Talk:Kyle Eckel

message: I can't tell if there was a final decision on including Eckel's military "career." I'd edit it in myself, but it seems like there's reason enough for it not to be included for me to just arbitrarily make that decision (especially when this article was protected to prevent edits regarding this). Jklharris (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until the details are clearer, unless you have definite facts from it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final decision on military status? 

message: I would suggest that we try and centralize this discussion rather then carrying it on several other talk pages.
These sources all describe essentially the same version of events - that Eckel was involuntarily removed from service in the Navy:
*http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-2346524.php (Navy Times staff writer)
*http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119220,00.html (Baltimore Sun story)
*http://www.belleville.com/mld/miamiherald/email/sports/16044329.htm (Miami Herald story)
(Feel free to add others.)
Obviously we do not want to include information that is untrue ... but are there any available sources that provide an alternate version of events?  I have been googling and can't find anything.  --BigDT 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone looking at this, please see previous discussion at User talk:Jaranda, User talk:BigDT, and WP:BLPN. --BigDT 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Navyfootball, I sympathize, but here is the problem.  Three legitimate news articles - yes, not written by the Navy, but nonetheless legitimate sources of news - all say that he was involuntarily separated from the Navy.  That would seem to, on the surface, meet a burden of proof.  We're not talking about blogs or message boards - we're talking about mainstream news media sources.  Do you have any source that refutes them?  The news media sometimes gets it wrong - I'm fully open to that possibility, but if that's the case here, we need some kind of evidence of it. --BigDT 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we know the policy on biographies.  Yes, we know that news articles are not official Navy publications, but there is no requirement to use primary sources (Navy documents, eye witness accounts).  These are three reputable newspapers all telling the same story.  This is not a poorly sourced assertion - it's very well sourced.  If it isn't true - in other words, if the media got it wrong - can you tell us (1) what really happened and (2) point to any source of information on the subject? --BigDT 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we go ... check out this article column ... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/sfl-spmarvez25_cnov25,0,4229278.column ... googling on "resigned" has been more fruitful. --BigDT 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: None of this is opinion or guesswork.  Please take a look at the current text and see if it accurately conveys the situation. "He served until October 31, 2006 when his letter of resignation was accepted [1] and he was administratively separated [2] from service in the Navy. [3]"  Thanks. --BigDT 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that's accurate though. "Kicked out", while informal and not encyclopedic, is how I would summarize those articles. "Citing privacy concerns, the Navy would not characterize the specific nature of Eckel's 'administrative separation,' saying only that it was 'involuntary.'" and "I was given the opportunity to submit a letter of resignation" make it clear the separation was not voluntary.--Prosfilaes 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what it appears, he was being kicked out and the Navy gave him the opportunity to save face. Metros232 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This page that we are on right now - Talk:Kyle Eckel - will continue to be here as a reference in case the issue comes up again.  Eventually, if there is a lot of discussion about the article and it gets to be too long, the talk page may be archived.  Talk pages for controversial topics - like Talk:George W. Bush - get archived pretty frequently.  I doubt this one ever will.  If you believe that anything said here is an issue, we can hide it (take a look at the second subsection of WP:BLPN for an example of a "hidden" discussion) ... but I think it's probably best to leave it here in case the issue ever comes up again. --BigDT 07:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding military discharge 

message: The charges against him were dropped in November 2006.  Without any other information about the charges, I don't think it needs to be mentioned here.  We err on the side of caution when dealing with BLPs.  Any thoughts? --B 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the harm in presenting the known facts. It was a significant moment in his life and I think it's worth mentioning.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it significant?  I can't find any information about it other than its existence and so we don't have any context to offer. --B 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Navy was the reason he left the NFL when he did, and the chargers were the reason he left the Navy and returned to the NFL when he did. Considering he's an NFL player, I'd say it's definitely worth noting why and when he left and returned.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal issues

message: (IIRC, this is unrelated to the above "Legal issues" discussion - the one above was referring to the situation surrounding his leaving the Navy, not this alleged assault.  I could be remembering incorrectly, though, from a 2-year-old discussion.)  According to the source, the alleged victim's claims were denied by witnesses.  Witnesses said Eckel was the one being attacked and that he only defended himself after repeated abuse.  The charges were dropped.  If the facts as claimed in this article are correct, it is horribly incorrect to just have a one-liner saying he was charged with a crime because that leaves you with the impression that the charges are still out there, but there simply wasn't enough evidence.  I don't think it belongs there at all - it was a minor incident in his life and he was, from this article, completely innocent.  Adding this in here is ridiculous and, as it was, a gross BLP violation. --B (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the above discussion I'm pretty sure the situation might be the same but I could be wrong. Now onto this issue, I think the info should stay in the article yet I agree the wording is lacking more info. How's this re-wording? "However witnesses later refuted the claims saying that instead Eckel was the one who was abused and acted in self-defense. The charges were later dropped due to lack of evidence."--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The charges weren't dropped "due to lack of evidence" - they were dropped because you don't charge assault victims with a crime when they defend themselves. --B (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Looks like you already took care of a re-word so my original attempt is irrelevant now.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issues part 2 

message: Substituted at 21:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kyle Eckel. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130726/http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Broncos-sign-JD-Walton-cut-two-others.html to http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Broncos-sign-JD-Walton-cut-two-others.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422222647/http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=30951 to http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=30951
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified