Talk:Kareem Hunt

Cut from team

Kareem Hunt was cut the Kansas City Chiefs on November 30th 2018. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/30/kareem-hunt-released-kansas-city-chiefs

 Done. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Change where it says "domestic violence" to "assualt". Kareem Hunt was not in a relationship with the woman. Molliward (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Already done by the time I saw the edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Kicker in Infobox

Someone made this as a joke, so I’m reversing it, he never was a kicker. Erfson (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have warned the offender. It was likely done as a joke due to that incident. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It also says "American football kicker" in the tooltip that comes up when you type 'Kareem Hunt' into the searchbar on the wikipedia.org search page. I'm not sure how to change that, but I wanted to make someone else aware of this problem. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I think I have fixed it.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You have to go to the wikidata object to change that. The vandalism was from february 11, 2019. I fixed it there and removed the short description from this article.--JTCEPB (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

On 2/11, Hunt was signed by the Cleveland Browns, and that should be represented in the topline as well as the 2019 section. Kunalk278 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Free agency near-signing and removal of sourced information

This edit removed sourced information based on an unwritten (as far as I know) local consensus of the NFL WikiProject. As such, I am restoring and updating the information for now while a discussion here can progress.

I added this information because it's unusual. Unlike most run of the mill free agency visits, there were reports that Hunt would sign with the Saints—but then departed without a contract. WP:SPORTSTRANS has a lengthy list of times this happened, and of four random players I selected there, all of the articles included information about the failed deal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Rockchalk717. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For starters, articles are to be in the pre-disputed version during a discussion, in this case, free agency being excluded. Two, WP:NOTNEWS applies here as well. Wikipedia isn't a collection of news, not to mention everything in regards to visits are based on an anonymous sources, which never get included. Three, it has the consensus for a LONG time not to mention visits for these reasons. Take objections to WT:NFL and leave it out of the article until then.--Rockchalk717 02:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: Thanks for participating in the discussion. I would opine that your words boil down to calling this WP:ROUTINE, which as I've shown above this is not. Normal visits are routine; visits with expected signings that fall apart are definitely not. I've also demonstrated that similar info is included in at least four other Wikipedia articles, which specifically were Wilmer Flores, Michael Brockers, Tyler Anderson, and Hakim Ziyech (albeit the first one isn't an entirely fair comparison as there were additional factors involved). Do you have an additional argument to provide? Second, I'm not really concerned with the NFL WikiProject. As I said, you're quoting something that's at best a local consensus which isn't even written down (like e.g. the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide). I'm concerned only with ensuring that this article is comprehensive and inclusive of even unusual info like this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You should be concerned with the project because that's where these were discussed. It is a project consensus not a local consensus and once again take your issues there. Number 1, just because other articles do something does not make it right. Second, that page (SPORTSTRANS) is an essay, not a policy. Third, it's not that unusual it happens more often than people realize, those are a small list of examples. You seem to not understand how projects work. I would research that before saying you don't care about projects.--Rockchalk717 03:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: First, on the subject of how WikiProjects work. Let's quote from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus."

Second, this seems like a good opportunity to note that I was a coordinator of WP:MILHIST for several years. I am intimately familiar with the pros/cons + what WikiProjects can/can't decide, and I know that an unwritten agreement from one WikiProject is not binding.

Third, I mentioned SPORTSTRANS only because it includes a list of times where transactions fell through. I'm not quoting from it; in fact, it doesn't mention this situation. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument against deletion, here it helps give us an understanding of how editors have handled this situation previously.

All that said, we're getting off the topic of discussion. I've asked for a third opinion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have the idea that just because it's sourced means it can be included. Per WP:VNOT verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. NFL Project has had many discussions over the years of not including sections like what your trying to had. In the end, I don't mind a brief mention of it sounding like a contract with the Saints was a done deal, but an entire section of this off-season isn't necessary. Just something as simple as "It was reported that Hunt had an agreement with the New Orleans Saints, however, he left the facility without a contract." It doesn't need added what team he left the Saints to go visit or even why (because the why is based on anonymous sources). Though I would prefer to add it to the 2022 season section or wait until he signs with someone to add to that section. I don't see any reason to include a specific date either but if that does happen, it needs to be MDY format not DMY format like you kept adding because it's a page about an American athlete.--Rockchalk717 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: That is not what I've said. As per above, we've disagreed on whether this is routine coverage: "Normal visits are routine; visits with expected signings that fall apart are definitely not." I'm glad to see we can agree on adding something, so I'll remove the third opinion request. On the section header, I used a new one because it's not the 2022 season anymore. It could be "2023 season" instead, which will fold into the new content that will be added if/when he signs with a new team? And on DMY, that's my bad. It's a habit formed by writing about warships.

How does this sound: "In August 2023, press outlets including ESPN reported that Kareem Hunt was visiting the New Orleans Saints and was expected to sign a contract. However, he left the facility without a deal and traveled to visit another team."

Notes: 1) This gives in-text attribution to the outlet that first reported the news, per this, and avoids passive voice. Unfortunately, ESPN edited their story after he didn't sign and there's no archive available. 2) I'm not wedded to including a date, but it does help contextualize that this is shortly before the season begins. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: That is perfect. Glad we could come to an agreement on both of the issues I had with this article. I'm ok with a 2023 section then changing the name if/when he signs with a new time.--Rockchalk717 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: Great, and same! I've added it into the article with a couple sources. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Kicking incident" or "2018 assault"

This revert added the section header "Kicking incident" in place of "2018 assault".

The definition of "assault" is "violent onset or attack with physical means, for example blows, weapons, etc.", and kicking a woman certainly meets that definition. Calling it an "incident" minimizes what actually happened, and I'm frankly surprised to see an editor defending that position in this day and age. Pinging Rockchalk717 to give them the chance to better explain their position, and I'm open to widening the discussion if needed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read my edit summary? I'm defending calling something an assault that never had charges filed. It is legally an incident. It is not legally an assault or battery either one. WP:BLPCRIME applies. He never received charges therefore per that policy we shouldn't use legal terms like assault or battery.--Rockchalk717 03:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: Of course I read your edit summary. Assault is the actual act of what happened and is frequently used in common parlance without referring to the legal act—which as you've noted would actually be battery. That said, I'm open to synonyms if you'd like to suggest one that would be agreeable to you? As I said, "incident" very much minimizes what happened.Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything that gets the point across without using battery or assault.--Rockchalk717 03:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: I've gone with "physical attack". Other synonyms listed on Google are ... interesting, to say the least. "Thrash", "thumping", "knock around", etc. all seemed inappropriate for various/obvious reasons. Merriam Webster had "aggression", but that seemed to imply no physicality. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah those others do not work but I'm ok with what you added. Glad we could come to an agreement on it.--Rockchalk717 21:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)