Talk:Erin Crocker

message: I feel that the controversy section has little to do with the article and should be removed.  It is not a substantial part of her racing career, and it was alledged, vaguely, by a driver with ulterior motives to draw attention away from his own poor performance.  I hardly think that issues encyclopedic merit.  If the allegation came from Everenham's wife, or Erin and Ray were engaged or openly dating, this would be a separate issue and might justify notice in the article.  Otherwise, everyone's privacy and reputation should be considered.
:Agreed, I've removed it. Recury 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We really need to come up with a consensus on whether or not the statements filed by Mayfield in court should belong. Constant adding and removing info with no edit summary just isn't good for the project, and I want to avoid a violation of the 3-revert rule. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to spend too much time arguing with IPs, the least they can do is sign up for an account so I know who I'm talking to. Recury 23:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a statement is filed in court doesn't mean it is A) True, or B) Verifiable.  Due to the totality of the circumstances of the situation with Mayfield, the Crocker rumors were likely included as a diversion tactic...funny that the Crocker connection was the biggest "distraction" that Jeremy mentioned, as if none of the other 400+ employees of Everenham's had anything to do with performance of the car, or Jeremy's driving.  Rumors, plain and simple, are not verifiable or notable for encyclopedic material.  People 400 years from now will not care about Erin's alledged romances, they will care about her driving record, and anything else of notable accomplishment she has achieved.  Otherwise, the allegations belong on message boards and rumor mills, not wikipedia.  Furthermore, the allegations bring a completely moral deunciation and judgement against Crocker, again...do we want to be commenting on potential breaches of morality on here?  That seems like a POV issue.  If in doubt, throw it out.  Works for bad milk and sour grapes. Nmjw 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship rumors 

message: Todd Bodine was quoted in the New York Times verifying the Crocker/Evernham romantic relationship. The fact that she is last of all the full time Truck racers but EMS (Ray) has stated that she will be racing Cup, maybe even at Homestead is germain to her career. A non-involved racer would not be promoted this way. Only a family member or lover gets promoted despite bad performance. This is central to her current situation and belongs in the entry.
: Alright, even if all of that is true (questionable), how does it merit encyclopedic content?  Facts, dates, accomplishments, etc.  The fact that a driver was quoted in a paper does not merit encyclopedic content, unless it was concerning the three items above.  Read the content guidelines of wikipedia.  Rumors of dating, romance, etc has nothing to do with this article.  When in if Erin ever comes out and says she is dating someone (whomever it may be), we'll put it up here, don't you fret.  Until then, it is a rumor, and it doesn't belong. Nmjw 12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I've just checked something and I think you'll find these results interesting.  You say that only being a family member or lover gets one promoted despite bad performance, right?  I haven't seen ANYTHING on Kerry Earnhardt, Kenny Wallace, Michael Waltrip, Casey Mears, wikipedia pages that state something so extreme as you are wanting to post on her article, yet all of them by some form or fashion are driving because of the success of someone else in their family, or through their connections.  Also, none of those drivers are rookies in a new series, like Erin Crocker.  Your content suggestions are not encyclopedic, and since similar ones didn't belong on any of those pages referenced, they don't belong here.  Again, read the content guidelines. Nmjw 12:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: First, consider registering...people might take you seriously.  Second, you never countered any of my arguments, but you did state that the nature of your incessant addition of the accusation is because you think she is driving because she is "trading sex to a boss for a promotion."  Well, thanks for clarifying your intentions to write material on here that doesn't belong.  Just because an individual doesn't flat out deny everything that is said about them doesn't mean by default it is true.  Celebrities and regular people frequently won't even give the charges credence by refusing to address them.  Her performance is germane (correct spelling of that word, by the way) to the level of competition in which she will compete...no one is giving her a free ride to Cup, and even if she did, it's not of encyclopedic concern that she got it because she was self-sponsored, given it, or forced to take it, it WOULD be of encyclopedic merit that she competed, and how she performed.  You fail to be able to discern what is encyclopedic material. Nmjw 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the editing needs to include the avidavit info 

message: I have not added the Todd Bodine quote from the New York Times since I felt the court affidavits were enough, but the Bodine quote is very direct about Crocker/Evernham being "in love". I don't think Bodine is lying and the quote was never retracted or contradicted by any parties. A last place driver in the Truck series would not be promoted without some other "connection" that is why the entry is critical to understanding this driver's status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.242.136 (talk • contribs) .
:I'd refer you to the content guidelines of wikipedia.  
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.
How are you going to verify a relationship with Erin and Ray if you are making an inference or showing rumors or statements from other people as proof?  It could be verified by a statement from Ray or Erin, or photos showing them engaged in the things you are accusing them of.  You haven't shown that.  Therefore, what you are posting is original research.  That's not allowed in wikipedia.''
NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.
Clearly, your preconceived ideas are that she is in a relationship with him to get promoted.  Therefore, you are only expressing that, and your claim is extremely biased.  Even the source you cite, if read through, doesn't give me the same conclusion as it does you.  Seeing as how you've put vandalizing posts about her on entries that have nothing to do with her, like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mistress_%28lover%29&oldid=68913861
You have an axe to grind with her, obviously.
If you want to add the bit about Mayfield, in which she was a minor issue, in order to be objective you have to 1) mention that she isn't specifically named in the affadavit, 2) state that it's never been confirmed, 3) state that any potential relationship is a rumor.  Anything to the contrary is obvious and unfair bias.  Apparently, most people that have contributed don't think that is a good idea, and that the whole thing was overblown to a rediculous degree.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.23.49 (talk • contribs) .
:I agree with the above statement.  Also, WP:LIVING says that anything controversial must be verified, and the article provided is extremely weak for that criteria.  Finally, please sign your talk posts (add four tildes (~) after your post).  -- DiegoTehMexican 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the user with the affidavit issue 

message: The simple fact of the matter is, a lawsuit implied that they have a close personal relationship.  Its been a significant part of the news related to Crocker in 2006, and neither party has denied or confirmed it.  I understand why some people would not want it to be on her page, but the fact of the matter is, its significant, relevant, and interesting.  Just look at how much discussion there is here.  I strongly believe the page should include something to the tune of "In a 2006 lawsuit filed by Jeremy Mayfield against Ray Evernham, an implication was made concerning a "close personal relationship" between Evernham and Crocker.  Neither party has publicly addressed the allegations.  
Absolutely true and verifiable.
Waynekillion 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why we have to explain this so many times, but the court documents DO NOT explicitly say that Crocker is in a relationship with Evernham, and as such, CANNOT be used to justify adding that information to this page under WP:BIO.  -- DiegoTehMexican 13:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't weighted in until now, but I 100% agree with D-Day, Recury, Diego, etc. that adding these court documents are rumors or someone's opinion and unable to be verifiable short of Evernham or Crocker verifying them. I see no value added to the article by including the rumors. There are plenty of blogs and forums for discussions like this. Remember, this is an encyclopedia! Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 14:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its a part of her life story to this point 

message: Ray Evernham has taken Erin Crocker as his date to banquets during Nascar week. They have been photographed with their arms around each other. So to those who say this is a rumor, I guess that can't be said any more. Again, I and many others see the fact that she is racing for her lover as critical to understanding her career opportunities.68.5.242.136
:Can we see said pictures? I link would be fine. --D-Day I'm all ears 11:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship verified 

message: :Image:Ecrocker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ecrocker.jpg

message: i had no idea about the whole story and don't really care to hear about the whole soap opera drama....it happens every day in everyones life, weather your a nascar driver or your every day average person..... and then there's polotics.....   moral of this story, dont judge, even if you think you know the facts.        good luck emc!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.186.87 (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  its in the past...... leave it there!  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Erin Crocker. 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/20131103234118/http://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/racing/wiwc/bios/hereWeAre/ErinCrocker.pdf to http://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/racing/wiwc/bios/hereWeAre/ErinCrocker.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908003233/http://auto-racing.speedtv.com:80/article/erin-crocker-to-call-arca-race-for-speed/ to http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/erin-crocker-to-call-arca-race-for-speed/
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) 19:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified