Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Renaming of section legal issues

I think that the title of section legal issues is misleading and should be changed to something that better describes the situation. An issue is usually a talking point; this noun is used to describe legal aspects usually to minimize the impact of the word. It should be something more directly linked with the crimes that Hernandez committed: Crimes and misdemeanors comes to mind.--Gciriani (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The word "misdemeanor" is redundant in the phrase Crimes and misdemeanors because all misdemeanors are crimes. However, Legal issues might still be better than a title like Crimes because Hernandez was not found guilty or even charged in relation to some of the incidents discussed. It's likely that subtitles such as 2012 Boston double homicide and 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd are sufficient to provide clarity to those who do not read further. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point about misdemeanors being crimes. What about using instead the word problems as in Legal problems and crimes? I find the word issues almost a weasel word, trying to mitigate the impact of what happened.--Gciriani (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

Olequefacil (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC) I want to put all Aaron Hernandez NFL stats.

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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Stuffing the article

Toeknee44, regarding the big career expansions you've been making to the article, keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTADIARY (which are also mentioned in the sexuality discussion above) in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sexuality

Rather than edit warring, can we discuss here? For example, https://www.outsports.com/2017/4/24/15386576/aaron-hernandez-suicide-patriots-gay-lover doesn't think the NYDN report is credible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dwest25: Looking at the available RS news sources, Hernandez called a fellow prisoner, to whom he wrote a suicide note, his "heart" and also wanted to address the truth of certain things that were said about him. This can be included in the text if properly sourced and written. But removing the current sourced material as "unproven" is not an option, since "proven" is not the claim, and our standard is WP:VERIFIABILITY; not TRUTH. Please seek consensus for any other changes. Any further unilateral reversions will result in an immediate report to WP:AN3. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no way that speculation about Hernandez's sexuality should be included in the article without high quality reliable sources. The New York Daily News source falls well short of that. WP:BLP covers recently deceased individuals and edit warring to reintroduce this controversial information without consensus could easily be considered a violation of that policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition, μηδείς, you need to catch up on policy. WP:VNT was deprecated to an essay and is not policy following Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for a week. If more editor input is required, consider using WP:BLPN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Update

The Boston Globe is now reporting that "Hernandez’s attorneys said their client was 'very concerned' that his sexuality might be discussed in court," and that the lawyer said "This man clearly was gay." I understand in the past that there were some issues about the quality of sources who were reporting on his sexuality, but this seems to me to be enough to at least raise the issue. Does anyone else have any thoughts? --BrianCUA (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the Oxygen channel recently aired "Aaron Hernandez Uncovered", a two-part documentary that corroborates some of these details. You can read more about it here. Not sure to what extent this should be covered (if at all), but it likely warrants further discussion at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe called the documentary "not exactly definitive" about his sexuality.[1] Outsports brings up some dubious points about these reports.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think enough conversation about that topic has happened in reliable sources, that it is more justified to include it in the entry than keeping omitting it.Rafe87 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Can you list the sources here for discussion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) https://nypost.com/2018/03/19/aaron-hernandez-lawyer-and-ex-say-he-struggled-with-being-gay/ 2) https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/new-england-patriots/report-aaron-hernandez-left-suicide-note-for-gay-prison-lover 3) http://www.newsweek.com/aaron-hernandez-documentary-gay-death-851435 4) https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2018/03/19/aaron-hernandez-lawyer-this-man-clearly-was-gay/y27mA4yM7WbztnJpI1hcFM/story.html Rafe87 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears the most recent coverage was because of the documentary. As stated above, The Boston Globe called it "not exactly definitive" about his sexuality. At best, this might be OK if proper neutrality was applied to cover all points of view. However, the amount of text to make it neutral might make it undue coverage. Although he's dead, WP:BLP is still relevant (per WP:BDP). I'm wary of adding anything per BLP: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Also see others' concerns above.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

GoneIn60 and Bagumba, although Hernandez is no longer alive and therefore WP:BLP no longer applies to him, I am concerned about some of the "he was gay" material that Slugger O'Toole keeps adding. Some of it is based on the brother's book. As seen with this edit, I gave it the WP:In-text attribution it should have. Slugger O'Toole has also added other material as fact without in-text attribution; I ask that Slugger O'Toole stop doing that when it's hearsay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Warned. If this type of editing continues, the matter will be going to an appropriate noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Whoa. I don't think I've ever had a run in with you before, Flyer, but if I have ever done anything to upset you please let me apologize. You seem to be coming out very aggressively here and on my talk page. I am not sure why. Only a very small portion of what I have added has been about his sexuality. I've used multiple sources. There are other reliable sources already on the page that say the same thing. That he had sexual relationships with other men doesn't seem to be a controversial statement at this point. His outing may even have lead to his death. All of that said, I am not perfect. If I ever err, I would greatly appreciate you fixing it. If my prose could be improved, please do so. If I ever run afoul of one of the five pillars or other policies, please point it out. At the same time, if you could tone down the rhetoric and assume good faith, I would appreciate that as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, it matters not that you've never run into me before. I've told you more than once now to stop making claims made in Wikipedia's voice. To stop quoting people without WP:In-text attribution. And yet you are still doing it, which is unacceptable. Using multiple sources doesn't take away from something being hearsay or opinion. Something stated in sources does not mean that it's fact. You haven't even read WP:YESPOV and other rules I've pointed you to, have you? You do not have to be perfect to follow this site's rules. Hernandez being dead doesn't give you a license to add any and every claim about him, especially in Wikipedia's voice. Being "very aggressive" is apparently needed since you continue to edit this article inappropriately. It is a mess with quotes that are not given in-text attribution. Readers will have no idea who stated what, unless they search in the source. You additionally need to read WP:Copyright and WP:Close paraphrasing. And given your history with homosexuality topics, I am not surprised by some of your editing at this article. "Only a very small portion of what [you've] have added has been about his sexuality."? Um, no, unless you are comparing the sexuality pieces to all of the other material you've added to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just trying to understand your hostile tone. I have read the policies you've cited, both before and now that you've pointed them out. I may be in the wrong, or we may have different interpretations of them. I'm not sure. I also don't believe every statement requires in text attribution. In fact, WP:In-text attribution's example about the sun says they don't. I include it when I think it is appropriate. I don't in places where I don't think it is appropriate. That said, I will try to do better. I ask that you try to assume good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, and I am trying to understand your inability to comprehend the rules. Yes, you added in-text attribution with this edit, and yet that edit also has the following without in-text attribution: "Football's 'hyper-macho, intolerant locker room culture' also played a role." Why in the world would you think that such material doesn't require in-text attribution? It is quoting a source. It is the source's opinion. Of course, we should not give in-text attribution for something like "The sun sets in the west each evening." That is completely different. That the sun sets in the west each evening is an indisputable fact. It's interesting that you go on about how aggressive or hostile I'm supposedly being for having an intolerant attitude with regard to how you've been editing this article, when we can see that an editor (Contaldo80) on your talk page called your editing aggressive, and stated, "I have never come across someone so aggressive and un-collaborative in all my years of editing Wikipedia." Have you ever heard of WP:Civil POV pushing? I will give you some time to start editing this article more appropriately, and that (among other things) includes removing all of the quotes that don't have in-text attribution or at least giving the quotes in-text attribution, but you should not be surprised if I take this matter to the broader Wikipedia community because you have failed to do so. This edit was the start of you editing the article better than you've been editing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am unable to comprehend the rules (though I may be wrong about that, too). What we have is a difference of opinion. I didn't attribute that quote in the text because there is a citation at the end of the sentence. Anyone who wants to know where it came from can easily find out. It is not sourced to an opinion piece, but to a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team. They are reporting facts, not opinions or suppositions. I don't believe it needs in text attribution; the citation at the end is sufficient. If you feel differently, you are more than welcome to edit the text to reflect that belief. That would be much more constructive than simply going through and deleting everything you don't like. I'm very willing to work with you, but we need to WP:AGF on both sides. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You are unable to comprehend the rules if you think that the things you've added that should have in-text attribution are comparable to "The sun sets in the west each evening." And since you apparently do think that, I do not see why I should state anything else to you on this matter. You just are not getting it. Stating "Anyone who wants to know where it came from can easily find out" is not enough because you have quoted the source, and because there is the matter of WP:YESPOV. Sources can report on facts and state their or others' opinions or hearsay; that should be obvious to you. You should read WP:Close paraphrasing since you don't seem to understand WP:In-text attribution. This is not about a difference of opinion, not being civil, or not assuming good faith. It's about editing the way you are supposed to edit. I have not deleted everything I don't like; that is not how I edit. I have repeatedly tweaked your text, only for you to at times partially revert or add the text back in some other problematic way. I deleted this for reasons noted above. You restored it, and only added in-text attribution for part of it. Look here in the Academics section. The statement that "Hernandez was always trying to be 'the life of the party'" should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the statement includes quotation marks and therefore leaves readers wondering who made the comment. It should obviously have in-text attribution. So should "plants, gardening and you." What is "and you" supposed to mean? I'll go ahead and ping Isaidnoway, who is an excellent editor with an excellent grasp on the rules, and see if he is willing to weigh in on this, but I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it. Like I stated, I will take it to the wider Wikipedia community if need be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am also going to alert the associated WikiProjects (the ones this article is tagged with) to this discussion. That way, I will have taken the steps of querying the opinions of the projects before taking this matter to a noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think having some other voices here would be helpful. Thank you. Also, FYI, "plants, gardening and you" was the name of the course. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think that it's best that Wikipedia remain silent on the issue for a few reasons 1) The subject's sexuality is not a significant portion of his biography and 2) The details are still pretty sketchy; at best we have otherwise reliable sources reporting rumors. It is probably best that given these two facts (with 1 being most important) it is best that the Wikipedia article itself be silent on the issue. The other question one must ask here is "Would we report that he was straight if the reporting here went the other way". I'm inclined to think that since we wouldn't, and since the sourcing is tenuous here at best, and relevence to his biography (i.e. the reasons we have an article here at all) are also tenuous, we simply omit any discussion of his sexuality. Certainly he had a sexuality (every person does), but as to whether that sexuality is relevant to this article, I'm quite doubtful. --Jayron32 03:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. We have his teammate from high school saying they had a sexual relationship that lasted for years. That's not a rumor; that's a principal speaking about their relationship. He killed himself two days after being outed on the radio, with many people suspecting that had something to do with his death. There is also speculation that Lloyd was killed because he knew about Hernandez's sexuality and made a disparaging remark about it. In any case, there has been a ton of media about it. If somehow his being straight led to all of this, then yes, I would say it should be included as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Slugger: Two issue 1) We have an uncorroborated reported from a single individual, which I would be leery to include on any grounds, regardless of which source it was reported in. And 2) most importantly: Sexual incidents are NOT correlated with sexual identity. The fact that a person had a short-term sexual experience with someone of the same sex does NOT mean that a person self-identifies as gay any more than the fact that a person had a short-term sexual experience with a person of the opposite sex identifies as straight. There is no default sexual identity, and a person is what they identify as; they are NOT what a third person identifies them as based on the third person's assessment of their sexual experiences. To the point: Even if we accept as true that Hernandez had a sexual experience with his high school teammate as reported (I'm not saying he did or didn't, I'm merely conceding it to make my point) that doesn't mean that a) Hernandez self-identified as gay or b) that whether he did or didn't represents an aspect of his biography worth reporting. Ask yourself the opposite question: Would we take evidence of a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex during high school as enough to make notable a special note in his biography that he was definitively straight? I can't imagine we would. For all of these reasons, it is best that Wikipedia simply not discuss the matter at all. It's a private matter that Hernandez didn't himself make any effort to make public either way. --Jayron32 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There is more than just a single person making a claim. We have his best friend saying they were lovers for many years. We have his lawyer saying he "clearly was gay." We have his brother saying he came out of the closet at the end of his life. I don't think you'll find anything I've added saying that because he had sex with a teammate in high school that he is gay. If there is something, I would agree it should be changed. Again, I think the relevance here is that it has been suggested as a motive for the murder of Odin Llyod and his own suicide. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources that say he self-identified as gay? I'm uncomfortable putting labels on a person they themselves did not use during their lives. The assessment of other people is not necessarily valid here, regardless of who they are. --Jayron32 19:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The brother's book. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

His brother identified him as gay? That still is not self-identification, unless you're working from some definition of "self" I've never run across before. --Jayron32 05:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

His brother quotes him in the book as saying "I'm gay." That's self-identification. The Personal Life section says: "D.J. states that, while in jail, Hernandez came out as gay..." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32, thanks for weighing in. I'm fine with some sexuality material being in the article, given what some of the sources state. My concern is Slugger O'Toole adding more and more on the matter as though a single paragraph on it is not enough, and Slugger O'Toole adding content in Wikipedia's voice when it should have in-text attribution. Slugger O'Toole is also adding more and more material to the Personal life section (and elsewhere) that does not need to be there, as seen, for example, here and here. It is like Slugger O'Toole needs to be pointed to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Edgar181, do you have any thoughts on this since Hernandez is now deceased? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Jayron32, the concerns I expressed last year about one specific low quality source are moot now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Edgar181, did you mean to respond to me instead of to Jayron32? I was the one who pinged you and asked what do you think about the issues I've been discussing with Slugger O'Toole. In other words, I was asking if you don't mind all of the sexuality material that is currently in the article and some things (not just sexuality stuff) stated as fact (when they shouldn't be presented as fact) now that Hernandez is deceased. I've tweaked the sexuality stuff to have in-text attribution for the parts it didn't have it for, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Some mention is warranted per WP:DUE, though tempered with WP:NOTDIARY in that excessive detail is not needed. At a miminum, perhaps his brother's statement that Hernandez came out to their mom. Does anyone else have first-person account of seeing Hernandez in a same-sex encounter? For NPOV sake, does anyone dispute that he might have been gay?—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks for pointing to WP:NOTADIARY; that is what I should have pointed to instead of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But WP:INDISCRIMINATE does begin by stating, "As explained [...] above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't dispute that Hernandez might have been gay. My concerns are what I stated above to Jayron32. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, by "does anyone dispute that he might have been gay?", you mean anyone close to him, not us Wikipedia editors. Below, Isaidnoway did mention the girlfriend. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with others that too much emphasis is being placed on his sexuality. He didn't come out and self-identify as being gay and it's not our place to label him as such. When I see Slugger tossing around words like suspecting, speculation, and suggested, that's just weasly gossipy crap that has no place in his bio. The second paragraph in his personal life section starts out reading like a tabloid, with questioning his sexuality and rumors abounded and a secret lover and secret liaisons. I would also note that the fiancée's response is conveniently left out as well, she said she saw no indication that he was gay or homosexual. Trim it all back to a couple of sentences, if that much. Christ, we aren't a tabloid. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between this and, say, Oscar Wilde or Francis Spellman? Both of those, and many others, include allegations of homosexuality. Wilde's article is a WP:GA. Before you say WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm sure there are plenty of other professional athletes who were secretly gay, and it is not noted within the project. At the risk of repeating myself, the reason it is relevant here is that his secret homosexuality was put forth as a motive for both a murder and his own suicide. Additionally, you may have noticed that I am working my way through the Spotlight Team's series on Hernandez. I have not yet come across anything from his finacee, and have not intentionally excluded anything. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Isaidnoway since Slugger O'Toole responded to him and he probably is not watching this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Slugger - No, it's fine to bring up other stuff exists, because the difference for me is those articles have consensus to include detailed allegations where this one doesn't. It looks like to me from the discussion above (Update) that it's mixed: 1 editor is opposed, myself, Flyer and Bagumba argue to mention it, but not in excessive detail, BrianCUA says "at least raise the issue", Rafe87 says "justified to include it" and GoneIn60 says "Not sure to what extent this should be covered (if at all), but it likely warrants further discussion at this point". So that's what we're doing, discussing, and it seems to me you're the only one who wants to expand more and include speculation and rumors. You say it's relevant here because it was put forth as a motive, but in the main article Murder of Odin Lloyd, his sexuality is not mentioned as a motive, or at all for that matter, so why would it be relevant here in his bio? His lawyer Baez denies his sexuality was a motive for his suicide and the Globe article says five former NFL players had committed suicide and been diagnosed with CTE, and we know that Hernandez was diagnosed as having brain injuries consistent with CTE, so we don't know what the motive was, it's all speculation. And the Globe series and his brother's book are not the definitive sources on Hernandez, there's plenty of other sources that say he was bisexual, we know for a fact he slept with women. And finally, this bit here included in his article, he had secret liaisons with other boys, and the source used (part 3 of the 6 part Globe series), that's the only mention of his sexuality whatsoever in that particular part (3), so that's just straight up cherry-picking to shoehorn in a POV. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There are 37 citations from that particular source. It's hardly cherry picking. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What I mean by cherry-picking is it was culled from just one tiny paragraph out of that six-part series. What that paragraph says: The baby’s mother, Shayanna Jenkins, had known Hernandez since elementary school. They had dated in high school, a period in which Hernandez also had secret liaisons with teenage boys, too. And they had stayed in touch during Hernandez’s years in Florida. And the way it's worded in this article implies more than just one person he was having secret liaisons with, and it's not verified in the rest of the six-part series by any other teenage boys (now presumably grown-up), coming forward to substantiate that allegation. Dennis SanSoucie is the only male who came forward for that six-part series and said he had a relation with him. So in my opinion it's just gossip and unsubstantiated allegations that there were other liaisons. And while I'm at it, take a look at the way these three sentences are strung together to imply something that's not supported at all by the sources being used (part one and part three in the six-part series, emphasis mine):

A high school teammate described a secret sexual relationship between the two that lasted for years.[8] The Boston Globe's Spotlight team reported that Hernandez had secret liaisons with other boys as well.[18] The teammate says Hernandez sought to keep the homosexual relationships a secret due to the homophobic views of his father.[8]

But that isn't what SanSoucie said at all, here's what he says in the interview.

For the first time publicly, SanSoucie also talked about a now-and-then sexual relationship he had with Aaron, which began in middle school and continued through high school. “Me and him were very much into trying to hide what we were doing. We didn’t want people to know,” Dennis SanSoucie said in an interview. SanSoucie said he and Hernandez worked hard to keep their relationship a secret. In their traditional community of Bristol, where Dennis was bound for the military and Aaron for big-time football, it was not something they wanted people to know about. SanSoucie said he has finally come out in his late 20s to family and friends, after Hernandez’s suicide, despite the difficulty in doing so. He believes that Aaron would be proud of him — for that and his publicly acknowledging their past relationship.

He never talks about any other secret liaisons or any other homosexual relationships that Hernandez was involved in, or says the homophobic views of his father, it's Hernandez's brother who talks about his dad's homophobic views, not SanSoucie. I have no idea who wrote that, but apparently I'm supposed to assume good faith and assume that maybe they misread the source or accidentally put a (s) at the end of relationship, or maybe in the alternative they're just making shit up to push a POV not supported by the sources. Either way, it needs to go. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, thanks for the trim. As expected, Slugger O'Toole re-added a bit of it. The Kayjewel account showed up out of nowhere and added information on the girlfriend/fiancée, which I trimmed. If the article keeps being stuffed in a WP:DIARY way, I will simply start an RfC on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, you're probably right that a RfC will inevitably have to happen to establish a firm consensus about this content. The topic of his sexuality is just a magnet for agenda-driven editors to keep on inserting more and more irrelevant crap, gossip and rumors about his personal life, like the recent re-addition of content in that section of empty and alleged threats by a prosecutor that never materialized. I tried to trim it back to an acceptable compromise, but I'm not going to edit-war over it, I'll lose that battle as evidenced by the recent editing. Quite frankly, I've always been extremely uncomfortable with Wikipedia outing people, regardless of whether they're dead or alive. If a person has never publicly self-identifed as being gay, it's not our place to out them, but recently that seems to be the new norm. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Isaidnoway. I think that the rationale behind mentioning his sexuality is that it's mentioned in some biographical content on him and therefore isn't outing. Before I came to this article, I had just watched a How it Really Happened episode about him and it mentioned the sexuality aspect as well. It's not just the sexuality stuff the article is being stuffed with. The article has turned into a diary in more ways than one. I'm not sure if the RfC should focus on the Personal life section specifically or how the article has been developing as a whole. Maybe the Personal life section first. I'll make sure to ping you and others to the RfC when I start it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, if he never publicly self-identified as being gay, then yes, Wikipedia has participated along with all the sources in outing him. He valued his privacy and apparently WP doesn't, but of course his article isn't the only biographical entry to be subjected to this type of agenda-driven editing. And actually, as far as I'm concerned, even if he had self-identified, it's still not worthy of inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Tone and assuming good faith

There has been a flurry of activity here lately from a variety of editors. This is great and I'm glad to see it. As with any article, though, there are going to be differences of opinions. For example, I think a paragraph with 10 sentences can usually be broken up into two. I tried to do this in the personal life section by creating one paragraph that described his family, and another that described his infidelity. Another editor reverted. I don't care so much about the reversion, and certainly not so much that I am going to edit war over it, but I am a little troubled by the tone of the edit summary, and by the unnecessarily hostile tone of some comments on this talk page. I'd like to see all of us work together without yelling at each other, and without ascribing motives to another editor's changes. Without clear evidence to the contrary, I try to WP:AGF of all editors. I hope everyone else will as well. Remember: we can disagree without being disagreeable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've explained my tone to you in the #Update section above. This is not about WP:AGF. So stop trying to make it about that. This is about you not following rules correctly, your flawed interpretations of the rules and your tendency to edit war. Even reverting partially can fall under WP:Edit war. I brought in other editors. They -- the ones who commented on your additions -- disagree with you (and others) stuffing this article in WP:DIARY ways. Because it appears that the article will continue to be stuffed in WP:DIARY ways, and the opinions of other editors above won't stop that, an RfC will likely be needed to ensure WP:Consensus. The edit summary you pointed to has to do with my frustration regarding your editing. Editors are allowed to get frustrated with other editors here. And, yes, I've seen that you have tried to unnecessarily make the section bigger than it is. Since, in the edit history, I reverted your subheadings to the Personal life section and commented on not having subsections for a little bit of material (see MOS:Paragraphs), I see you creating unnecessary paragraphs as an attempt to build toward unnecessary subheadings. I've seen this kind of unnecessary inflating before on this site. If you want to state that this is not what you were doing, okay then, but I still have the right to my opinion on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is about AGF. You think my interpretation is flawed. I think yours is flawed. I am not sure who is right, but am willing to admit I may be wrong. The solution is to AGF and work towards consensus, not yell at other editors, USE ALL CAPS, or throw in unnecessary exclamation points. I totally understand being frustrated--I feel it too, sometimes--but that doesn't give anyone license to be uncivil. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not about AGF. And that you don't understand that is why that RfC will very likely be happening. You stated that you are "willing to admit [you] may be wrong," and yet editors have already disagreed with you. Extra detail has been cut and you added it back. I'm not going to keep debating you on this. WP:DIARY is clear, and so are other rules I've pointed you to. As for using all caps, I have not once done that. "ONE" being capitalized in a sentence is not what I classify as using all caps. If I want to use exclamation marks, I will, regardless of you finding them unnecessary. Your extra text being unnecessary is far more concerning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Importance tag

Isaidnoway added an Importance tag to this statement recently: "Prosecutors threatened to raise the issue of his sexuality during the 2012 drive-by shooting trial, a prospect which frightened Hernandez." I tried to add some additional information to the article to explain the importance, but in my edit summary only said I was adding new sources. Isaidnoway put the tag back on, saying new sources aren't enough and the fact that it wasn't brought up at trial makes the threat meaningless. I respectfully disagree with the latter statement. A threat, by its very nature, does not need to be acted upon to be meaningful. Sometimes just making the threat is all that is needed to reach one's objective. Regardless, as I tried to show by the new information, his secret homosexuality may have been enough for him to take two lives. From the New Yorker article: "Hernandez was involved in a crime, which was investigated by the state. So the information about that crime, including his motive, are of public interest... The fact that Hernandez’s desire to keep a same-sex relationship a secret may have caused him to kill a man and take his own life is something that bears examination." This, I believe, is why the information is relevant here. However, I would like to ask Isaidnoway what he believes would be necessary to establish the importance necessary to include it here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think Isaidnoway is watching the article, but pinging just in case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have consensus that all these unimportant details, speculation and rumors you keep adding about his sexual orientation and sex life are of any significant importance in his personal life section. And that is the general consensus among the editor's here who have participated in the discussion, but you have ignored that consensus in favor of your own view about what is supposedly important and relevant. Secondly, the issue never did come up in court and he was acquitted of the two murders. Bradley turning against him and then testifying against him and the acquittal are the important details about that case. Speculation about threats made by the prosecutor, and how Hernandez felt about those threats are not important.

Third and most importantly, this sentence you just added - He wished to keep his sexuality a secret. - which implies that his wish to keep his sexuality a secret had something to do with the prosecutors threat at his 2012 drive-by shooting trial. Isn't that why you added it, to support that previous sentence? But yet The New Yorker article you used as a source to support that implication, is about Michele McPhee and her reporting on Hernandez’s sexuality in her Newsweek article, which makes it clear that McPhee had been investigating his secret sexuality as a possible motive in the Lloyd murder, not the 2012 drive-by shooting. Why are you misrepresenting what that source actually states? The NY article doesn't even mention the prosecutor threat in the 2012 case. So why are you combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion about a threat made by the prosecutor in the 2012 drive-by trial? That's synth, and not allowed - so it doesn't support your reasoning for the prosecutor threat as being important. And additionally, the quotes you use to support your reasoning here on the talk page are from Kelly McBride, and are in relation to the Lloyd murder, not the prosecutors threats at his 2012 drive-by shooting trial, so again no importance to the prosecutors threat. And you also cherry-picked her quotes leaving out her final conclusion about the Lloyd murder - “But I need a lot more reporting and context to arrive at any valuable understanding.” And you conveniently ignore this quote from gay-rights advocates who said that "the salacious details in reports like McPhee’s have no bearing on Hernandez’s crimes and thus no relationship to the public interest".

And for further context, here's McPhees Newsweek article, which says this - But interviews with multiple law enforcement officials directly involved in the case say Lloyd...had information the football star did not want out: that he was bisexual. And while I'm at it, why do you ignore the multitude of sources that describe and/or claim his sexual orientation as bisexual, bisexual, bisexual, bisexuality, bisexuality, bisexual, bisexuality. Instead, you've cherry-picked sources and synthesized together a narrative in his personal life section, that in your view, he must be labelled as gay, and all other sorts of speculation, rumors and content that reeks of gossipy tabloid crap. I suggest you take on board some of the advice of your fellow editors and stop ignoring the general consensus of what other editors have said about his personal life section, and stop with the synth and misrepresentation of the sources, as I also previously noted above back in November. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

Change: Police immediately identified Hernandez, who was playing for the Patriots, in security camera footage, but thought it was a coincidence that the NFL star happened to be at the club that evening

To: Police immediately identified Hernandez, who was playing for the Patriots, in the club's security camera footage, but thought it was a coincidence that the NFL star happened to be at the club that evening Esabadie (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Done by User:Slugger O'Toole. --Jayron32 19:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

Hello,

Please change:

“On January 14, 2012, Hernandez started his first career playoff game and made four receptions for 55-yards and one touchdown in the Patriots' 45–10 win against the Denver Broncos in the AFC Divisional Round.”

to

“On January 14, 2012, Hernandez made four receptions for 55-yards and one touchdown in the Patriots' 45–10 win against the Denver Broncos in the AFC Divisional Round.”

Earlier in the article, it correctly states that he played in his first playoff game the previous season:

“On January 16, 2011, Hernandez started in his first career playoff game and caught one pass for a four-yard gain as the Patriots lost 28–21 against the New York Jets in the AFC Divisional Round.”

This information can be confirmed by Pro Football Reference:

Thank you,

Chaw Daddy (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Chaw Daddy (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit request 2/4/19

This: "Lloyd may have learned of Hernandez's homosexuality and Hernandez was worried that Lloyd may out him to others" should be in past tense. It's not a direct quotation from the source, so changing the tense is the correct thing. This should say "was worried that Lloyd would out him". 158.123.57.85 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Drug use prior to death

Under the section titled 'Death', it is currently stated that: 'He had been smoking K2, a drug associated with psychosis, within 30 hours of his death.[78]'

This references to a news article that requires a subscription to view, hence I am unable to see this source.

There are multiple sources open to the public that state that:

'A fellow prison inmate alleged that Aaron had been smoking K2 to celebrate his legal victory of being acquitted. This inmate did so during during a rant about the negative effects of such a drug.

However, In the days following Hernandez's death, the chief medical examiner performed an autopsy and toxicology tests were done by the outside laboratory NMS Labs of Willow Grove, Pa. The State Police reported on May 4, 2017, that Hernandez's blood came back clean "for all substances tested to include synthetic cannabinoids" in the toxicology tests.'

See: https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/30/aaron-hernandez-drug-k2-suicide-prison

Hence, the current statement is highly misleading. It states that Aaron had been smoking K2 prior to his death. This was alleged but is not a known fact, hence the current statement is misleading. It should be restated that this was an allegation. A toxicology report disproved this allegation, however, there still remains a possibility that the K2 was not detected during the report because K2 is a difficult drug to detect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:41B:6C30:4C88:D4AE:8551:175D (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The source says "He ingested the dangerous drug K2 within 30 hours of his suicide, a short-enough span that it may have impaired his thinking as he prepared to hang himself." I don't think we need to edit it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2019

“ Aaron Hernandez suffered the most severe case of chronic traumatic encephalopathy ever discovered in a person his age, damage that would have significantly affected his decision-making, judgment and cognition....”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/aaron-hernandez-suffered-from-most-severe-cte-ever-found-in-a-person-his-age/2017/11/09/fa7cd204-c57b-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html Timblosser (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Since there are quotation marks, the quote needs to be attributed in the prose to the source, such as "According to Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post, researchers from Boston University along with Ann McKee stated that Hernandez......" Ideally, the entire passage should be rewritten so that the quote can be left out, which would leave only the properly paraphrased text to be added.  Spintendo  14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

should be greatly reduced

Really, 120K is far too much, seeing as there have been at least two docudramas aired and multiple books published. The purpose of a Wikipedia article should be to summarize the content presented in those sources. I don't see it unrealistic to aim for a 50% reduction, especially considering

• the somewhat labyrinthine and definitely repetitious prose throughout

and

• the typically salacious tone common to murder porn W'pedia articles.

The overall purpose of the article should be to briefly inform someone who heard/read a passing reference to "the Hernandez case" or similar as to the context. If that user then wants further detail, that user may then dig into the References section — most users will not, and shouldn't be forced to slog through a thousand words for a simple explanation.

In some other instance, I would suggest starting with a split, separating Hernandez from the litany of his violent acts. But without that, he probably would have been yet another forgotten "former pro athlete" of thousands, and not notable.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken on multiple counts. The lead paragraph is the part of a Wikipedia article that provides a "brief" summary of a Wikipedia article, and readers can find more information in the body of the article. Hernandez would also still pass (with flying colors) both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG based solely on his football career. I see you've posted on multiple article talk pages your desire to see articles cut down in length and detail, might I suggest checking out Simple Wikipedia? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The article has 54k of readable prose, which is not necessarily WP:TOOBIG. That said, if we can convey the same information with a better economy of words then I am all in favor. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't dig at all for the "readable prose" stat. When an article isn't clogged up with graphs, charts, & photos, the summary count can readily be used in an apples-to-apples comparison, a convenient thumbnail. The fact is that the page takes up 122K of space, as compared to (say) Marilyn Monroe at 119K or Peter Fonda (52K) or Barry Goldwater (100K).

I can understand people who believe Hernandez's case needs to be highlighted, especially considering new focus on the deleterious effects of repeated cranial trauma… but if such isn't covered somewhere else, then WP is not the place for "citizen journalism."

However, it is intellectually dishonest (at best!) to say that the introductory "lede" section doesn't need to introduce what follows. Advance apologies for rudeness, but that's utter barking nonsense.

In this instance, very few people can recall ever seeing Hernandez play. That part of his narrative is now secondary if not tertiary. He is now known for violent behavior, for a murder trial marketed (then and since) as a sort of crossroads between online porn and a WWF Smackdown, and for his suicide (replete with conspiracy theories).

Per Wikipedia:Manual of style#Provide an accessible overview:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

Right now, that's not the case.

As for the article itself: The great bulk of what's covered here is swiped outright from other sources. The point of W'pedia IS NOT to be the single definitive source for all the gory details, rather to summarize what is said elsewhere then point the reader interested in such details. This is made easier because WP exists only online, and therefore it can be assumed that a WP user is in all likelihood online and can thus click over directly to an online source.

With that in mind, I now make the case that everything already on the Biography site about Hernandez should be greatly beaten back, replaced by a "fifty words or less" sort of summary. The same case can likely be made for other media outlets, plus the books and in-depth articles and the various cable episodes about Hernandez.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Why should we cut back our coverage simply because Biography.com also has a page on him? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be significantly reduced, but not for any WP:SIZE reason. Editors have told Weeb Dingle before that WP:SIZE is based on readable prose. The article should be significantly reduced because of WP:DIARY, WP:YESPOV, WP:Copyright and WP:Close paraphrasing concerns. As seen at Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Stuffing the article, Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Sexuality, Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Tone and assuming good faith and Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Importance tag, where Bagumba, GoneIn60, Jayron32, Isaidnoway, myself and others weighed in, the issues with this article are clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This article has long suffered from too much detail, often without making it clear what the relevancy is of that excessive detail. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a diary, and most of that excessive detail is not significant enough to be included in this biography. I agree that this article could be improved by a significant reduction of that excessive detail, but efforts to address these many issues outlined before have been met with resistance and edit-warring.

One example - when the spinoff subarticle Murder of Odin Lloyd was created, all that should have been left behind here at the main article was a condensed brief summary section. Instead, there is still an unduly large section in this article. The guideline found at content forking makes it quite clear that when a separate subarticle is created, you just leave a summary section in the main article, and put a link to the newly created subarticle. Currently, there is almost 1600 words here in that section on the murder (redundant), compared to a little over 2300 words in the other article. Trim it back to a summarized paragraph here, and readers can click through for more details in the subarticle. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Isaidnoway. Generally I am in favor of more information than less, but you're 100% right about spinoffs. I'll take a crack at trimming it down and would welcome additional help. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, when there is a spin-off article, the section on the material here should be a summary of the main article's most important points. This is per WP:Summary style. Regarding what you left in the section with this edit, make sure that you have adequately summarized the material. If you haven't, that is something to take on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Brain damage

The section on brain damage should be moved up, for several reasons:

1. The section on brain damage has three paragraphs. The first explains that Hernandez had CTE and what it is. The second talks about the effects of CTE and how it affected his life, including possibly his criminal behavior. The third (also the shortest) talks about a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter that never went anywhere. That discussion amounts to less than 1/3 of the total content.
2. Most of this material was in the "Personal life" section before it was recently consolidated.
3. The brain damage did not cause his death, at least not directly, and possibly not even indirectly. I am open to hearing other thoughts about where it properly belongs, but below Death and as a subsection of Death are certainly not it. At the very least, as it had an effect on his actions while alive, it should be the section immediately above Death. I think it should be even higher.

I am going to move the section up to just before Death. If others still disagree, I would suggest we strip out the part about the lawsuit and move those two sentences into the Death section. Or, if others have another idea, I would love to hear it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated, the "Brain damage" section should be a subsection of the "Death" section (like I had it) or placed directly within that section because it is about the aftermath of his death, regardless of touching on his behavior during his life. It is a poor setup to have it come before the "Death" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, less than one-third of this section is about what happened after his death. Rather than continue to edit war, I will seek a RFC. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what else I can state on this matter that wouldn't be redundant, but to try for less redundancy: The "brain damage" topic rose as a result of his death. That "the researchers suggested that the CTE, which results in poor judgment, inhibition of impulses, or aggression, anger, paranoia, emotional volatility, and rage behaviors, may explain some of Hernandez's criminal acts and other behavior" does not negate the fact that the entire section is aftermath material with regard to his death. It is not as though the brain damage topic was an active aspect of his life. By this, I mean an active discussion in his life and something that was being looked into while he was alive. So to begin a section with this "after his death" material and to then have a "Death" section following that is a poor setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Legacy section

Regarding the addition of a Legacy section (currently titled "Legacy and representation in other media") by Slugger O'Toole, I'm not sure that I agree with such a section since the vast majority of Hernandez's legacy at this point in time concerns his CTE, and editors have debated above where and how to cover that material. And, yes, that section still needs an uninvolved close. It's still listed at WP:Requests for closure. It also would have been best for that RfC to close before Slugger O'Toole nominated this article for WP:GA status. And, no, I don't think this article is ready for GA. And, no, you shouldn't close the above RfC, Slugger O'Toole. I also don't see that the section needs to be titled "Legacy and representation in other media." A deceased person being represented in the media is something that is commonly included as a part of their legacy. So stretching the title is unnecessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Letter to Caserio

Do we need to include the entire letter he wrote to Nick Caserio in the "Draft and signing" section? Seems like extraordinary undue weight. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Want to trim it down? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the entire letter, the notable portion is already summarized in that section. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

In the 2010 section, it is false information to say teams removed him from draft boards AFTER Odin Lloyd's death. The 2010 Draft occurred before lloyd's death in 2013. This paragraph should be factually corrected. 69.236.100.116 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Removed mention of Odin Lloyd's death as it's only relevant to when exactly the draft information was made publicly available, and that doesn't really matter much. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)