Rican. --Malerooster (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
he is categorized into categories identifying him as Puerto Rican, which should not happen unless he is Puerto Rican, which has not been established to date. --Malerooster (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
True enough on the categorization. Unless he self-identifies as such, it isn't relevant to the article, and he should not be categorized as such. And thanks for taking the time to use the correct term. This is an academic project, after all. It may not matter in other contexts and places around the internet, but if we're trying to get it right, we should, you know, try to get it right. --Jayron32 17:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, sorry, I tried to go back and fix my mistakes, I was being sloppy for no reason, so point taken. --Malerooster (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, Wikipedia:Categorization of people and WP:BLPCAT are relevant here, to wit: "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized in terms of occupation only by the reason(s) for the person's notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized." Unless it can be clearly established that he has official Puerto Rican nationality, or self-identifies as Puerto Rican, we should not be in the business of telling him what he is. --Jayron32 21:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not technically a free agent

He is on waivers until 4pm tomorrow (6/27). After that time he becomes a free agent, Someone with edit ability (appears to be locked) should correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.109.232.2 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He's not technically a free agent since he has to pass through waivers, but the distinction is so minor (he's a "free agent who can be claimed off waivers") that articles seldom mention it. Samer (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It is pretty certain that he WILL become a free agent, but right now, he is definitely not "free", since it is at the option of the various other NFL teams where he will be obligated to play. It is doubtful any team will pick up his contract.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, my point is not that he truly is a free agent; my point is simply that, rather than have constant "subject to waivers" -> "free agent" changes, the consensus among people who edit NFL articles is basically "it's not worth mentioning." Samer (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merchandise

I was told Aaron-themed merchandise was removed from the website. That could be added. --Matt723star (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true. According to CBS Boston, all Aaron Hernandez memorabilia and merchandise has been removed from the Official New England Patriots ProShop. Jsdecker10 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC) [1][2]
Well isn't that grounds for adding to the page then? That's pretty significant. --Matt723star (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Adding it now. Thanks. Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Great! But I'd like to mention there's a character mistake, you added a ] after the word shop. I was going to fix it but it's semi-protected. --Matt723star (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I've corrected the typo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, AndyTheGrump -- i was in the middle of editing when my phone rang. All fixed now, i hope. Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Collected news refs

Here are a few collected news refs for possible inclusion as the post-arrest narrative develops. I find it best in my work to collect them as they are published:

June 27, 2013 - Puma drops endoresement - USA Today

"I can confirm we have ended the relationship with Aaron Hernandez," Puma spokeswoman Katie Sheptyck told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2013/06/26/aaron-hernandez-jersey-new-england-patriots-murder/2461473/

June 28, 2013 - Tattoos - CBS Sports

Officials examining Aaron Hernandez's tattoos for gang ties

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/22560114/officials-examining-aaron-hernandezs-tattoos-for-gang-ties

June 28, 2013 -- 2012 Boston Double Homicide Link to Odin Lloyd Murder - CBS News

The double homicide occurred in the early morning hours of July 16, 2012, in Boston's South End. Daniel Jorge Correia de Abreu, 29, and Safiro Teixeira Furtado, 28, both of Dorchester, were killed when someone fired at the BMW they were in. A third person was wounded. At the time, police said there were two other people in the vehicle, but both ran off before officers arrived. Sources tell WBZ-TV investigators now believe Lloyd may have had information about Hernandez's alleged role in the double murder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57591469/boston-police-search-aaron-hernandez-home/

Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

As the criminal case takes on a life of its own, perhaps it is time for a "Death of Odin Lloyd" article, to prevent the main A.H. article from becoming outweighed by this issue. AlaskaMike (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There is currently an article entitled "Odin Lloyd". On its Talk Page (linked here: Talk:Odin Lloyd ), I have advocated that it be renamed "Death of Odin Lloyd". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
And it has been. Will add wikilink. Samer (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Actually, however, it was renamed "Murder of Odin Lloyd" and not "Death of Odin Lloyd". Which is fine by me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Private Life Details

What about another section with private life details? Because of the ongoing investigation, and the media peering into the private life of this person, I thought it would be appropriate adding private life details such as partner,children, place were the person lives.--Gciriani (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which themselves have such information? If so, be our guest. --Jayron32 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I searched public records and from those I cross-checked with Zillow to confirm it, which I referenced in the article. After I posted the addition I discovered that Reuters reported exactly the same, but I didn't add it to the reference thinking it would be an overkill. Reuters even interviewed the real estate agent that purchased the house. Let me know if you think Zillow is not reliable (I know they are because they report sales only from public records).--Gciriani (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Do not use material from public records in biographies of living persons - see WP:BLPPRIMARY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, I find the BLPPRIMARY policy somewhat self-contradictory. It states "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". However, I'm sure that the reliable secondary source (Reuters), used the same public records that I accessed.--Gciriani (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Since every newspaper in the country has published his new address there should be no problem publishing it here: 400 Faunce Corner Rd, North Dartmouth MA 02747. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.134.196 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This article must be either locked, or semi-protected immediately

Given the current situation concerning Aaron Hernandez's "legal situation", I strongly suggest we protect this article to avoid the potentially libelous, and speculative, edits that are certain to appear in the coming days. If anyone has time however, we should keep the article updated with VERIFIABLE info.

24.60.214.65 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - I've just deleted the new section, as it grossly misrepresented the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a request over at WP:RFPP, no administrator has got to it yet, however. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To complicate the situation mainstream media reported that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, which now appears not to be the case (http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/se_mass/north-attleboro-report-arrest-warrant-issued-for-patriots-te-aaron-hernandez). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection of this page was scheduled to expire 4 days ago. It should be unlocked for editing. Bocomoj (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Gang affiliations

A Fox Newz opinion article is not a reliable source. I haven't been able to find any evidence of Hernandez having gang affiliations. According to the opinion article, the Bristol Bloods were responsible for "extraordinary acts of violence, including shootings and slashings," which is great, except that according to official crime rate statistics, Bristol, Connecticut, was remarkably devoid of shootings, slashings, and violence. Please remove this section (edit by Charliebristoluk) unless there is a reputable source.67.5.219.247 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Turns out the text was copied verbatim from the source, so it has been removed per WP:COPYVIO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It was not just a single source. It was an "opinion" article, i.e. an editorial by an individual.67.5.219.247 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Op-eds can be used as sources of quotes attributed to the author of the Op-Ed, but in general they are not useful for sources of factual information presented uncritically and without direct, in text, named attribution. For information such as this, and for a BLP, we need a bulletproof source, not something mentioned in an Op Ed. --Jayron32 05:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The other Florida shooting

Not certain this matters because it is an on going investigation, but besides the Florida shooting involving Alexander S. Bradley, there is the other one in which a Corey Smith got shot. The Orlando Sentinel had a story about it ( http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-07-03/sports/os-aaron-hernandez-2007-florida-shooting-details-0703_1_aaron-hernandez-jacksonville-jaguars-gainesville ). Since there are no formal charges (at least at this time), should this be even mentioned? 149.164.23.66 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not formal charges are filed is completely irrelevant. If the incident involves Hernandez, and if it's reported so in a reliable source, I say it is relevant and it merits mention in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Deferred prosecution

In the section "2007 assault incident" there is a reference to the charges against Hernandez being resolved by "deferred prosecution". Could someone supply a Wiki leak at that point to explain what the heck that it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.143.206 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Also, see Deferred prosecution. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

@Rockchalk717: The WikiProject you have linked to in your edit summary, WP:NFL, does not list any specific guidance regarding "player" pages and the MOS requirement you claim exists. If you have a specific link to a guideline or previous discussion that backs your claim, that would help. My position is that as long as the player's status is mentioned somewhere in the lead, which it is, then there shouldn't be an issue. Frankly, it seems like nitpicking. More than likely, the format you are talking about is a "suggested" format and not an absolute rule. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

somebody has put "<!-- Until Hernandez is convicted he is still a free agent and his career isn't over until then -->Free agent" in the info box. It's ok to put "currently a free agent" in various places, but the much more important fact is now "currently in jail awaiting trial on three murder charges," which I'll put into the lead in a little while. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at ANY NFL player who is or currently has been a Free Agent. It stats "_____________ is an American football (position here) who is currently a free agent" ANYTIME the are a free agent. This isn't an issue that should be taken up here because you are trying to change what appears to be consensus for NFL player pages, which should be taken to the project page. This isn't something that is just a personal preference, this something that used across the board for NFL players. I can list off pages of every current NFL free agent that I didn't personally change if you would like but I think that would take forever.--Rockchalk717 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll do it anyway: Vince Young, Michael Huff, Cheta Ozougwu, Michael Boley, Don Muhlbach, Marlon Moore, Fred Davis (tight end), Michael Adams (American football), Marcus Dowtin, Erin Henderson. That's just 10 of many free agents following that format. Last and certainly not least to make my point Peyton Manning, arguably the most popular player in the NFL today (who averages roughly 2,000 views a day) when he was a free agent. Point being, despite nothing being on the project page, its obviously an unwritten consensus that using that format when a player is a free agent.--Rockchalk717 15:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize the most important facts, and a wikiproject cannot change that. Certainly there is no one set wording required for the lead of any article, it's a matter of consensus about what editors feel are the most important facts. "Currently a free agent" seems to be a pure technicality at this point. No matter what the outcomes of the 2 separate murder cases (3 murders) and his other legal problems, he will be tied up in court for a very long time, and NFL teams will be loathe to hire him. The very likely outcome is that he will never play in the NFL again, so his free agent status is really irrelevant. I'm not saying that we should imply his guilt, only that we do not include something that is likely irrelevant. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
One case of an NFL player who is technically a free agent is Mike Adamle. It is highly unlikely that he will ever sign with a team again, so we don't put in the irrelevant info that he is a free agent. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
He's not a technically a Free Agent, he's a retired NFL player. The man is 64 years old, terrible example. Thanks for pointing it though, a substantial amount of cleanup was needed on it.--Rockchalk717 17:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
He is technically a free agent, same as you or I would be classified as free agents by the NFL, and for that matter 99.9% of the BLPs. If you're going to get technical, make sure you are technically right! Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It also doesn't matter if you feel its irrelevant either. Even after he is convicted his notability was a football player so after he is convicted it should say "is a former American football player who is currently serving ____________ years/life sentences (depending on his sentence) for murder." The lead establishes notability and despite the murder investigation his notability is as a free agent NFL player and therefor, regardless of your objections, his lead needs to establish this. If he doesn't get convicted, he won't ever play in the NFL again, but I guarantee he plays arena ball or in Canada.--Rockchalk717 17:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

His notabiity now is as a murder suspect. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rockchalk717, I understand where you're coming from. Based on your observations, you decided to make the lead in this article look consistent to other NFL player articles. That makes total sense and there's nothing wrong with that approach. However, since this issue was never discussed at the WikiProject or in any individual article's talk page that we know of, then it's safe to assume that any changes made to this article that are consistent with Wikipedia's standards are acceptable. Per MOS:LEAD, the top section only needs to provide a brief summary of the major aspects covered in the article. Discussing the free agent status in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph shouldn't be an issue as long as its mentioned.
Furthermore, it's bad form to use the term "currently" in any article, let alone the lead section per WP:DATED. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That mentions nothing about using it a lead it just says it should be avoided. Plus, the player pages are updated within minutes of a transaction being made public so very rarely is the article outdated. For example the earliest time I could find a news story for Vince Young's release was 12:12 (Central time). At 12:38 (27 minutes later) the edit was made editing the page to reflect his release. In response to Smallbones comment, he gained notability as a football player first then he gets indicted for murder. Take Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson for example (different type of BLP article but its relevant to my point) he gained notability in the WWF, then he got into acting afterwards. Notability never changes. Would we be hearing about Aaron Hernandez if he wasn't an NFL player? Maybe, but it wouldn't the gain national attention be all over every type of news media there is. That's a mute point now anyway because the person that originally had a problem understands why it should remain as it is. To put it simply, its just to maintain consistency.--Rockchalk717 20:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
An additional comment Smallbones, the guy mentioned is not technically a free agent. You are only declared a free agent by the NFL if you are perusing another team, he obviously isn't. After a couple years of teams not contacting a player, they just give up and unofficially retire, some just give up after they are cut.--Rockchalk717 20:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It is still bad form to use the term, regardless. It would be better to use the phrase "As of 2014", for example, which keeps the statement accurate indefinitely until it is updated. Also, I want to clarify that I do not mind saying he is a free agent. I just don't think we need to force it in the opening line, since the entire 2nd paragraph is already devoted to it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, like I said, I'm just training to maintain a consistency across NFL player articles. I am serious and not trying to be a prick when I say this, but if you really object to players pages saying that, then go to the project page but (again I'm not trying to be a prick) I'm guessing you probably won't get anywhere. Thank you for being understanding on this. I have run into some real bullheaded editors on here. I will admit sometimes I have trouble getting the point across and I can come across bullheaded but in reality my goal when I'm editing is consistency. Despite the fact that he's gaining additional notability as a criminal, it should maintain the format it is once he is convicted.--Rockchalk717 00:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones is correct here. A desire for consistency in articles, which almost no reader will notice and expressed by one editor, does not override the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, the Manual of Style tells us that "If its subject [of the article] is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." It's also just terrible practice in a general sense. Micah Cohen puts it well: #buryingthelede. For some people, the fact that they are players in the NFL is not the primary reason for their notability. Unfortunately, I've been continually reverted by this one editor based on his or her single opinion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Since somebody has joined in I would like to know what everybody involved in this discussion thinks about this lead as a compromise ".........is an American football tight end, who is currently a free agent, the is incarcerated for the murder of Odin Lloyd." This compromise satisfies what everybody is wanting out of the lead and most importantly keeps consistency other NFL player pages covering free agent players.--Rockchalk717 01:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a terrible lead as it again puts the useless information about his free agency in the first sentence. It's also a BLP violation because he hasn't been convicted for the murder, only charged. Furthermore, after reviewing the history from the last two days, you're edit warring (badly). I'd probably want to avoid getting blocked, but that's your choice. (edit: that's not meant as a threat, just a warning; I doubt you realized it before I mentioned it here) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I do realize it, but I also realize I'm not as close to violating as you think I am. Reread WP:WAR. I have taken it the talk page and I'm attempting to reach a consensus, I thought we had one, but then you jumped in. I also very carefully attempt to follow the 3 revert rule and once I hit 2 I take it to the talk page--Rockchalk717 01:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Not really. You've reverted broadly similar edits from multiple editors four different times in under 24 hours. Discussion doesn't really play a role when you're referring to outside individuals who had no idea there was a talk page discussion (ie me). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Considering typically if you are nearing a violation (because I have done it before) you get a comment from an admin or a bot warning you are nearing violating it, so between that and I didn't revert more then 3 times within a 24 hour period, I didn't violate it whatsoever, it also only applies to people not willing to make a compromise, which isn't me. I am done with the "edit war" issue, so lets move back to the original issue. I would love to come an agreement. Since the policies for leads require it to establish notability how would you be willing to compromise with me to include noting in the beginning that he is a free agent, even if its not the first sentence but the second sentence, but at the same time mentions his notability as a criminal.--Rockchalk717 05:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A bot? Not at all. An admin? Well, hello, I suppose that was your warning. ;-) The lack of someone noticing you were at two reverts before my edits should never be construed as a silent acceptance. Anyway, moving on. The notability of Aaron Hernandez comes from two sources: he is/was a tight end in the NFL, and he is currently incarcerated and charged with the murder of three people. I imagine that even you'd agree that the fact that he is (technically) a free agent in the NFL is totally irrelevant, given the greater context, and should not be mentioned in the first sentence. Honestly, it should probably be included as a random factoid in the article's text because it has no bearing on Hernandez's history nor his current status. With that said, if he's exonerated, this all becomes a completely different story! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Very true I would agree with that. Come to think about it, must readers would probably automatically believe he is a free agent if he's being incarcerated for 3 murders that he would be a free agent. I think I remember a recent edit I undid that said something similar to this, would "...is an American football tight end who is currently incarcerated at Bristol County Jail for the murder of Odin Lloyd." be acceptable then?--Rockchalk717 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
No. Not in a million years. Hernandez has not been convicted of murder, and isn't 'incarcerated for murder'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well you understand the point I'm trying to make and you could of left at no and explained why, the "Not in a million years" was extremely unnecessary. What about "...is an American football tight end who is currently being held without bail at Bristol County jail for the murder of Odin Lloyd." then. And if you do not like that then just say no and why don't add anything extra this time.--Rockchalk717 02:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I will say whatever I like to ensure that WP:BLP policy has been complied with - and I have already edited the lede. I suggest you look at my edit, and comment on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent updates

Looks like we've resumed editing the lead. I made a few more adjustments. Hopefully they sit fine with everyone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal section

The article currently has a "Legal troubles" section, which seems to be commonly used in wikipedia. An alternative is "Legal issues" is also commonly used. "Legal troubles" seems to make light of the homicide issue. Would "Legal issues" be more neutral? Does anyone else see "troubles" as making murder charges seem like not a big deal?  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there is a better title we haven't yet come up with. "Legal troubles" suggests wrongful prosecution, and this man is now a convicted first-degree murderer. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro sentence

Just passing by, and looking at the Oscar Pistorius article (a somewhat similar story of an athlete turned murderer), is it necessary to include all the murder case detail in the intro sentence? For example: Oscar Pistorius is a South African sprint runner and convicted killer. ie. Aaron Hernandez is a former American football tight end and convicted killer/murderer. Only curious if this would flow better or be more encyclopedic? 69.73.10.197 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. First sentence should just introduce the subject, not summarize their life or convictions. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Pistorius is not a good example as that case is still out on appeal. Hernandez is notable for two reasons: a limited football career, and a multi-year murder trial. I think both should be in the first sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADSENTENCE:

Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is difficult to dictate good writing style, but the quoted portion of WP:LEADSENTENCE captures the basic idea very well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro- Aaron's middle name is wrong in the article.

Aaron's middle name is Josef, not Michael. You can see it in a lot of the motions and briefs his lawyer wrote. Aaron's middle name is Josef, not Michael. His listed on the MA dept of Corrections Inmate locator as "Aaron J Hernandez" https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/detailsAction.do?siteId=20000&agency=1&id=W106228&searchType=offender

It is also listed as Josef in numerous documents filed by his attorneys. For example, page 5 of a request to release his medical records found here: http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/whdh/pdf/140617-hernandez-patriots-medical-subpoena.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.33.0 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone incorrectly re-added "Michael" using a CNN "fast facts" post. The CNN article sourced it's info from the wiki page prior to the middle name error being corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.107.236 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of "vandalism" accusations in the article itself and also somehow made it to my user talk. See special:permalink/661012494#calm down, take a step back. --Jeremyb (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How many games?

"As a true freshman in 2007, Hernandez appeared in 16 games for the Florida Gators, starting three."

This is a remarkable stat for someone whose team played only 13 games that year.

There cannot be 16 games in a college football season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:348:200:A7A0:A01F:44AD:20A3:E055 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwelgo (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagged as dubious, it is probably a typo but as unsourced we need a clarification.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

216.54.131.253 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)HE DIDN'T DO IT!

 Not done Sourced content trumps opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aaron Hernandez. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Hernandez has been found NOT GUILTY of double homicides.

There has bee Phototravelus (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2017 - Correct location of death

Death was in Leominster, Massachusetts not in Lancaster

"Aaron Hernandez Found Hanged In Cell"

"Aaron Hernandez Commits Suicide" Jcrod73 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

News accounts I saw indicated University of Massachusetts Hospital in Leominster, Massachusetts.
"Official: Aaron Hernandez committed suicide in prison"
Billmckern (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
True, I agree. He was officially pronounced dead in Leominster. Jcrod73 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Done by another user. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to add the date to the statement about his suicide in the first paragraph, too. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530
We are sure of the date that prison officials found him; we are sure of the date on which he was pronounced dead. All of this was on April 19. 2017. However, I don't think we know the actual date of the suicide. It may have been April 18. Do sources say anything about this? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

On May 15, 2014, Hernandez was indicted for the 2012 double homicide of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado.[3] but was later acquitted on April 14, 2017 in the 2012 double slaying prosecutors said to be fueled by his anger over a spilled drink. 72.22.163.41 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/06/26/hernandez-merchandise-pulled-from-patriots-pro-shop-fans-react/
  2. ^ http://proshop.patriots.com/search/?string=Aaron+Hernandez
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference RTJAN17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
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. Cannolis (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


The ending of the article needs to be rewritten. He doesn't revert to being "innocent," but to technical innocence. I have a law degree too, but what is the point in turning the death of this thug into a law review article point? Isn't the real point that a life of crime can drag a person away from a lucrative career having fun playing a kid's game (football) and away from a mansion and a life of ease and comfort into a prison cell? This article is also a golden opportunity to talk about the hypocrisy of pretending this kid was ever a real college student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Never convicted

"was an American football tight end who was convicted of murder."

"The conviction was voided upon his death based on a rarely applied Massachusetts legal principle known as abatement ab initio."

Reading these two statements, and reading the article on Ab initio in wikipedia leads me to believe at best you can say a jury voted to convict him but their verdict was nulified by his passing. It would be as if the case never happened and no conviction was ever handed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.232.102 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that that has happened as of yet (i.e., that his conviction was nullified). I think that his lawyers have to file paperwork in order to make that happen. So, it is not now in effect (yet). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, he was still convicted of murder. His conviction may someday be retroactively voided due to his death, but I don't think that's particularly important in the context of this article's lead. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Add citation under Death - after *Found not guilty* -NigelTheNarwhal (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[1] NigelTheNarwhal (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McGrath, Tyler. "Was Aaron Hernandez Acquitted of a Double Murder?". USAttorneys.com. USAttorneys.com.
There is a source in the lead for the not guilty verdict and also in the 2012 Boston double homicide section. Where do you think we need to add another source? ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If I had read better the first time I would have seen where you wanted it added. Do we really need to source it again? ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Alleged bisexuality

Two sources allege that Hernandez killed Odin Lloyd due to fears of being outed as bisexual and that one of the suicide notes found in his cell was left for his gay lover. Should we include this in the article or consider it unsubstantiated? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4432542/Hernandez-notes-fianc-e-daughter-gay-prison-LOVER.html http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/reports_aaron_hernandez_feared_being_outed_as_gay/s1_127_23776333 Darren1988cdm (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia, we don't do "Alleged" Hernandez is the only one who can make this claim no matter how many third party sources there are. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is also an unacceptable source of information for Wikipedia as it is a tabloid rag that frequently makes things up and does sensational headlines to get more clicks. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Newsweek may be a better source. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Newsweek, NY Daily News, The Sun, USA Today. The list goes on. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are a lot of sources reporting this now. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I suggested Newsweek because Newsweek is reporting the claims. The others are reporting that Newsweek is reporting the claims. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see. Well, Newsweek is a reliable source. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

When did he commit suicide?

We are sure of the date that prison officials found him; we are sure of the date on which he was pronounced dead. All of this was on April 19. 2017. However, I don't think we know the actual date of the suicide. It may have been April 18. And, quite frankly, it probably was. Do sources say anything about this? The article says that he committed suicide on April 19. We don't know that. The article should say that he was found on April 19. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The official statement after the autopsy confirms that he died on Wednesday, April 19.Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jacknstock: Thanks. But, sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Please elaborate. This is my understanding. He was locked in his cell at 8:00 PM (April 18). The prison officials found him hanging at 3:00 AM (April 19). The Medical Examiner pronounced him dead at 4:00 AM (April 19). So, yes, he was found dead on April 19. And he was pronounced dead on April 19. But, when did he actually kill himself? Do the sources say one way or the other (April 18 or April 19)? I have not seen that anywhere. Quite frankly, it is very likely that he committed suicide on April 18 (between 8:00 PM and 11:59 PM). Or, rather, it is at least equally likely that he did it on April 18 (before midnight) as it is that he did it on April 19 (after midnight). In other words, when the guards found him hanging, had he been hanging for just an hour or so (indicating that he killed himself on April 19)? Or had he been hanging for several hours at that point (indicating that he killed himself on April 18)? Do we know? Where in your link does it shed light on this? I did not see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The prison guards are required to perform hourly bed checks afterhours. The guard near Hernadez's cell missed doing the 2 a.m. check so found him hanging during the 3 a.m. check. So another guard must have performed the midnight and 1 a.m. checks without seeing anything amiss. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That may be. But has that been reported through sources? Guards may be "required" to conduct hourly checks. That does not mean that the hourly checks were, in fact, done. In fact, you just pointed out that the 2:00 check was "missed". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is one source. ~ GB fan 19:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: Sorry, but I don't follow you. That is one source. Yes. But that source says what, exactly? I read the entire story. I don't see how it sheds light on any of the above questions or issues. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
It talks about the hourly checks, isn't that what you were asking about? ~ GB fan 00:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: All that I can see in that article is the following statement: The I-Team also learned a veteran corrections officer is “detached without pay” after admitting to missing the 2 a.m. cell check and not discovering Hernandez until about an hour later. So, yes, that "proves" that Hernandez was found hanging at 3:00 AM. It does not say that the guard did in fact do his 12:00 AM check and/or his 1:00 AM check. So, it does not say that someone/anyone (e.g., a guard) saw Hernandez alive after 12:00 midnight on April 19. If it did -- which it does not -- then, we can say with certainty that Hernandez was alive after midnight on April 19 and, thus, he committed suicide on April 19. But, it does not say that. So, we cannot determine if he committed suicide on April 18 or on April 19 (i.e., before or after midnight). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I never said they did checks, at any time. I just provided a source about the information that was stated earlier, that that they do hourly checks and that the 2am check was missed. I thought that was what you asked for, if I made a mistake, sorry. ~ GB fan 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. No, I was looking for some source that indicates that the guard did the 12:00 AM check or the 1:00 AM check. And that that guard can verify that Hernandez was alive after midnight on April 19, indicating that Hernandez committed suicide on the 19th and not the 18th. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Categorization

Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States keeps getting added to the article. The category does not belong for two reasons. First and most important is that WP:BLP applies to recently deceased person and WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." The second part may be true as the sources are saying this has something to do with the murder but the first part is not, he has never publicly identified as LGBT. Even after his death is no longer recent and WP:BLP does not apply there is still WP:CAT/GRS#Sexuality. This states "For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 16:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: - Hope all is well. I get where you are coming from, and do not often know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but it's pretty common knowledge he was bisexual. It's no accident that Newsweek, NY Post, Daily Mail, etc. are reporting this to be true. At what point does it just become accepted and the category is added? For example, there are several notable historical personalities who are under various LGBT sub-categories, none of whom actually self-identified, but everyone accepts it as fact. Donmike10 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donmike10: I am curious. You stated that: it's pretty common knowledge he was bisexual. Is it really pretty common knowledge? I had no idea, and this was the first I had ever heard of anything like this. (Then, again, it's not like I "follow" Aaron Hernandez, either.) Also, if it were common knowledge, why would he "freak out" (as has been alleged) over people knowing? I am just curious. This was all new news to me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Totally great question. It's something people in the football world have talked about for years, but never publicly addressed as it was no one's business. I wouldn't want to put it as the same public knowledge as people like Jodie Foster, Liberace, or Barry Manilow, in terms of keeping it under the table when everyone knew, but it's been an open secret for a long time. The media is just picking up on it now. Donmike10 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donmike10: Thanks. Wow, I never knew anything about any of this. And I would venture that most other people also had no clue. OK. So, what you say makes sense. It was an "open secret" in the world of football. Everyone knew, but no one felt it was their "place" to say anything. OK. I get that. But, it still doesn't answer my more puzzling question: if it were common knowledge, why would he "freak out" (as has been alleged) over people knowing? When tons of people already knew? To the point of murder? Quite odd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: - I wouldn't want to speculate too much, but we'll probably never know exactly what happened. I mean, he also had to know that people would find his suicide note to his prison boyfriend (if that does, in fact, exist), and that this was going to surface. Who knows? There will be more people coming forward I would guess who know more. Donmike10 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donmike10: Yes, excellent point about the suicide note to the prison "lover". He had to know that that would be found and revealed. Very odd behavior in many respects. As you say, I guess we will never know. Now that he is dead, perhaps lots of people will be coming out of the woodwork, claiming to be one of his bisexual/homosexual "flings". Even if that were to happen, who knows if these people (coming out of the woodwork) can be believed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The general guideline about categorization of people by sexuality, WP:CAT/GRS#Sexuality, would apply sometime in the future after his death is no longer recent. We need to let things settle down a little. Then after all the information comes out and if the consensus of reliable sources confirms the sexuality then we can relook at it. There is just to much going on to say the sources agree. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Cool cool Donmike10 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aaron Hernandez. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't he get credit for being the first known gay man to make an NFL roster?

Sure he's a murderer. But he murdered Odin Lloyd because he found out that Hernandez was gay. What does that say about our society? That a man would be so afraid to be outed that he would kill someone. I think this page should in fact recognize that he is one of the few, if not the only, confirmed gay man to make an NFL roster.

No, other men that came out as gay/bisexual after having played in the NFL, see Homosexuality in American football so Hernadez would not be the first. Note there is not enough proof to say he was bisexual. We may never know if Lloyd knew about the possibility of bisexuality. It is sad that the NFL have never had an openly LGBT player actively playing because the ones that are gay are in closet. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That's irrelevant though, because we don't even have proof he was gay. Lizard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal life section

The Newsweek quote needs to be deleted. I've deleted it a couple times but it keeps getting put back. Any claims of "secret bisexuality " are not appropriate..we should be dealing in facts only. Also, Newsweek is not a credible source (maybe used to be, but not now, possibly due to ownership change 2013): Newsweek reported that A.H. was likely high on K2 the night of his death, but autopsy results state that no K2 or other illegal drugs were found (see WCVB TV-Boston and others) Beaglemix (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It has since been reported by multiple sources that the false claim of a suicide note left for a fellow inmate was mere speculation. Most sources now report there was a note to his fiancée Shayanna Jenkins, a note to his daughter, and a note to his lawyer, Jose Baez. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Hernandez. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Hernandez/Archive_1&oldid=1136488816"