Talk:Erin Crocker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
WikiProject NASCAR This article is part of WikiProject NASCAR, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to NASCAR. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. To view recent changes to the project's articles, please check out the related changes page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Did You Know An entry from Erin Crocker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 July 2006.
Wikipedia

I feel that the controversy section has little to do with the article and should be removed. It is not a substantial part of her racing career, and it was alledged, vaguely, by a driver with ulterior motives to draw attention away from his own poor performance. I hardly think that issues encyclopedic merit. If the allegation came from Everenham's wife, or Erin and Ray were engaged or openly dating, this would be a separate issue and might justify notice in the article. Otherwise, everyone's privacy and reputation should be considered.

Agreed, I've removed it. Recury 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Relationship rumors

We really need to come up with a consensus on whether or not the statements filed by Mayfield in court should belong. Constant adding and removing info with no edit summary just isn't good for the project, and I want to avoid a violation of the 3-revert rule. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend too much time arguing with IPs, the least they can do is sign up for an account so I know who I'm talking to. Recury 23:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because a statement is filed in court doesn't mean it is A) True, or B) Verifiable. Due to the totality of the circumstances of the situation with Mayfield, the Crocker rumors were likely included as a diversion tactic...funny that the Crocker connection was the biggest "distraction" that Jeremy mentioned, as if none of the other 400+ employees of Everenham's had anything to do with performance of the car, or Jeremy's driving. Rumors, plain and simple, are not verifiable or notable for encyclopedic material. People 400 years from now will not care about Erin's alledged romances, they will care about her driving record, and anything else of notable accomplishment she has achieved. Otherwise, the allegations belong on message boards and rumor mills, not wikipedia. Furthermore, the allegations bring a completely moral deunciation and judgement against Crocker, again...do we want to be commenting on potential breaches of morality on here? That seems like a POV issue. If in doubt, throw it out. Works for bad milk and sour grapes. Nmjw 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

People's insistence on adding libelous information is getting old. Should we have to lock this article over something so asinine? Also, I think the mention of her in the lawsuit on any page should be removed...on Ray's page, Jeremy's page, anywhere. It is inappropriate. Nmjw 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the editing needs to include the avidavit info

Todd Bodine was quoted in the New York Times verifying the Crocker/Evernham romantic relationship. The fact that she is last of all the full time Truck racers but EMS (Ray) has stated that she will be racing Cup, maybe even at Homestead is germain to her career. A non-involved racer would not be promoted this way. Only a family member or lover gets promoted despite bad performance. This is central to her current situation and belongs in the entry.

Alright, even if all of that is true (questionable), how does it merit encyclopedic content? Facts, dates, accomplishments, etc. The fact that a driver was quoted in a paper does not merit encyclopedic content, unless it was concerning the three items above. Read the content guidelines of wikipedia. Rumors of dating, romance, etc has nothing to do with this article. When in if Erin ever comes out and says she is dating someone (whomever it may be), we'll put it up here, don't you fret. Until then, it is a rumor, and it doesn't belong. Nmjw 12:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've just checked something and I think you'll find these results interesting. You say that only being a family member or lover gets one promoted despite bad performance, right? I haven't seen ANYTHING on Kerry Earnhardt, Kenny Wallace, Michael Waltrip, Casey Mears, wikipedia pages that state something so extreme as you are wanting to post on her article, yet all of them by some form or fashion are driving because of the success of someone else in their family, or through their connections. Also, none of those drivers are rookies in a new series, like Erin Crocker. Your content suggestions are not encyclopedic, and since similar ones didn't belong on any of those pages referenced, they don't belong here. Again, read the content guidelines. Nmjw 12:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Todd Bodine statements were never refuted. The Mayfield affidavit was never refuted and resulted in Evernham immediately paying him off. I'm sorry that you don't want to believe the truth. Perhaps you feel some sort of connection to this driver and wish to white wash the situation of trading sex to a boss for promotion. This issue is why she will be in a Cup car for EMS. So I feel it is germaine to her career. She would be/will be an asterisk without it. You need to provide to readers an explanation of why a driver with such poor results so far in Trucks is getting promoted (both she and Evernham have been quoted as saying she will do some Cup races next year). If I knew nothing about this driver it wouldn't make sense to me. Its not her sponsor insisting, since the sponsor has bailed for next year.

First, consider registering...people might take you seriously. Second, you never countered any of my arguments, but you did state that the nature of your incessant addition of the accusation is because you think she is driving because she is "trading sex to a boss for a promotion." Well, thanks for clarifying your intentions to write material on here that doesn't belong. Just because an individual doesn't flat out deny everything that is said about them doesn't mean by default it is true. Celebrities and regular people frequently won't even give the charges credence by refusing to address them. Her performance is germane (correct spelling of that word, by the way) to the level of competition in which she will compete...no one is giving her a free ride to Cup, and even if she did, it's not of encyclopedic concern that she got it because she was self-sponsored, given it, or forced to take it, it WOULD be of encyclopedic merit that she competed, and how she performed. You fail to be able to discern what is encyclopedic material. Nmjw 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Nmjw, please feel free to personally insult me as much as you would like. I understand that certain personality types need to do this type of thing to feel important and fulfilled as individuals. I will not stand in the way of your self-actualization. The court case is important and critical to understanding this driver and her current status.

Once again, you've completely avoided any of my inital arguments or other reasoning on this issue. If you can't bring anything else to this discussion, you're simply vandalizing an article. Bravo. Also, It's Mr. NMJW, esq., not that you'd be concerned with factual accuracy or anything like that. Nmjw 23:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated, please feel free to continue to personally insult me. I am happy to provide this healthy outlet for you. Its funny, but I see you as the one vandalizing in this instance. I have quoted the New York Times and court documents, but you continue to remove this information. It appears that you want to act as a "white knight" to protect this entry from the truth. You may wish to exist in the land of unicorns and puppies where people never make choices that are critical to their career. I look forward to changing your mind.

I'm through trying to pursuade anonymous users with logic and reason. Can we settle this issue somehow and move on with our lives instead of making identical edits 2 dozen times a day? Nmjw 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason I have put back an entry

I found a bad, non-active link and removed it, stating that I didn't know if there was a new one, so someone would be alerted if they had a new one. Another user just reverted back to the edit he wanted (with no explanation of why he continual reverts) and the bad link is back. I again removed the bad link. Perhaps you know this other user. I looked at his/her talk page and apparently he/she does this on many different entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP (talk • contribs)

[edit] For the user with the affidavit issue

I have not added the Todd Bodine quote from the New York Times since I felt the court affidavits were enough, but the Bodine quote is very direct about Crocker/Evernham being "in love". I don't think Bodine is lying and the quote was never retracted or contradicted by any parties. A last place driver in the Truck series would not be promoted without some other "connection" that is why the entry is critical to understanding this driver's status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.242.136 (talk • contribs) .

I'd refer you to the content guidelines of wikipedia.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

How are you going to verify a relationship with Erin and Ray if you are making an inference or showing rumors or statements from other people as proof? It could be verified by a statement from Ray or Erin, or photos showing them engaged in the things you are accusing them of. You haven't shown that. Therefore, what you are posting is original research. That's not allowed in wikipedia.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

Clearly, your preconceived ideas are that she is in a relationship with him to get promoted. Therefore, you are only expressing that, and your claim is extremely biased. Even the source you cite, if read through, doesn't give me the same conclusion as it does you. Seeing as how you've put vandalizing posts about her on entries that have nothing to do with her, like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mistress_%28lover%29&oldid=68913861

You have an axe to grind with her, obviously.

If you want to add the bit about Mayfield, in which she was a minor issue, in order to be objective you have to 1) mention that she isn't specifically named in the affadavit, 2) state that it's never been confirmed, 3) state that any potential relationship is a rumor. Anything to the contrary is obvious and unfair bias. Apparently, most people that have contributed don't think that is a good idea, and that the whole thing was overblown to a rediculous degree.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.23.49 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the above statement. Also, WP:LIVING says that anything controversial must be verified, and the article provided is extremely weak for that criteria. Finally, please sign your talk posts (add four tildes (~) after your post). -- DiegoTehMexican 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you wish to ignore the reality of the situation and that it is responsible for this driver being promoted and retained, despite bad on the track performance. If we are lucky there will never be the sex videos on the inter-net that some of you seem to feel will be the only proof you will deem accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.242.136 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Notability, confirmability.

OK, enough is enough. Reporting rumors is not permissible on the Wikipedia. (NB: Until Crocker or Evernham publicly state that they are involved with each other, that is all that it is, 3rd hand reporting in this case is NOT permissible. The Times stating that Todd Bodine said that they have a relationship, with no one refuting it is not the same.) This is non-negotiable, so before anyone even thinks of editing on this again, find a source claiming that Evernham or Crocker confirmed or denied this, not just paid to have someone keep quiet. (It is plausable that if monies exchanged hands, that it was done to save embarresment, not just as "hush money".).

Further, even if they do claim a relationship, who Erin Crocker sleeps with, true or not, is not of any relationship what so ever to her racing career. It may help/hurt her temporarily, but in encyclopediec, historical terms, it is not important, it is not notable. If one can make a strong claim that who Ms. Crocker has a relationship with plays a non-refutably VITAL role in a fact, date, or accomplishment that is notable, fine, do it here, let us discuss it. Further, once that notability is established, the entire context must be placed on the page, not just "Mayfield has an affidavit claiming that Erin is seeing Ray".

Any further editing on this topic to the main article without first proving on this talk page 1) that the relationship is proven, and 2) that it is vital to a fact, date, or accomplishment, and 3) that that fact, date, or accomplishment is vital to the article will be considered vandalism and will be treated as such. -slowpokeiv 00:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Now, regarding the article, her truck series information could probably stand to be expanded, as well as her off track endeavors. I haven't performed any research, but I think she is involved with a few charities and I remember that she has a business in North Carolina. I can look into that a little more, but if anyone gets bored and is so inclined, I think the article could be improved in those ways. Nmjw 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The realtionship is true, it is vital to her racing opportunities. As I said, I hope that no sex videos show up, since that is all you people seem to want. If you all decide to band together to try and silence the truth and to conceal the truth there is probably nothing I can do about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.242.136 (talk • contribs) .

True or not, can all three points listed above be proven beyond a doubt? As this is a Biography of a living person, even questionable material must be exised, libel concerns. Again, if you can prove it without a doubt, all three points, make a strong case here. Just stating that there is a relationship, without reliable sources, and threatining the possibilities of sex videos, does not alone make all three points.
Side note: In twenty years, if the relationship proves important, and vital to her career, what ever state it will have been in, it will be present in this article, if in fact the Wikipedia still exists at such time. There is a reason that Historians start writing history books about 20-40 years after said events. Any sooner, and objectivity cannot even be claimed. -slowpokeiv 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: simply "reverting" and adding the same line also does not make your case that it is important. The one sentence that she was "linked" could mean anything. If you really want it to be re-added to the article, write it in context, with full explaination as to why it important. (but again, not before proving it on this page.) -slowpokeiv 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullying

I have given it a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that a number of you were bullied as children and now wish to bully others through the inter-net. Its interesting that the tormented wish to become the tormentors as a way of exorcising their demons and feeling empowered. So at this point, all I can say is go at it. Whatever you need to do to heal your psychic wounds to feel strong and powerful please do that. I'm sorry your childhood playground experiences are dragging your souls down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.242.136 (talk) .

That's enough. The information you are constantly adding is in violation of Wikipedia's policies about biographies, and you have been repeatedly warned to stop vandalizing this article with it. The next time you add this information in, you will be reported. -- DiegoTehMexican 15:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Its Editing, not Vandalizing but as I have stated its clear that some wish to bully others. Use whatever code words you need to in order to justify your actions. I know the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.242.136 (talk) .

The consenus is clear. The policy on biographies is clear. The admins' position is clear; you've been blocked for this before. The time for discussion is over. It is vandalism, and you have been reported for it. -- DiegoTehMexican 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have also reported him here. If anyone wants to add anything or give your version of events, you can add a comment or something. I think we both reported him at around the same time, but oh well. Having more than one admin respond to this couldn't hurt. Recury 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, this is going too far. Ordinarily, I would not consider it vandalism, but more or less just being new and not 100% familiar with policies, but that's ridiculous. Go to Wikipedia Review if you want to call us bullies, but we want this project to succeed. I've got a few complaints about Crocker/Evernham myself, but policy comes first here --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, 68.5.242.136, now you have gone to far. Stop. Read the following link. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That is an official Wikipedia policy. -slowpokeiv 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The reason for the changes

I'm back from the Dr., not good news so maybe I'll take a motorcycle ride later to clear my head. Anyway, just wanted to reiterate that my editing entries were valid and truthful and that my sources (court documents, NY Times) were excellent. Its clear from the changes that outside pressure has been placed upon this site (perhaps threats of lawsuits) to keep certain information out of the public eye. I understand why certain parties wish to white wash public information and I'm sure you need to protect yourselves against the threat of actions the interested parties are pursuing. If my entries are deleted or my ability to edit taken away, I will know who is responsible as they are obviously very serious about silencing this information. Its a shame that you have to cave into this pressure and run and hide. To quote George Orwell "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Your silenced friend #68

[edit] Not trolling, want you all to understand that I now know why my comments were deleted.

Dear Ms Recury, I guess you are directing the troll comment to me since you put it in after my comment. I assure you I meant every word I wrote. I assume this troll comment is some sort of "neutral" way for you to follow the orders that have been given to silence this information. Again, as I have stated, now that I understand who/what is behind this I understand the actions you all are forced to take to avoid the threats and litigation. None of that changes the facts in my posts.

If you are implying that Wikipedia is being paid off by Evernham or others, you are very mistaken. I suggest that you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks one last time. To be perfectly honest, I agree that there is something dodgy going on at Evernham. However, I cannot prove it, nor can you. The court documents do not name Crocker, nor do they define "close personal relationship", and finally, Mayfield's claim that he was fired because of Evernham's "close personal relationship" has not been independently verified, and until someone else comes out and says the same thing, and since this article MUST adhere to WP:LIVING, that information cannot and will not be added. -- DiegoTehMexican 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diego, thank you for your reply. I understand why you have to say what you have said. We should leave it at that, I don't want you to get into trouble.


[edit] Its a part of her life story to this point

The simple fact of the matter is, a lawsuit implied that they have a close personal relationship. Its been a significant part of the news related to Crocker in 2006, and neither party has denied or confirmed it. I understand why some people would not want it to be on her page, but the fact of the matter is, its significant, relevant, and interesting. Just look at how much discussion there is here. I strongly believe the page should include something to the tune of "In a 2006 lawsuit filed by Jeremy Mayfield against Ray Evernham, an implication was made concerning a "close personal relationship" between Evernham and Crocker. Neither party has publicly addressed the allegations.

Absolutely true and verifiable. Waynekillion 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wayne, if you look at my comments you will see that any attempt to have the truth mentioned about Crocker and Evernham's affair and the impact it is having on her career will be silenced. It doesn't matter that it is, to quote you "Absolutely true and verifiable" , as well as "significant, relevant, and interesting." some people want it concealed and they are serious about hiding this information. #68 68.5.242.136 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To the people who continually delete comments concerning the allegations about Crocker and Evernham: Erin Crocker does not "own" this Wikipedia page. The allegations concerning their relationship are newsworthy and deserve a place on this page. Any attempts to remove factual accounts of the allegations - not derogatory comments about how it may have affected Jeremy Mayfield or Crocker's career - just the facts of the allegations - constitue censorship and "white-washing" and should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Waynekillion 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we have to explain this so many times, but the court documents DO NOT explicitly say that Crocker is in a relationship with Evernham, and as such, CANNOT be used to justify adding that information to this page under WP:BIO. -- DiegoTehMexican 13:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The allegations in the court documents leave no other possibility but that Crocker is the person being referred to. I am not going to continually re-edit the page to include this information, which is just as interesting and a part of her story than any of the other biographical information on the page, because I have better things to do with my time and you have demonstrated your unwavering resolve to white-wash her wikipedia page. I'm also not going to report you to the admins, though I believe it is justified. I am actually a fan of Crockers and did not include any derragatory comments - simply the facual reporting of the allegations, which received extensive media coverage. She is dating Ray Evernham and apparantly you are determined to keep it a secret. You might as well edit the page to say that she is currently leading the Truck Series standings. Waynekillion 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't weighted in until now, but I 100% agree with D-Day, Recury, Diego, etc. that adding these court documents are rumors or someone's opinion and unable to be verifiable short of Evernham or Crocker verifying them. I see no value added to the article by including the rumors. There are plenty of blogs and forums for discussions like this. Remember, this is an encyclopedia! Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 14:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia/Personal Life

I don't mean to interrupt the big relationship debate but I do believe that more about her personal life (outside of said debate) should be added. I started a Trivia Section last night but with just one entry and planned on expanding on it tonight but it has since been removed. Just wondering if anyone else agrees on this or why there would be any objections to it.

[edit] Relationship verified

Ray Evernham has taken Erin Crocker as his date to banquets during Nascar week. They have been photographed with their arms around each other. So to those who say this is a rumor, I guess that can't be said any more. Again, I and many others see the fact that she is racing for her lover as critical to understanding her career opportunities.68.5.242.136

Can we see said pictures? I link would be fine. --D-Day I'm all ears 11:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Today Evernham gave an interview to ESPN confirming the relationship and the direct negative impact it has had on Crocker's future career. http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?seriesId=99&id=2951523

I'm an Evernham fan, but does Ray really expect another team to hire her after all this? LOL Anyways it should be added to the article. - KaseyKahneFan 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ecrocker.jpg

Image:Ecrocker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)