Talk:2012 NFL referee lockout

Proposing a few changes to this article
Hello, I've recently been working on behalf of the NFLPA to suggest improvements to some articles on NFL-related subjects. Because of my financial COI in this regard, I'm limiting myself to Talk pages in the hopes that volunteer editors may act on my suggestions, if they agree. I see a handful of problems with this article, including the omission of useful context in some cases, too much detail in others, wording that's potentially confusing. I think the changes I'm proposing here will make the article more neutral, more readable, and more encyclopedic.

First, I'd like to suggest adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the Timeline#Agreement section, to include a key development currently overlooked in the article:

Further, the paragraph under Issues#Additional crews currently ends as follows:

"The union had two problems with this proposal. They felt that making it easier to "bench" officials undermined their job security, and since officials get paid based on the number of games they work, increasing the number of officials would invariably reduce the number of games worked per official, and subsequently reduce each official's average pay for a full season."

However, this language doesn't quite capture the NFLPA's perspective as well as it might. I'd like to propose a version with some more detail, as verified in reliable sources:

Finally, the paragraph under Issues#Full-time officials begins with:

"The current group of officials are classified as part-time workers. 90% of NFL referees have other full-time jobs, working regularly as lawyers, teachers, and/or business owners."

But this is oddly specific; referees could have any number of jobs, and one should think the reader already knows what a "full-time job" is. I'd like to propose the following rewrite instead:

"The current group of officials are classified as part-time workers, with 90% of NFL referees holding other full-time jobs."

If these changes all look okay, could someone move them over into the article? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm on an iPad right now, and its terrible pasting into edit space doesn't work at times, so I won't be able to add the large amounts of text in. However, I did change the full-time job part to your proposed writing.  Zappa  O  Mati   15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, Zappa! I've tried editing from my iPad a few times, and the best thing I can say about it is that it beats editing from my iPhone. Anyhow, much appreciated—though I'm afraid right now the "full-time job" sentence is now a fragment. It'lll be a simple fix to combine the two sentences. No rush, and thanks in the meantime! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Zappa  O  Mati   23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks Zappa! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A few more changes
I'm back with a few more updates to this article that I'd like to propose; as noted above, I have a financial COI with regard to this article, as I'm working on behalf of the NFLPA, so I'm posting here in the hopes that a volunteer editor can vet my suggestions and then move them into the article if they seem appropriate.

I'd like to propose a rewrite to the first paragraph of Replacement officials. This paragraph currently reads:

""On June 4, 2012, the NFL began hiring replacement officials for the start of the 2012 season, most of whom were high school or officials from lower college divisions. Some were from professional leagues such as the Arena Football League and the Lingerie Football League. Unlike the previous lockout in 2001, none of the replacements were Division I college officials as the league wanted to protect them from union backlash and let them continue working their scheduled games during the concurrent college football season. Many Division I officials were effectively barred from serving as replacements anyway since current and former NFL officials serve as conference officiating supervisors, who would not have allowed their officials to cross the picket line. The replacement officials were used during the preseason and the first three weeks of the regular season.""

However, by not including some related facts and context, this language appears somewhat weighted in favor of the NFL's position. I'd like to suggest the more neutral wording below, which also provides a bit more background:

I'd also like to a couple of changes to wording in the Reactions section. First, under Reactions#NFL, the second paragraph currently behind: ""In weeks two and three, four NFL coaches were fined by the league for disorderly conduct towards the replacement officials.""

I think this is a small point, but the language is potentially confusing. It's easy to misread as "In weeks, two, three and four..." though of course there wasn't a fourth week. It might even make readers wonder if coaches were fined during week one. To keep it simple, I'd suggest the following wording as more clear: ""During the lockout, four NFL coaches were fined by the league for disorderly conduct towards the replacement officials.""

Second, the end of the Reactions#Players section currently reads: ""After the controversial ending of the week 3 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, Packers guard T. J. Lang tweeted: "Got fucked by the refs.. Embarrassing. Thanks nfl". Later, Lang added: "Fuck it NFL.. Fine me and use the money to pay the regular refs." Lang also raised the possibility of the players engaging in a strike action against the league if the situation was not resolved. Packers guard Josh Sitton tweeted after the game: "Golden tate is full of [shit] too. Saying he clearly caught that is embarrassing! [Fucking] jokers!"""

I'd like to suggest the rewording below, which focuses on just the more significant T.J. Lang tweet, adds language to explain why it was considered noteworthy, and removes Josh Sitton's tweet, which doesn't actually add any useful information. Note that the source I've used for T.J. Lang's tweet is dated September, but clearly has a screenshot after Obama's reelection in November, so that's the date I've indicated in the prose. I've also included a hidden note in the markup to this effect. My proposed rewrite is below:

If editors have any feedback here, I'm more than open to hearing it, but if these changes seem okay, would someone be willing to move them into the main article? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Zappa  O  Mati   00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zappa! Looks perfect. Oops, one thing. I've pinged you on your user Talk page. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on 2012 NFL referee lockout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/08/16/replacement-refs.ap/index.html?
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120808230040/http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-nfl-woman-referee-20120808,0,6459413.column to http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-nfl-woman-referee-20120808,0,6459413.column

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 2012 NFL referee lockout. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8435645/roger-goodell-says-fans-deserve-better-distractions
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929012115/http://sports.yahoo.com:80/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html to https://sports.yahoo.com/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)