Talk:Tom Cable

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Cable article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

College football Low‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Football League

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Awesome Picture[edit]

If I'm ever standing behind him in line at the store, I'll know exactly what he looks like. Gutch220 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--What a terrible picture. Isn't there one available that shows his face? Hanksummers (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the exact same thing when I saw that picture. Arc Lamps & Signal Flares (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was posted a long time ago, and nobody has done anything. 74.88.97.42 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Assault[edit]

Why is there nothing on Cable's alleged assault on Randy Hanson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaikenEdge (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Is now DUden (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it, but was just looking him up to remember that story --Monstermike99 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it was never truly verified - http://www.sfgate.com/raiders/article/Raiders-Cable-punches-assistant-3289699.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstermike99 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Cable. 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/20091025042943/http://www.sacbee.com:80/latest/story/2274461.html to http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2274461.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slander[edit]

Ccable62, please explain why this page has false information and "slander". --🎼Yexstorm2001🎼 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This history of how violence has affected Tom Cable's career is a matter of record, and was cited as a reason for the early termination of his last head coaching position. Please suggest ways to improve the article, and not to whitewash history. User Ccable62 has only made 15 edits on Wikipedia, all to the article about Tom Cable. This has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Davidwbaker (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection about Wikipedia scrubbing controversy involving wife[edit]

For the record, I believe this controversy has achieved enough coverage to merit inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it should be mentioned in the first graph of the article? Wikipedia guidelines say that the first graph should be a TOC for the entire article, so it seems like there should be a reference to it there. Especially since the info is buried at the bottom of the article.DanDavidCook (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the mediabox on the talkpage is not enough, make it a sentence or two in the violence section, not a section on it´s own. And not in lead. Way to new and minor (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION). Trying to change a WP-article about something is about as hard as tweeting about something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, although I would like to hear from User:SamHolt6 as well. The #Metoo movement has focused attention on the threshold for mentioning such topics in the lead graph, which is designed to be a table of contents for the entire article. Also, I would agree that editing an article can be as easy as tweeting. But editing it well and ethically takes much more finesse and a solid understanding of best practices on Wikipedia.DanDavidCook (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. While I believe that the information about the article subject's wife "scrubbing" his Wikipedia page should remain, I am not opposed to having it grouped in with the "Allegations of Violence" subsection. As far as the lead is concerned, I think the allegations of violence (and by extension the "scrubbing") provide undue coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can´t read the WSJ-article, but if the 247Sports.com (Redacted) is considered reliable (and reasonably supported by WSJ), I'd suggest this addition to "Allegations":

In january 2018, Cables' wife removed text about the allegations from the Tom Cable Wikipedia-article, but the text was reinstated.

My "hardness" comment was sort of off-topic, tweets can also be included in WP-articles when WSJ writes about them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think "violence" fits better under "career". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of your for your feedback. Thoughtful and helpful to my own editing going forward. And I am grateful for all the work you two devote to Wikipedia--you're heroes in my book.DanDavidCook (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack removed. You are advised that this is a collaborative project, not the comment section on YouTube. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just no. We don't need navel gazing. It's false light issue by implying that the article subject is "scrubbing" his wikipedia page. There is no indication he did it or had aything to do with it. If his wife is notable for her own page, and this activity is notable enough to mention, add it there. It has no business here. In addition, it violates our outing/doxxing/harassment policy to associate an editor to a real life identity if they have not disclosed that identity on Wikipedia. Anyone making a claim that an editor is Cable's wife will need to point to an on-wiki edit where the claim is made. --DHeyward (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A core value of the encyclopedia is that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Multiple verifiable sources such as the Wall Street Journal ((Redacted)), 247 Sports ((Redacted)), and The Big Lead ((Redacted)) wrote articles concerning this event. Wikipedia policy says we go with what the sources say and disregard our own views. I agree that we should leave the name of the editor the articles discuss in the dark, though the brief line about this instance on the Tom Cable article does not offer specifics in regards to the account Cable's wife is alleged to have used. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no we will not support harassment through a reference to her offsite. Doesn't really matter where it happens. The inclusion of the material is only to shame and we don't do that. Don't readd it. Her actions are not relevant to the subject. If his ex-wife edited it, the answer is the same and we would neither keep the material she wrote or shame her for writing it. Marriage doesn't factor into the equation. His wife is not him.. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heyward is correct, unless an account has been linked to a real life name by the account holder on Wikipedia our OUTING policy states we do not add it. I'm curious as to how these sources came to the conclusion that an editor here is his wife? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything encyclopedic in including the information in this article given the sources offered so far. Verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. This article is not about his wife. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tom_Cable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mentioning scrubbing/editing. We’re not in the shaming business. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]