Talk:Patrick Kane

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zachboss4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Why do people keep erasing who Patrick is dating? I know him, and Caroline is a wonderful, caring person. Is someone jealous, or is this just not "important" enough? Because it really is. 70.131.69.232 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 Faith

You are so right. Let people know this stuff. To Wikipedia: In this day and age, information like this is what people want to know, and if you don't give it to them, this young generation is going to stop coming to your site for information. 70.131.69.232 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2008 Laurie

South Buffalo?

I think listing Kane's birthplace as "South Buffalo, NY" (all capitalized like that) are misleading, because it makes it sound that "South Buffalo" is the name of a distinct municipality, like South Bend, Ind. There is no place officially called "South Buffalo," it is just a neighborhood within the city of Buffalo. Leaving it in the biographical section as the neighborhood Kane grew up in is fine though.

For example, if you look up the article on Joe Mullen, it lists his birthplace as New York, NY, not Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, New York.140.251.125.50 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Matt

bad behaviour off the ice

I think we should at least wait a day until more information comes out about this scuffle and the cabbie. It just hit the media and not enough details are out to give a Neutral point of view of the event yet. Just my thoughts. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To state that he had been arrested on robbery charges on a dispute over cab fare is NPOV. So long as no further assumptions are made. It isn't like there aren't a ton of sources for it. Resolute 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stats Errors

Just a few corrections for the sidebar: Kane is 5'9" and weighs 160 lb. Both the Internet Hockey Database and ESPN concur on this - I don't know where the other information is sourced from.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=96554 http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?playerId=3735 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.212.124 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

His NHL.com profile says 5'10'', 175. All 3 sites are reliable, though. http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8474141#&navid=nhl-keymatch RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest editing question

Why can't you edit this page? It should show Patrick "20 Cent" Kane. To properly create a suitable nickname, such sources as Wikipedia should display it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JYDK (talk • contribs)

I've temporarily protected the page from editing by unregistered and new editors due to repeated vandalism and violations of our biographies of living persons policy. The protection will be lifted automatically in about a day and a half, but I will immediately extend it if it becomes necessary. To answer your question, Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new nickname. While the "20 cent" nickname certainly has gained traction on online forums, it has no basis in reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. At this point, the repeated inclusion of it would be considered vandalism. Resolute 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

US Bobcats

I don't think this team even exists, he played for US National Team but never a team called the Bobcats.Sportslogo (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

First Cup winning goal by an American?

Does anyone know if Kane is the first American to score a Stanley Cup winning goal? I can't recall another. I know we have to wait until the it's said in the media, but I thought I'd mention it. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As any Buffalo fan will tell you, Brett Hull scored a Stanley Cup winning "goal" with his skate in the crease, triple-OT of Game 6, 1999. Hull was a dual citizen, but he played internationally for USA.72.225.232.224 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Matt

Here's a complete list of Cup-winning goal scorers. Off the top of my head, Neal Broten (1995) and Mike Rupp (2003) are Americans as well. You can look through the others, there might be more.72.225.232.224 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Matt

Game winner in the WP:LEAD

If the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize his biography, it should include his most important accomplishment. We remove mention of the game winner.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the lead - it could use some expasion to refelct that he was the team's leading scorer this season, and was a member of the championship team. However I do not really think the extranous details (date, game number, time in OT, position of planets etc) should be included. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

contract

hey I don't think his contract is 31 mil his and toews combined is 31 million can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.55.21 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that was misreported. Kane and Toews signed identical five year, $31.5 million contracts. Someone got confused and thought that meant $31.5 million total. [1] Enigma^msg 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

Below is a copy of the second paragraph in the article. The link for the year "2015" within the paragraph below directs to the 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs instead of the 2015 SC Playoffs. The exact word that is linked incorrectly is denoted below with asterisks.

"Kane won his first Stanley Cup in 2010. He won his second Stanley Cup in 2013, and also became the first American forward to receive the Conn Smythe Trophy.[1] Kane won his third Stanley cup in ***2015*** as the Blackhawks defeated the Tampa Bay Lightning. Kane also represented the United States at the 2010 and 2014 Winter Olympics." Grantolabar (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Accusers name

IS it permissible to put the accuser's name in the article? Since she has not been charged with a crime of false police report yet, do we need to wait? Cavalierman (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Cavalierman (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies the name of Kane's accuser? Most sources will not disclose a rape victim's name until their assailant is convincited. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:StarScream1007But there is no "rape victim". There is someone who made a false report of rape - a crime. The victim is Kane. My question is when can we name this person - her name was on the evidence bag during the press conference. 2605:E000:2150:7400:C41B:32:994D:2579 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cavalierman The DA is investigating this matter and has never said the accuser made a false report of rape. Furthermore, unless her name is reported in the media, it shouldn't be added here. GLG GLG (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You wait. Period. We do not speculate, we do not guess, and we do not act without reliable sources. Especially when it pertains to WP:BLP. Resolute 18:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but it does not seem fair to me. Kane is being made to be a villain, and by all accounts he is completely innocent of all charges. He was doing nothing and his name is being smeared all over the press. In the meantime someone is making false accusations but her name is being protected. Does not make sense! Cavalierman (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly we don't know that "by all accounts he is completely innocent of all charges". Nor do we know that a person is making false accusations. Really, all we know is that he has been accused of a sexual assault, and that the accuser's mother is accused of attempting a clumsy hoax for reasons unknown. Everything beyond that is speculation. As far as fairness goes, this is an example of the dark side of fame. Kane is a public figure, which is why the Buffalo News made this into a big story in the first place. Resolute 19:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Patrick Kane is the fourth american player to win the Conn Smythe Thropy. The source marked with number 1 in the text is correct. But the text says he is the first american to win that thropy. It´s a minor edit. So it should be the fourth and not the first player shown in the text. NHL Fan2100 (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I simplified it down to the fact that Kane won the Conn Smythe, as being the fourth do to something isn't terribly remarkable. Thank you for catching that error! Resolute 15:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

In the section about the recent rape investigation, next to the citation/source link for the DA's press release, please also provide citations for/links to the two 30-minute interviews the District Attorney gave regarding his reasons for declining to press charges. These interviews provide significant relevant information not covered by the press release alone.

The interviews can be found at http://www.wgrz.com/videos/news/local/2015/11/05/75224352/ (Part 1 of 3) and http://wivb.com/2015/11/05/full-interviews-paul-cambria-and-frank-sedita-speak-on-pat-kane-decision/

Xzandrax (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: These are not really reliable sources. Mdann52 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

Could you please edit the point streak records? It seems that you said that he tied it at 21 games and then broke it again at 21 games. Just a minor edit. Thank you! Minicoop12401 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

'Done. ty for the catch. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

but he chose not to play for the Knights until the 2006–07 season.[4]    replaces incorrect grammar and spelling in Section Minor and junior 2nd paragraph that reads  but he did not choose to play for the Knights until the 2006–07 season.[4]

2601:C6:C201:88A7:C53E:FE20:8D4E:D882 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Eteethan(talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

False rape accusation heading

Just noting that regarding this edit by Nezi1111, I disagree with the heading change, per what I stated on my talk page; I stated, "I reverted you because I don't see where it's been confirmed that the rape accusation was a false rape accusation. I see speculation, but no confirmation. Therefore, I viewed your changing the heading to make it seem like the woman was lying as non-neutral. That the case was dropped, which doesn't mean 'innocent,' is already noted in the section. There is no need to bias the heading. [...] I'll leave a WP:Dummy edit note to alert editors to the fact that this topic has been discussed. Like I stated when reverting you, I came across that article via WP:STiki and I will not edit over it."

But I will go ahead and alert WP:Biography, WP:BLP and the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter to see what other editors think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

should we vote on it? Nezi1111 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Votes are bad. How can this be worded in a neutral manner? He hasn't be found innocence nor was he charged, is that correct? --Malerooster (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the words "unproven" or "unsubstantiated" could help. The fact that the subject was not charged should be explained at the start, rather than buried deep in paragraph umpteen. I also wonder if this section could be shortened because the allegations didn't result in charges. Why all the long detail? Jehochman ^Talk 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As it stands, Kane did not face any criminal charges. His accuser can still potentially file civil charges against him. According to the Buffalo News, Kane's accuser has retained a personal injury lawyer. However, there have not been any updates within the past month. It might be best to follow Jehochman's suggestions and state in the first sentence or so that Kane did not face criminal charges. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And trim the backstory. He was accused. Prosecutor declined to prosecute due to inconsistent evidence. If anything happens in civil course we can address it if and when. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Edited - title changed to "Assault accusation inconsistencies" as being accurate, and non-salient material removed. A splendid example of why WP:BLP must be strictly interpreted to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've cleaned this up somewhat but more editing could be done. There was an investigation. The accusation was neither proven not disproven. The DA declined to prosecute because the evidence was rife with reasonable doubt. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think we should be judging whether an accusation was false or not, but really, we're not in the gossip business, and such accusations should not be automatically included just because they were in the news. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Should the paragraph "Sexual assault investigation" be deleted?

Recently the paragraph "Sexual assault investigation" was deleted [[2]]. Personally, I agree that the issue is given too much weight in the article. Is there consensus that we should delete this paragraph? Spacetoast (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:BLPCRIME. The issue is discussed globally. We don't need to rehash it every time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The requirement is that the material requires a specific positive consensus for inclusion. Which seems not to be present. Collect (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And I'll just chime in. Spacetoast, these decisions aren't taken lightly, and I cited BLPCRIME in my edit summary. It behooves you to read the summary and then act accordingly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Spacetoast (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Collect nad Drmies. I'm not willing to engage in an edit war, but whitewashing the article in this fashion is embarrassing for Wikipedia. Certainly a trim and re-write as Jehochman attempted is valid and useful, but pretending that no such investigation happened and pretending this was not a major story within the NHL and for Kane personally is naive. Frankly, I think both of you should re-think your decision to be overzealous in this case. Resolute 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Last I looked, WP:BLP is official policy. Propose a "single sentence" version if you wish to get anywhere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Resolute, please don't tell a colleague they're "whitewashing" stuff. It flies in the face of AGF, and I don't have a dog in this fight except for the BLP. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubt you are acting in good faith, but you are still whitewashing the article. A wrongheaded decision can still be taken with honest intentions. Resolute 21:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolute, I think you can make a case that Patrick Kane is a public person, WP:WELLKNOWN, and if so, a slim version (accused, investigated, no-prosecution) might be appropriate. Especially so if sources say that this investigation was a major headache for the NHL. I will leave this discussion to the rest of you. I first appeared here to enforce BLP by deleting excessive details that gave the incident more weight than it should have had. I am not arguing for no weight. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Any definition of "public figure" or "well known" that does not include one of the top players in a major professional sport is so narrow as to be meaningless. This investigation was one of the biggest news stories in hockey and American sports in general last year. It prompted reams of news coverage across every medium. To omit mention of it entirely is, as Resolute said above, embarrassing for Wikipedia and, frankly, reeks of bad faith. Dcw156 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep it. The only ones deleting it are Patrick Kane fanatics. It's been made aware in the public spotlight. Whether there is proof he did or didn't do it, it should still be included seeing as the accusations themselves have gained enough notoriety with the public. If you believe there is an issue with the sections length then I suggest trimming it down, however, him being accused of sexual assault by multiple people should be included somewhere. Afterwards, I would also suggest asking an administrator to protect the page. The whole thing being absent from the article shows blatant favoritism and disrespect. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither Drmies nor Jehochman are "fanatics" of Kane. Nor, in fact, am I. We each. moreover, believe that WP:BLP is an important policy of Wikipedia, and the idea that somehow those who believe that must somehow be biased is nicely absurd. I daresay it is a tad more likely that an editor whose sole and only edit to Wikipedia is a comment on other editors is more likely to be evincing a bias, alas. Collect (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Cloudkade, I think you should be very careful with your words. I've never watched a hockey game in my life and I couldn't care less. I don't know Patrick Kane from Adam. You, on the other hand, are blatantly ignoring WP:AGF, besides pushing for what appears to be a BLP violation. Also, I'm an administrator, and I will be glad to protect the page--but it will be a version that protects our BLP and errs on the side of caution. As for "biggest story of the year"--if there is no evidence, then such a story is...what's the word again... Drmies (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Per the #False rape accusation heading section above, I'm the one who brought inclusion of this material to the editors who commonly enforce the WP:BLP policy. In my opinion, what was originally there was WP:Undue weight. I prefer the slimmed down version to no inclusion, but I don't feel strongly about this matter other than ensuring that we don't present the material in a biased way. Collect knows that I trust him on WP:BLP matters (though I don't always fully agree with him), and when I saw him show up to deal with this, I left it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I made some edits showing what I thought was reasonable. If this was a big widely reported story, this version is something like what the article should be. I haven't followed hockey lately so I will leave it to those more informed to make the call. Jehochman ^Talk 23:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

How about:

On August 6, 2015, The Buffalo News reported that Kane was the target of a sexual assault investigation by Hamburg, New York police. The New York Times noted that the prosecutor found a lack of credible evidence for any chargesno credible evidence and no charges were brought.

NYT 7 Nov: Blackhawks’ poor performance came a day after a prosecutor in upstate New York decided not to bring rape charges against Patrick Kane, Chicago’s star forward, because a three-month investigation had produced a lack of credible evidence. [3] Once we have the NYT referring to a lack of credible evidence, the utility of giving it much space at all in a BLP is dramatically reduced, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe. Less is more. Jehochman, you know more about hockey than I do. Collect, I suggest replacing "a lack of credible evidence" with "no credible evidence, and no charges were brought" or something like that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That works. The point is that in such a case, there is good reason to abide by the spirit of WP:BLP and make sure we do not imply guilt at all in such cases. Collect (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I would go with "insufficient evidence" or "lack of credible evidence". Closely following the source is safest. My interest in hockey waned when the Hartford Whalers departed. Best theme song ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_NiGdfFa8. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Next try:

A 2015 investigation into a sexual assault allegation found a lack of credible evidence, and no charges were filed.

Which presents the gist of a non-event in many ways - we can not make it appear as though there was any credible evidence to be sure. Does this work? And in any event, it does not merit a named section in the BLP as a result of those findings. Collect (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It works if you add source(s). Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The NYT one is likely sufficient - it is a non-event in many ways. Collect (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is more to it than that though. Kane lost endorsements (notably: was pulled from the cover of NHL 16 video game) as a result of this. Also, coming on the heels of Slava Voynov's arrest for beating his wife, there was debate about whether he should have been suspended. There is some other nonsense like the alleged victim's mother tampering with evidence, but that would be undue for Kane's article. Provided nobody is going to revert me on it, I will write a brief paragraph on these impacts later. Resolute 14:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh? Last I checked we do not list "new endorsements" for athletes - the loss of an endorsement pales in relation to the "no credible evidence" part with regard to encyclopedic value in a BLP. Ought we list all of his endorsement deals as a matter of "encyclopedic interest" in such an event? Yes - if he were charged/convicted the losses might be usable but when the loss appears to have been founded on a non-credible accusation, I think we can use rational discretion here. And the other arrest is "right out" in this BLP. Collect (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I really fail to see how pretending Kane suffered no quantifiable, objective consequences (in this case, even being victimized himself) as as result of the accusation can be viewed as "rational". The loss happened and that is encyclopedic. We would certainly note that the loss resulted from a non-credible accusation, but failing to note such a loss would equally foolish as pretending the accusation never happened in the first place. And I point to being pulled from the video game cover because it was unquestionably significant news, and clearly a harm Kane himself suffered as a consequence of this accusation. Resolute 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I barely see a non-credible accusation as being worthy of much encyclopedic value in a BLP. And losing the cover photo on a video game seems trivia at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, we write our articles based on reliable sources, not Collect's personal WP:POV. Even a non-credible accusation against one of the game's biggest stars that dominates their sport for several months is very much relevant to that player's biography. I understand what you are arguing, but you need to take a step back from you overzealous position. What you are really arguing against is including junk like the new accusations coming on social media today, but which are already widely viewed as bunk. That's one thing. But accusations that result in police investigations, tangible consequences and generated months of coverage in mainstream news is quite a different scenario to anyone who realizes things are never black-or-white. Resolute 20:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Amazing that you assume bad faith and that I have a POV about Kane. I would not recognize him if I were next to him in a bus. BLPs must be conservatively written, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If an allegation is found to be without credible evidence and that is what reliable sources report, we damn well have to accept it and not pretend in any way that "the allegations might be true so we must make sure our readers know they existed." Cheers, and please note you do not have any clear support from others on your crusade. Collect (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a definite POV with respect to how we should handle factual information that doesn't fit your personal viewpoint. The fact that you don't know Kane, the NHL or how big of a story this was *is* the problem. Also, do me a favour and do not ever try to assign an opinion of your own invention to me. At no point did I ever say or imply that "the allegations might be true so we must make sure our readers know they existed." What I have argued - and which you allowed your personal bias to twist - is "the allegations were made and, despite ultimately being considered non-credible, were a dominating story and had a material impact". Also, don't be a hypocrite with accusations like "[my] crusade". If anyone is on a crusade here, it's you. Particularly given your zealous attitude in the face of clear ignorance. Resolute 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I know I am late to the party, but I was a little bit amazed that that article doesn't mention anything about the incident. Going by the conversation above, I have to agree with Resolute. There should be NPOV way of presenting the situation, but to completely not include it, considering how much coverage it has received in MSM is bizarre. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that there was no formal vote on whether the section should be deleted or not, so how was a consensus obtained? It appears that the section was in fact deleted. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of material deleted for policy reasons requires an affirmative consensus. I rather think that it is clear that such an affirmative consensus was not produced, then the policies say the material stays out. Collect (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What policies say the material stays out? The only one I see cited above is WP:BLPCRIME. However, this doesn't apply because Patrick Kane is a public figure. Is there another one that was used above that I mussed? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I am still curious about what policy is keeping the material out? The only one I see above is WP:BLPCRIME. However, this does not apply here because the subject of the article is a public figure. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Since Xcuref1endx is interested in continuing this discussion, I'm pinging the following editors: Malerooster, Jehochman, StarScream1007, Collect, Spacetoast and Resolute.

Nezi1111 has since been indefinitely blocked for certain matters and was later revealed to be a sock, so that editor is out of the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Dcw156 and CloudKade11 as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: The community (excluding "1 edit editors" and the like) has repeatedly reached the same conclusion. The relevant policies are WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and noting WEIGHT issues decidable on the individual article. And at no time has consensus favoured the use of "well he lost endorsements" as being relevant to "is the material of material value to the reader?" Collect (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And I will simply repeat my comment from the start: your insistence on whitewashing this article is disgusting. Resolute 15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that the relevant policies are RS, NPOV, and BLP. But I see those as suggesting that it should be included. The reliable sources are abundant. Also, I am not suggesting that the conclusion of the event should be ambiguous, the RS generally point to that. I am not understanding why the event itself does not warrant inclusion. The abundance of RS on the issue should answer the WEIGHT issue. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is absolute BS. He is a public figure and is thus exempt from BLPCRIME. Kobe Bryant's page mentions similar allegations, as does Ben Roethlisberger's. You (Collect) saw no problem with including the charges against Peyton Manning, yet Patrick Kane is mysteriously exempt for the same reasons Peyton's were included. You are obviously making a special exception for Kane. 173.56.72.3 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's absolutely ridiculous not to mention these allegations. With respect to public figures, BLP specifically states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." Collect seems to be completely overlooking this section of BLP. Unless we're going to argue whether one of the biggest stars in the NHL for the last decade is a public figure? This is cut and dry with respect to policy, it should be included. Cvanwoert (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And, pray tell, how many edits have you and the IP made in toto on Wikipedia? By the way, I suggest you read my precise statements concerning the Manning "allegations" and note that my position here is absolutely consistent with my positions on other BLPs. Collect (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Rape investigation

I have noticed there is now no mention his the previous rape investigation. Is this purposeful, or did someone remove it without proper reason to? Should we consider adding information about it again, or should we ommit it due to the fact that (I believe) no charges were officially filed.SecretName101 (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello SecretName101, please see the discussion directly above this one "Should the paragraph "Sexual assault investigation" be deleted?". This topic regarding Kane's sexual assault investigations was discussed in that section. I believe the decision to omit the content came down to Wikipedia:BLPCRIME and the fact Kane was never formally charged or had to pay any form of restitution. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, per the above IP's note that we mention the Kobe Bryant matter, and address similar cases like this, this is an issue that can be revisited. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. On one hand, I can see how it might seem unfair to mention an accusation that never advanced to formal charges. However, the absence of any mention comes-across as whitewashing. Kobe truly is the precedent I have been considering. To some individuals, it might even give the appearance of blatant racism if we give mention to the claims against Kobe but not Kane. SecretName101 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If Kobe's page is wrong we should fix it, not make this one wrong to match. Jehochman ^Talk 10:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

Kobe was charged and then exonerated. That is different entirely. Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It is different only in result. And does not justify whitewashing this article. Resolute 19:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, it does belong in the article as it was a major event to a notable person and is certainly whitewashing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Valuable information to add to Mr. Kane's page. Thanks. Mweingarten (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

editing

I plan on adding more information about his personal life with working with others and one goal.Zachboss4 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rape investigation revert

@StarScream1007: I don't see how 2 sentences on the rape investigation (1 noting the investigation happened, 1 noting Kane wasn't charged) is considered undue weight. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with a two sentence section about the sexual assault investigation. There are a few other long discussions where other editors redacted the information per WP:BLP - something I do not have much experience with. I have no issues with your proposed inclusion given it's brevity. Would anyone else be against it? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do it 47.18.55.201 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging some editors who previously commented on this topic - Malerooster, Jehochman, Collect, Resolute, Flyer22 Reborn, and Djsasso. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that it was not simply "no charges filed" but that there was a distinct possibility that "There are significant material inconsistencies between the complainant’s accounts and those of other witnesses." per cite. This is a polite way of saying that the allegation may well have had zero factual basis ab initio, and thus is pretty much a non-starter for us to suggest that the issue of rape may have been properly raised. Lots of people have "allegations" of all sorts of crimes, but unless the allegation is considered of sufficient weight and notability for that living person, it requires more than "it exists" as a reason for inclusion. Any mentionshould absolutely require the "material inconsistencies" quote at the very least. Collect (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The addition that was made was fine with BLP. It was a major event that did happen. The sentence doesn't claim the rape itself happened. To add something that was a significant part of someone's life that is neutrally worded is not in any way undue weight. If anything a single sentence is probably under represented. Too leave it out would actually be a fairly gaping hole that would be clear whitewashing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is still on my watchlist, but I'm not heavily invested in whether or not the rape allegation is mentioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Leave it out. BLPBobLawblaws (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

2011-2012 Season - Played at Center

Currently there is no mention of the 2011-2012 season in the "NHL career" section of the article. This season was interesting in the career of Patrick Kane, in that he was often deployed as a center instead of a winger. It may be beneficial to mention this in a quick sentence or two. Below are some articles I found from the 2011-12 season discussing his move to center.

Article from Sept 25, 2011, (pre-season) discussing a potential move to center - https://www.nhl.com/news/blackhawks-considering-kane-at-center/c-589844

Article from December 1, 2011, (two months into the season) discussing his move back to right wing from center - https://www.espn.com/chicago/nhl/story/_/id/7303316/chicago-blackhawks-patrick-kane-moving-back-wing

Article from April 28, 2012, (after getting eliminated from the playoffs) discussing his inability to adapt to center - https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1164752-chicago-blackhawks-will-patrick-kane-ever-adapt-as-a-center

A hockey-reference article showing that he took a total 569 faceoffs during the 2011-12 season, winning 240, and losing 329, for a 42.2 faceoff percentage - https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kanepa01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeron Chair (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

Kane has a bronze medal in the Workd Championships also 2601:18F:902:3EB0:15FB:DE5E:9F89:9245 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 22:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Kane to the Rangers Trade

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

Change "is an American professional ice hockey right winger and alternate captain for the Chicago Blackhawks of the National Hockey League (NHL)."

to

is an American professional ice hockey right winger for the New York Rangers of the National Hockey League (NHL). M42na42 (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As of 5:20 CT 2/28/2023 The trade is still unofficial. It's expected to happen, but neither the Rangers nor Blackhawks have officially confirmed any details. The article will be updated once there's an official announcement. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done The requested edit has been made per [4] with a source provided at [5]. —Sirdog (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

Per numerous sources Patrick Kane has signed with the Detroit Red Wings. 2600:1009:B1CE:511E:D96E:8D9B:B7C6:D4BA (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As of 14:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) neither Kane's agent has officially confirmed this. The article will be updated once both sides make it official. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Donnie Harkins vs Donnie Harkness

Donnie Harkins recruited Patrick Kane, not Harkness.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/staff/8896/don-harkins 24.29.198.11 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As the late Rick James said, "Harkness! Harkness, everybody!" Good catch. It has been corrected. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

Add at the end of the first paragraph, something along the lines of "Kane has been lauded as one of, if not the greatest U.S. born hockey players to play in the NHL." 64.107.190.90 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There are actually five references to support this under the Player profile section. :) However, the sources usually say "one of the greatest", which seems neutral given he still trails Brett Hull and Mike Modano by most points by an American (technically only Modano, if you only count "American-born" players). --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)