Talk:Ryan Moats

Anon's persistent removal of factual information
We have a Texas-based anonymous editor, 70.128.85.90, who's removing any reference to the recent incident that has caused an uproar involving Ryan Moats being blocked from seeing his dying relative. The removed material is factual and referenced. Editor has provided no coherent reason (beyond vague "racism" charges in edit comments) for this constant removal. Just FYI. A2Kafir (and...?) 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted the IP. Unless he has a valid reason and can bring it to the talk page for consensus-building, I see no reason to remove the section from the page. Dayewalker (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a poster with a personal agenda to create the above mentioned 'uproar'. Valid reasons for the removal of the item have been repeatedly ignored. I see no reason to continually post this obviously biased item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.85.90 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain in greater detail what you're talking about, IP. Giving reasons to remove a reliably sourced account in an edit summary doesn't allow for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons have repeatedly been provided in clear language. Detail has been provided and ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.85.90 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't gained through edit warring and edit summaries. Please explain here your reasons for deleting soured information. Dayewalker (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the incident was motivated by 'racism'. There is none. No attempt has been made to alter the language of the post. The post itself is designed to be sensationalist and cause an 'uproar'. Please stop re-posting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.85.90 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the section does it say the incident was motivated by racism. It says that Moats questioned whether race played a part in the incident, which is a true statement of fact. Dayewalker (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now that you have edited the post it is safe to make the above statement. How childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.85.90 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I question whether racism plays a part in your continual re-posting. I said that. That is a fact. It doesn't mean it is true. Obviously, it was a statement designed to cause an 'uproar'. By re-posting this you are attempting to fan the flames and cause an uproar. Moats statement was designed to cause an 'uproar'. It doesn't mean it is factual. Again, none of your statements adress the reasons for the removal of the post. You choose to ignore them and are intent on creating an 'edit-war'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.85.90 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)For the record, I support ThuranX's reinstatement of the full section (although not his statement about Texans in general. Whew.) It's sourced in the ESPN article, and there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to remove it. Dayewalker (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (see WP:V). Is there any particular reason this shouldn't apply here? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Officer's name
How vital to this article is it to name the officer in question? Per WP:BLP, extreme caution should be exercised with "non-public figures". Should it not be removed at least at this preliminary stage of the situation? --64.85.214.246 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm... the particular officer seems to be somewhat relevant to the incident being related, though I'll note that the article on Rodney King mentions the names of the LAPD officers involved, and I'm certain that other articles discussing alleged police violations of personal rights will also use the names of the police officers involved. Whether it's particularly useful here, at this point, is questionable however. As the incident focuses largely on that officer's actions, and both sources used release the officer's name, it seems to me it's relevant to the discussion. While you're right that the incident is still unfolding, and thus per WP:BLP it's important to exercise caution, I'm not sure withholding the officer's name when multiple reliable sources have specifically stated it counts as "exercising caution". &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this even remotely relates to the rodney king incident. A savage beating is surely significantly different from detaining someone who ran a red light and then refused to pull over for police. He certainly isn't a "public figure", and so I really do agree that more caution should be exercised. A jerk screwed up while trying to doing his job. But that fact doesn't suspend WP:BLP. 209.90.135.73 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I lean towards keeping the name. It's been made a matter of public record in every story about the incident, including the officer's resignation. Dayewalker (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with above comment. His name is in every article, it's pretty public by now.► Chris Nelson Holla! 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I must have expressed myself poorly earlier. It isn't a matter of 'public record'. It's a matter of official Wikipedia policy.
 * Take a look at the policy on privacy of names.
 * There are arguments both for and against including the officer's name. For example, his name has been somewhat widely disseminated. On the other hand, that's only true within the context of this event. And, Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. Outside of a note that he did, indeed, also detain a woman for several dangerous traffic infractions (which was only mentioned within the context of this event), I really don't know how one could possibly argue that his name isn't discussed primarily in terms of a single event.
 * Additionally: Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The topic of the article is Ryan Moats. The specific name of the officer that detained him after he ran a red has absolutely no bearing on a reader's ability to learn about Ryan Moats. And, frankly, I don't see how anyone could argue that it does.
 * And, finally: it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Notice that they don't even say "result in a loss of context", but a significant loss of context. The event is entirely understandable, even when the officer's name is not included.
 * So, since I guess I didn't express myself very well before, I'll simply ask it this way: Is there any justification for including his name that doesn't violate wikipedia's policy for BLP? And how does one get around the portions I have just quoted?
 * I'm thinking that it may be best to open this up to the BLP noticeboard, as they're more accustomed to handling these things. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The name is in the public, every detail of the incident is in the public. This article is BLP-compliant because it is properly and reliably sourced. Persistent removal of sourced, relevant material can result in sanction.  Grsz 11  01:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I fail to see how you've addressed the concern in the slightest. BLP doesn't say that you can include the name if it's "properly and reliably sourced". Have you actually read the linked section of the official policy yet?
 * What's more, legitimate (non-vandalizing) edits are not likely to result in "sanctions", and I'd thank you to refrain from making unwarranted idle threats.
 * He is not a public figure, and the article does not significantly lose readability or context if the privacy of his name is respected per BLP. Additionally, Matty is correct: "pulled a gun" is far from neutral since it does imply that it was outside of his duties as an officer. Please stick to the actual BLP policies, or refrain from reverting good-faith edits. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * returns over half a million google hits. Do you really want to argue he isn't public?  Grsz 11  01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible this is an issue of language? Just to confirm, you do realize there's a difference between a 'public figure', and a person whose name has been widely disseminated, right? Celebrities, politicians, etc. are 'public figures'. It's the difference between "private individuals" and "public figures". A private individual can still appear in the news for a single event. However, that 'single event' is explicitly stated as not being sufficient reason to include their name in an article. (Are you trying to argue that he isn't known primarily for a single incident?) 209.90.135.248 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, being known for one event means he isn't sufficiently notable for his own article, and says nothing about where his name can be mentioned. No efforts have been made to conceal his identity by the media, or even the Dallas PD.  Grsz 11  02:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

... I'm going to have to insist that you actually read the policies I'm quoting before you comment on them. Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. That's an actual quote of the BLP policy page. The other parts I quoted in bold are also part of the actual BLP policy. You should have checked that out before reverting. There are three quoted passages that support removing all mentions of his name. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to make sure you can find the link, read this. THAT is the precise section of BLP that deals with this issue. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I've read it. Caution does not mean "Do not use". You're picking and choosing. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed ... it is often preferable to omit it." Has his name been concealed? No. Has in been widely disseminated? Yes. Has his employer used his name rather than retain his anonimity? Yes. Has he publicly came out, using his name, and made a statement? Through a lawyer, yes. If all these articles said "a Dallas officer", "the Dallas officer", etc., it would be a different issue. But his name is in the public, and there is nothing against using it in the sections you are pointing out. 02:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How am I "picking and choosing" when I outright stated, "For example, his name has been somewhat widely disseminated."?
 * But, again:
 * Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. Definitely just in a single event, so point against including it.
 * Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. He's alive, and a private individual. And you've yet to say how specifically including his name directly adds any value at all to the article, let alone significant value.
 * it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Changing all instances of his name to 'the officer' or similar will no result in any 'loss of context'.
 * So, do you have anything to directly address those points? If not, I'll remove the instances of his name myself. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole inclusion of the name thing just goes around in circles, see the Star Wars Kid talk page for another case kind of like this.. To Grsz11, i'm sorry for inappropriately using the rollback feature on the other article. I didn't intend to use an edit summary in my undo anyway as i'd explained myself a few seconds eariler about my reverts on this article. Thank you for the reminder though, i'll only use it for vandalism now. I hate to see these sorts of conflicts arise but at least both articles are looking in better shape now, both with facts and adhering to WP:BLP. I hope this gets sorted out quickly, Matty (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I've removed the officer's name as I said I would. If anyone objects, then I would ask that they address the three bolded quotes from the BLP policy page that I've bulleted above. Unless all three can be directly addressed and satisfied, I don't see how the officer's name can be included. I would appreciate working it out here rather than it simply being reverted in the article, because we're required to err on the side of caution for BLP concerns. Obviously, the only way to do that is to resolve first and then possibly re-add the information. 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal section, maybe retitle section?
Does this section have to be 1/2 the bio especially since it is about one event? I know this just happened and its huge tabloid fodder, but this is ridiculous. I guess we'll have to wait a year or two and then trim it down to 3 sentences if that? Tom (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, is there a direct quote from the Moats family that they feel race played a factor in the incident? I see that the citation says this but doesn't provide what the family said in this regard. Thanks, Tom (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a quote earlier from Moats saying that, I'm not sure what happened to it. It was there when the anon IP was blanking this page, I remember looking it up to make sure it's accurate. As for the personal section, sadly because of the national attention, the death of Moats' mother-in-law has vastly overshadowed anything he's done as a professional athlete. Hopefully that's not always the case. Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of the article says it but gives no direct quote. Its not so much his professional career, which is covered ok, its that his personal section has zippo, accept for this one defining incident. Unfortunatley, its due to some incident like this, that the bio will actually recieve attention and hopefully be improved. Anyways, Tom (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been vastly improved today actually. It'd be great if we could find that quote though, as i've said before its not really appropriate for an editor to determine the meaning of his statement. Matty (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready to trim it. Just give me the go ahead!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Better wait for others to comment. You know you have my go ahead, but who am I :) Cheers! Tom (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, first off, a) I am the one that first reported the incident on Wikipeida, b) I am the one that took the line where they wondered if race played a factor in the stop, DIRECTLY from the ESPN.com article. However, I didn't say that Moats himself thought race played a factor, I quoted the article itself. Just so ya know.  Cra sh  Underride  18:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. So you edited the article, nothing wrong with that. This project is a collaboration. I am sure if you hadn't added this incident someone else would have. I am not passing judgement, eventhough I know it sounds like it above :) Anyways, seriously, no offense meant since it sounds like you are with the bolding and CAPS ect. Anyways, unless there is a direct quote from the Moats saying "yeah, this ws a race thingie", I would not attribute that to them. If others have said that, it should be attributed to those sources, even though I am in favor of trimming this significantly and not even going there. Anyways, Tom (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ryan Moats. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090403070748/http://cbs11tv.com:80/local/powell.resigns.dallas.2.973181.html to http://cbs11tv.com/local/powell.resigns.dallas.2.973181.html

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 10:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ryan Moats. 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/20090329061309/http://www.1053thefan.com/pages/4090798.php to http://www.1053thefan.com/pages/4090798.php

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) 17:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ryan Moats. 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/20100617053928/http://blog.vikings.com/2010/06/15/vikings-sign-rb-ryan-moats/ to http://blog.vikings.com/2010/06/15/vikings-sign-rb-ryan-moats/

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) 19:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)