Jump to content

Talk:Zach Thomas

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

Removing the incident involving his wife, as well as the incident involving Ryan Moats

[edit]

Hello.
I've chosen to remove both of the incidents mentioned in the aricle involving the same officer. There are a couple of reasons for this:

  1. A traffic incident involving his wife isn't really pertinent to his article. It seems to border on BLP concerns to include, "oh, and his wife is a bad driver".
  2. The phrasing misrepresented the incident anyways. The source said that the original complaint was for an illegal u-turn, running a red, failing to show proof of insurance, and having incorrect information on her driver's license. The rest was removed in a deal to have it reduced to a u-turn. Even if you choose to re-include it, you need to do so in a neutral way. Otherwise it'd violate both NPOV and BLP.
  3. The incident, however unrelated to the rest of the article, is only included because of its perceived connection to an incident with Ryan Moats. And it is this other incident that's responsible for far more text than the one involving Thomas's wife. Even if the incident with his wife were acceptable, this sort of treatment would still also constitute grossly undue weight.
  4. The note included the name of the officer, which is a violation of WP:BLP (under the 'privacy of names' section) For more information on this particular point, please refer to the Ryan Moats talk page, or the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.

If you wish to undo my removal of this text, then you are free to edit, but please address all of these concerns before doing so. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. a LOT of editing in the time it took me to write this. Some of this may not make sense. Lemme check it out to see if I'm going to look crazy. :) 209.90.135.248 (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. and a good job you did, too. You've definitely taken care of #2 and #3. My concerns about the BLP concerns still remain however. His wife isn't really a public figure, so talking about her arrest record doesn't seem to respect her privacy. Additionally, there's still a concern about including the officer's name. (For example, leaving the phrasing, but excluding his name, wouldn't detract in the slightest) However, we may as well defer judgement on the officer's name until it's settled for the Moats article.
But, again, still a bit concerned about the BLP issues with including his wife's arrest. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I we'll see what others have to say. There is now an ANI Edit Warring noticeboard report [1] on the article as well. What excitement! As I indicated, I think the whole section should go. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much of a section, more like two sentences. Grsz11 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentences that aren't related to the article's topic are two too many. And even one that violates BLP is still too much. And, an ANI report? Have a link? 209.90.135.248 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the report (by someone else) was on the edit warring noticeboard. Looks like vigorous editing to me...  :) I can live with the sentences such as they are, although I suspect they will be removed over the longer term as they are very peripheral to the article. Grsz are you thinking more content needs to be added back or what? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heh. I was about thiiis close to giving a warning (I tend to notice when people stop right at 2 reverts on multiple pages), but things are being worked out on the talk pages now, so really no harm. :) 209.90.135.248 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of wife + officer bit

[edit]

In response to an edit warring report, I have re-removed the content in dispute per the biography of living persons policy, as the wife is a private figure, and while the fact that she's his wife is acceptable for inclusion, the link to the event is problematic; moreover, the officer nugget is equally inappropriate. Please see privacy of names, blp/poorly sourced info, one-event notability, and general notability guidelines for inclusion for more info. Please do not re-add it, or it will be removed again and the article protected. If you believe my actions are incorrect, you are welcome to obtain a second opinion by asking on the biographies of living persons noticeboard or the administrators' noticeboard; however, the text should not be re-added in the meantime. --slakr\ talk / 03:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the decision, but may I also ask for your opinion (whatever it may be) in including the same officer's name in the Ryan Moats article? (It's been largely discussed on that article's talk page as well) 209.90.135.248 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The Moats incident has no relevance here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning

[edit]

I put in a link to the lesser-known wide receiver of the same name. It's unlikely many people will search for him, but hey, you never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.222.32 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zach Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 21:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zach Thomas. 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) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zach_Thomas&oldid=1209891323"