Talk:Ethan Couch

How is the judge's retirement relevant?

who cares when the judge who sentenced couch retired? unless that can be incorporated as something more than just some extraneous detail, it ought to be deleted. for example, did the judge retire in shame because of that decison? that might be relevant. but simply retiring as part of the end of a normal career has nothing to do with couch. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.78.171 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. If I remember correctly, the judge decided to retire because she did not want to run for re-election, prompted largely by this Ethan Couch fiasco. That's my off-the-cuff recollection. In which case, it's very relevant, yes. Also, likely, the judge got a lot of "pressure" to retire due to this ruling. I think it's highly relevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: As it stands, it's unrelevant. If you find a source (suitable for a BLP) that say her retirement was connected to the Couch case, add it back in, but i just removed it. We can't assume things like that (or push the readers to assume) especially on a BLP. If you wan't to undo the change, the revision is Special:Permalink/708282432. WikiWisePowder (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiWisePowder: I did not add or delete this info. And I did not advocate for its addition or deletion. I was simply answering the question of how and why the material was relevant. The question of the thread is "how is this information relevant?" So I gave my opinion on how and why it is indeed relevant. Whether or not it is well-sourced is a different issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I know you didn't add it, but i though you advocated keeping it. So I replied to your opinion of why it is relevant with my opinion that it is not (at this moment) relevant. And informed anyone reading the the conversation that I had (in my opinion) improved the article by removing the phrase but if they believed that it did not improve the article they should feel free to add it again. WikiWisePowder (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it is indeed relevant to the case. Whether or not it is well-sourced is a different matter. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing my two-cents in...speaking as one of many Texans keeping an eyeball on the happenings of this case...the judge's date of retirement is notable in the timeline of things because she retired so soon after handing down Ethan's sentencing. It's true that her retirement may have been in due course, but it still raised a lot of eyebrows due to the controversial way she handled this case from Day 1. There was a lot of negative speculation about the judge being paid off, talk of how her retirement came at such a convenient time, and the general feeling of how she could exit like a snake in the grass. Maybe we could at least make a minor edit somewhere like "now-retired judge" and put in a citation. CoffeeSweet 22:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed redirect nicknames

A few friends of mine started talking about "that affluenza kid" but nobody could remember his name, I found it after looking up the affluenza article. I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to put in a redirect. Anyone else think that a redirect would be a good idea? Affluenza kid = Ethan Couch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VectorLightning (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Image use rationale

Hello,

Please comment on the article's use of a non-free image that has been submitted using the guidelines under Wikipedia's {{non-free use rationale}}
(cur | prev) 05:35, 9 May 2018‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,606 bytes) (-88)‎ . . (nonfree image in BLP infobox) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:02, 8 May 2018‎ Vwanweb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,694 bytes) (+90)‎ . . (→‎top: {{infobox}} added | image = Ethan Anthony Couch.png w/ caption) (undo)
Vwanweb (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: honestly, this looks sensible to me. DS (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @DragonflySixtyseven and Vwanweb: Nonfree image of living person, presumed replaceable, no policy exception claimed. Why do you think this isn't a patent NFCC violation? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what {{Ir-mugshot}} is for? DS (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hullaballoo. Just because there is a template for a fairly specific source or fair-use use doesn't mean that it fits NFCC in this case. His notability isn't his fugitive nature or arrest, so this image is not a unique historical representation of encyclopediac value to us. Seeing him in a booking photo doesn't add anything that seeing him...walking on the street, at a Starbucks, etc wouldn't add. And those are the sorts of "living person in a public world" where someone could take his picture. As an analogy, we don't allow nonfree images of living actors in their "best known for" roles. DMacks (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If anyone still thinks this is a viable image, feel free to XfD it or ask the general question about booking photos at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content so we can get wider participation from others who often look at these sorts of images. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply - I say we discuss the image at WP:FFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add history of wealth generation

I don't see anything in the article about how the Couch family became wealthy. I would like to learn this to gain a better perspective about what paths can lead to children becoming horrible people. Would you please add more information about how the father became wealthy enough to "threaten to buy the school", etc? -- Newagelink (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The family wealth, or how they came by it, isn't really relevant to the article subject, which although titled Ethan Couch, is really about the drink-drive incident, and the subsequent court case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily narrow-minded; it is part of human nature to want to know surrounding details in addition to those facts bearing a causal relationship. If you want to arbitrarily restrict the article to the intoxicated driving, then the article should be retitled "Ethan Couch's Vehicular Manslaughter", etc. Otherwise, it is good to include details surrounding the article's topic, namely, Ethan Couch. One would only need a few sentences to indicate how his parents built a metal roofing company into a mini-empire large enough to thwart law enforcement. -- Newagelink (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)