Talk:Tom Cable

Awesome Picture
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)

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

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

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

Alleged Assault
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) -- Is now DUden (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it, but was just looking him up to remember that story --Monstermike99 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

Subsection about Wikipedia scrubbing controversy involving wife
For the record, I believe this controversy has achieved enough coverage to merit inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I can´t read the WSJ-article, but if the 247Sports.com 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)


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


 * 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)

That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * A core value of the encyclopedia is that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Multiple verifiable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, 247 Sports , and The Big Lead 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Also at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


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