Talk:Michael Vick/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Information Request

I came to this page looking for information about Michael Vick's family. Is he married? Does he have children? If anyone has accurate information about this, please post it. Thanks! User:Rturnham —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

(Content removed)

(content removed) I wish to remind everyone that we are striving to follow WP criteria on this article and the talk page. Emotions are running high with many folks, but this isn't the place to express them. Most of us hate to censor and you can help avoid that action. Please only use this space to help us maintain WP standards. Thanks. Vaoverland 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Childood & Upbringing

I notice that the section of this article pertaining to Vick's upbringing and the conditions he lived in as a kid have been beefed up to make him seem like a victim. That's poor taste. He murdered 8 dogs by drowning and hanging, that has less to do with his enviroment as a kid than it has to do with his lack of character, morality or humanity. Vick is a monster and a thug and we shouldnt pity him becuase he had a tough childhood, as many of us did too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.189.211 (talk) 18:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

If vick killed the dogs with the intention of eating them, would that be acceptable?

Can we get a better pic of Vick??

I think at this point, his mugshot would better than a snapshot of his rear-end. --293.xx.xxx.xx 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think that would be appropriate. That being said, an image that better displays him would be good. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody understands good sarcasm anymore. Sheesh. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely there must be some photo that actually has his face? As it stands, it's ridiculous 79.75.191.137 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Lurkio
  • Wikipedia should allow the use of non-GFDL press-kit type photos. Originally, the main point of Wikipedia was to produce a great encyclopedia. Lately, policy has been hijacked by a minority of people who are on a crusade for totally free content. Articles like this suffer as a result. We should change policy and use a snapshot from the NFL press-kit for this and similar articles. Johntex\talk 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you do not believe in contributing to this Free encyclopedia then you can either work to change our fundamental ideals (good luck with that) or contribute elsewhere. --ElKevbo 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you do not believe in making this encyclopedia the best, most informative encyclopedia it can be - which would include the legal use of fair use content, then YOU can either change our ideals or go elsewhere. The fact is that the majority of Wikipedia contributors and a vast majority of Wikipedia readers would prefer to see more fair use content since it makes for a better encyclopedia. Wikipedia did not start out as a "free content" crusade. It started out as an encyclopedia. Recently, a small handful of people have subverted the project into an open source crusade and have lost focus on making this the best encyclopedia it can be. Johntex\talk 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're moving/copying this to my Talk page was a good idea so let's keep this discussion over there as it has little to do with this specific article. --ElKevbo 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for another image to pop up...again, his mugshot would look better than showing his ass...--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia afraid of Michael Vick

If Wikipedia was really cool, they would let the people decide what they want on it about Michael Vick. Instead Wikipedia is so afraid of Vick, they are enabling a man who enslaves then tortures dogs to in some strange way, enslave this website so people can't get at it. Doesn't make Wikipedia look too cool.

Please forget Mike Vick for a moment, and step back; Wikipedia is not a place where people can say what they want about anything, period. It is a collaborative effort at an online encyclopedia. Neither this man, nor anyone else, can control what we post about them so long as it is factual and follows WP policies and the laws. You may not think the content of this article is the way you would write it, but I think most people would agree that if the subject was controlling it, a lot of the facts presented wouldn't be in it, and it wouldn't be anywhere near as NPOV as it strives to be in the other direction either.
There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can express your opinions. A lot of people are doing so. The Internet is a great way for people to have a voice. But, not every site on the Internet is the right one to be a soapbox. It not fair for your to expect Wikipedia to be something it is not. It's hard enough for us to try to build and maintain it the way agreed and intended. About contributing, and any problems you may be having with access, please see next thread. Vaoverland 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Content, access, and original research

If we are missing facts, please share, with credible sources. If you aren't allowed to edit, because this article is semi-protected due to vandalism and you haven't registered, why not register? Alternatively, you could leave your content and source information here, and be assured that one of us will tend to it, and advise you. But don't expect opinions and original research such as speculation to be allowed. I just removed some original research speculation, as another WP editor did yesterday, about when MV might play again. Vaoverland 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was original research to state when Vick could play again--Blank has said repeatedly that he doesn't want him playing again until this is resolved. Maybe if I mention that according to reports on ESPN, the bail terms theoretically leave him free to play, but the Falcons don't want him on the field ... Blueboy96 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

State of this Article: Not Good

A cleanup of this article, and a major one at that, is needed. Right off the bat, there introductory leaves a lot to be desired. I respect the fact that there is a desire to add content about the current events in Michael Vick's life; however, that does not mean that ever single aspect needs to be put in. First and foremost, Michael Vick is notable because of his athletic career; and not because of his run ins with the law. This article does not give that impression. A good cleaning in the spirit of WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT is a necessity. I'm going to start some minor cleaning with the headings so that they are more inline with WP:HEAD. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Taking a break from this, a particular user has worn out my patience, hope you guys can pick up where i left off. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"First and foremost, Michael Vick is notable because of his athletic career; and not because of his run ins with the law." Vick became a whole lot more notable after recent events; many people have only heard of him due to the charges against him. He is notable for his career certainly, but he has been suspended from it pending outcome of the trial. It's worth inclusion.--Gloriamarie 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know that anyone would argue that the content is not worth inclusion. It certainly is. But i do not agree with the fact that his notability is significantly increased because of recent events. I'm sure there are people who had not heard of him previously, but those numbers would probably be less than "a lot". This article is not very well balanced, especially considering that he has not been convicted of anything. This is not to say that I believe he is innocent or guilty, rather, it is that the article is not very encyclopedic. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

for what its worth, the only reason i know about vick is because of the dogfighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.36.39 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Newz content

I will be providing a two paragraph summary of the situation with a {{main}} link to this article. In the meantime, I have stored an exact copy of the section on my user subpage at User:Jmfangio/bad newz. This content is better suited for the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While the guy who is filing the suit is a total nutjob, there is a pending civil action against Vick for $63,000,000,000,000,000,000 (backed by gold and silver) along with accusations that he has sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda and has purchased Iranian missiles. <a href=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html> Hooray for Fox News! </a> 209.248.160.82 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

and this is noteworthy for Wikipedia in what way? Mark in Historic Triangle 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

That tag is about the STUPIDEST thing I've seen here yet at Wikipedia. A "current events" tag, yes. But "Recentism"? It basically the same as "Virii", not a word, just something for someone to say because it sounds smart. WiccaWeb 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While the syntax/choice of words may leave something to be desired, the tag is quite appropriate. The article on recentism is quite appropriate as far as i can tell. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Recentism" is at best an experimental concept, certainly not a term that is widely accepted (it's not in any dictionary). Thus it is INAPPROPRIATE to have on a live article in Wikipedia. "Recentism" is a made-up term to illustrate a point in an essay (NOT an article, by the way). WiccaWeb 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will change the tag to a current events tag since there is no clear explanation of why the article was tagged.--Gloriamarie 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article should have general information at the top above the summary. Then specific issues should be discussed. The recent controversy should be the latest of issues summarized. The paragraph between my tag and the summary of contents should be moved or else it causes the introduction to suffer from recentism. Anber 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no reason for the "recentism" tag. For one thing, covering recent topics as they occur is a strength of Wikipedia, not a weakness. For another thing, "recentism" is not even a word outside of Wikipedia. It is a Wikipedia construct and therefore the tag is a self reference as is in violation of our guideline to Avoid self references. Therefore, I am removing the tag. Johntex\talk 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but your answer doesn't cut it. I have put the tag back. The placement of those paragraphs in the introduction, is wrong. If it stays it needs the tag. If you remove the tag, please move the paragraphs to a more appropriate place in the body of the article, below the contents box. Anber 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What you said in the first sentence here "should have general information at the top above the summary" is not true per WP:Lead. The lead is a general summary, period. Vaoverland 07:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Anber but you are mistaken. The lead of the article is meant to summarize all important information in the article. Vick's legal problems are certainly an important part of the article and therefore a mention of them belongs in the lead. Johntex\talk 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Before this gets out of hand, we might want to avoid comments that discuss the person as opposed to the edits. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note the criteria in Wikipedia:Lead section. I do not think that the "recentism" tag is properly applied, for two reasons. 1. It is placed in the middle of a section (the lead). The lead is a single section as defined by WP:Lead. Either tag the whole section at the beginning of it, or better yet, remove the flag. 2. The mention of recent events are not out of perspective, as they cover actions during about 20% or more of this man's life, and are more widely-known than even his previous fame. However, if we need to condense these items more to satisfy your concern(s), I think that could be done. However, in the main body of teh article, if we are going to devote equal space to his actions from, let us say 2001 to 2007, which happens to be both his NFL and ownership of the dog fighting complex in Surry County periods, we should take a look at which one is currently taking up the larger portion of the article. I would like to see the flag removed or at the least, moved as stated. Comments? Vaoverland 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well the recentism thing seems to have been solved. Focusing more on the "controvery" section - i'm really inclined to axe a TON of what's there. It just doesn't seem to fit well with things like WP:BLP. There is no question that Michael Vick's "troubles" fit appropriately into wikipedia, but this thing just seems to be very unbalanced. I looked for others that have had difficulty with their "personal persona" (however you want to extrapolate on that is up to each person)...and I'd say this seems to be fairly inconsistent with them. Pacman Jones, who does not seem to have the true "football notoriety" has an article that devotes a fair amount of space to everything. I went and looked at Lawrence Phillips and say that while, like pacman jones article, there is a lot of content that needs to be copyedited and cleaned, the "balance" seems there. People hate when someone axes stuff, but I just don't know how to keep the article where it is. I think it could even be better to clean 70-90% of the text out and start over from scratch. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As you seem to have noted, I think we need to constantly review and revisit content in the context of the "long view" of encyclopedic content.
Regarding "troubles", we/you could take the Ron Mexico Herpes thing, the middle finger, the water bottle, failing to show up in DC, and consolidate all into a single section. It would be equally important to perhaps mention 3 other other incidents which seemed less significant in the past, but now seem to have a relationship to the current situation. Those were 1. failing to show up in court in Clayton County, Georgia several times 2. crew and the stolen Rolex at the Atlanta airport 3. "crew" being busted in Virginia in March 2004 for distributing marijuana from a truck he owned. None of those are worthy of much detail. All 7 would easily fit in one section, say "Past Controversy".
For organizational thinking, it seems to me that current troubles fall into 4 areas, not that we need sections or a lot of content about each: 1. criminal legal 2. NFL 3. Falcons 4. Other work (i.e. commercial endorsements). The public notoriety and impact upon charities and role modeling for kids is impacted by all four of the preceding. We are covering item 1 pretty thoroughly in the BNK article, so summary only seems enough about all that in this article. Mark in Historic Triangle 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no doubt this is an aritcle that will need some consistent watching over. I think these sections be reduced in content and condensed into one section as well. It would help the article move closer to WP:NPA and help with WP:LENGTH as well. As you may have seen there was a dispute over a content relocation that i felt was well supported (both by the letter of the "law" and by the behavior of others in similar situations); not sure if you have any thoughts on that - but i think the list in the article needs to go somewhere else. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual Error

In the first paragraph, there seems to be a factual error (more likely a typo). The page is locked, so someone with more than 5 days will have to fix it.

The sentence reads: "He became one of the highest-paid NFL players with the Atlanta Braves, drawing record attendance at the Georgia Dome." Atlanta Braves (a baseball team) should be changed to Atlanta Falcons (his actual team).


SimianLogic 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.►Chris Nelson 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to the subject, I wish we were not monitored

I appreciate this is an online encylopedia but if it is the people's encyclopedia, then I wish the people could put in the topic area what they want. By that I mean I wish if people wanted to put stuff that some may view as controversal or what have you, that such be allowed. As long as everything else can stay, I would like to see people allowed to add their own views on the subject at hand. Thank you.

The problem you feel is fundamental. There are lots of places on the Internet where people can express their views. But an encyclopedia by definition is not a forum. Be assured we are not all about censorship; we are about sticking to the goals of WP. Even the highest ranking of WP editors and big wheels, right on up to Jimmy Wales, are not allowed to add their own views in an article. I (and I am sure many others working on WP) hope you can find an appropriate forum to express yourself. Mark in Historic Triangle 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The tide changes

>>>>>"First and foremost, Michael Vick is notable because of his athletic career; and not because of his run ins with the law."<<<<<<

What one may first be well known for can change. Ronald Reagan was well known as an actor but that changed. I would submit the same with Vick. This piece in Wikipedia is all about his prowess as a football athlete but things change so I don't think the above statement is true anymore.


Yeah I agree, Vick is now more well-known nation wide as a dog killer than a football player. If you polled American's one year ago and ask if they knew who Michael Vick was, then did the same poll now, the results would likely be 30-40% to 80%, respectively. -Joe

I'm another person who never heard of him until he recently became noteworthy. Though, I became aware of him after reading about him being sued for 63 billion billion dollars for stealing dogs to use for fighting: [1] rather than directly because of the dog fighting. On the other hand, he probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as noteworthy as a dog fighter if he hadn't already been somewhat famous. Not every animal abuse case makes national headlines, after all. I'm trying to decide if that lawsuit against him deserves inclusion in the wikipage on Vick. It's quite funny to read, but the accusations are dubious at best... Forkazoo 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OJ Simpson was once considered an all-time great running back, but now he's most famous for being a murderer. Now, had OJ not been famous before, his trial woldn't have gotten any attention (same as vick), but like OJ, I think eventually Vick will be remembered more for his crimes than his play. New England Review Me! 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Mihael Vick is now more famous for being a dog-killing-athlete than for being an athlete. Previously, I was aware of who he was but only in a general sense. Now, I have a very specific impression of who he is. Still, most dog-killers do not become famous. (How many people can name all his accomplices without referring to the article?) He is only a famous dog-killer because he was first a famous-athlete. Our article should strive to capture that. Johntex\talk 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards spin off

Similar to the situation with the Peyton Manning and Brett Favre articles, WP:LENGTH and WP:SS discuss what can be done when articles become "long". As there is already a category for this material (Category:Career achievements of sportspeople), it is clear that this has been discussed before and there exists WP:CON supporting the move. If someone would like to discuss why this material should not be spun off, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Why not just trim it? A lot of it is just statistics and has nothing to do with awards. ("Finished his career with a 20-1 record as starter at Virginia Tech" is not an award.) --B 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well that's a good question too, but people seem very protective of content and don't like to see it removed. I think it needs to be trimmed myself, but if you look at List of career achievements by Michael Jordan, you will see there's a lot of similar "issues". I think putting this in it's article (as others have done) is the way to go. It allows people to enhance the content as they see fit without having to worry about affecting the integrity of the Michael Vick article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The potential of someone being protective isn't a reason to keep bad content. --B 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a deletionist, so I'm all for removing bad content (such as this), but I'm just saying - a lot of people seem very argumentative right now and I just want to try and keep as many people happy as possible. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh that's so much nicer. If you want to look at Brett Favre, i'd be curious to see what you'd remove. I'm trying not to agetate the situation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we keep this discussion where it originally started, at Talk:Peyton Manning? Ksy92003(talk) 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

speculation

I have concerns about speculative content being posted to this article, even if it is clearly labelled as purely speculation. I would remind everyone that the reliable sources aorund July 7 were certain that Vick would not be indicted, based upon confidential information sources close to the NFL and/or Atlanta Falcons. IMHO, it is hard enough to do a good job keeping this article updated with facts, and we should concentrate on that. Mark in Historic Triangle 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The lede

The lede gives undue weight to the dog fighting charges. It is necessary to have it in the lede, but there is more background about the controversy in the lede than in the main body of the article. The lede is supposed to be "a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies" (italics mine). Whatever happens to Vick, there is no evidence so far that shows that this episode will so eclipse his career as an elite quarterback that it should completely dwarf his career in his biography. One short paragraph about the controversy after the two short paragraphs establishing who he is and why he was originally notable should suffice. Cmprince 03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Your statement is simply false: "there is more background about the controversy in the lede than in the main body of the article." Additionally, what we do have in the main portion of the article certainly doesn't "completely dwarf his career in his biography". With that said, we probably could and should condense the lead more. It currently covers several of the major items of his current troubles, which are the result of far more than a single "episode"; rather, it is clear that they are the result of a parallel secret and unlawful part of his life during the same time period, which now involves 1. the current federal dog fighting charges 2. potential for more federal charges under RICO 3. the possible state charges which have not yet gone to a grand jury 4. reactions by those employing him (ie Falcons, the gambling and dog fighting issues with the NFL, his endorsement deals, etc.) 5. public reactions and protests from several special interest factions (i.e. animal rights, NAACP). Nothing in his football career came close to the publicity and widespread international public interest about all of this now. Of course no one yet knows which part of his past 6 years will end up being more notable, or whether he will be able to resume his career as "an elite quarterback." IMHO, we have been working hard to keep this article both current and NPOV, have been doing pretty well. If there is a consensus that we need to reduce the items mentioned in the lead, then lets do so. Perhaps some of the uncertainty will be resolved soon. Comments, anyone? Mark in Historic Triangle 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The dog-fighting issue has drawn massive attention, and, while I have no crystal ball, there is every liklihood that it will overshadow Vick's football accomplishments. This goes well beyond mere recentism. So, I think the lead is about right, though it does need some expansion of his career prior to recent events plus a little condensing of the dog-fighting material. Looks like Mark and I have already started...--Kubigula (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I still contend that there is more background in the lede--nearly all of it. The controversy content in the main body is almost complete composed of news updates on the legal proceedings, most of which probably belongs on the main controversy page. I'm not trying to minimize what Vick may have done--this is already a major part of his biography for well-cited reasons--but the investigation is only unfolding in the media recently. I don't see how it's "clear" that he's led some secret parallel life. And I hardly know anything about football, but even I know that Vick had plenty of publicity for his on-field performance over a long period of time. A spike of interest because of one event should not bias the article toward coverage of that event. Also, I don't think that this has really gotten that much attention outside North America: a search on bbcnews.com for Michael Vick only shows one article out of 63 is about the charges.
Anyway, my reading of the guidelines for the WP:LEDE section makes me believe that it's much too long, and that it focuses way too much and goes into too much detail on charges that haven't been proven in a court. For example, look at the Pete Rose article. Rose is probably one of the most notable athletes to have fallen into disgrace, but even on that article his controversy is not the focus of the lede. In fact, as it stands now, Vick's lede is comparable in content balance to that at O. J. Simpson. I can't imagine that this controversy will ever rise to that level. Cmprince 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I second this. I came to this article yesterday because I myself didn't know much about the situation and felt assaulted by the size of the opening paragraphs. Much of the detail there isn't necessary to give an appropriate overview of the topic, IMO. Fractalchez 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I only read this article to learn more about the dogfighting charges. I had no idea who Vick was before his crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.19.183 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The article has been hit with a battery of "citation needed" entries. The volume and placement every few words or phases borders on vandalism, IMHO. Some of these requests added to the lead section are already properly sourced in the article itself. I have sources for all, but cannot get to this for a few hours. Since the article is currently getting some many readers, anyone who want to start putting some references in or eliminating redundant requests into this newly created piece of swiss cheese is invited to help keep this article up to WP standards. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle 16:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid most of the citation needed entries. Good grief, if only people would read the bloody article ... Blueboy96 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I did... oh well, as long as the job is done. Ksy92003(talk) 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This same problem just occured last night at Reggie Jackson. I'll resolve this one the same way I fixed it there. Ksy92003(talk) 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make all the same changes; I didn't add the {{refimprove}} tag because the article already had 55 sources, and I'm not sure if that's necessary; it seems like it's quite sourced well enough as is. Ksy92003(talk) 17:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you. On the early personal life stuff, I put together most of that content, and I feel it is both NPOV and accurate. I also thought I had sourced it pretty well, but we can back up any disputed portions of the current content in those sections. Mark in Historic Triangle 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The sheer number of citation needed tags suddenly added - sometimes several for individual sentences - is certainly disruptive. At this point, I regard this a well referenced and neutral article on a very controversial figure. None of the points hit with citation needed tags seem to be particularly controversial, and I fully support Blueboy's removal of them.--Kubigula (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pat on the back ... I know we need to be careful about living people, but come on, that doesn't mean turning a bio into a {{cn}} farm. Expect more disruption like this if a plea deal comes out in the next few days ... I don't know how much my opinion carries since I'm not an admin, but I would advise against undoing the lock on this article for awhile. Blueboy96 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Opinions do count, even those from unregistered users. The best of WP comes from collaboration, which often involves some give and take. No perfect editors, even at the very top, as I am sure JW would agree. I am just one admin, but I very much try to pay attention to comments from all. Mark in Historic Triangle 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Much of the article is either "original research" or plagiarism (neither of which is appropriate). At least that is the impression a careful reader gets from seeing uncited facts. Citations aren't to make something undisputed: they are to show your work. Additionally, much of the wording is not NPOV but hagiography. For example, he "rose from financially-disadvantaged circumstances...to become a stand-out high school football player." Look at the language: it's laughable. Plus, what does living in the projects have to do with one's athletic talent? Is this a well known obstacle?
How about where it says that he "won" a scholarship? Wasn't he "given" one or maybe "earned" one? There is a lot of slanted, POV writing here. "After two successful seasons..." Successful? That's editorializing. Stick to the FACTS. Why not say, "After two years at VT" or "after his sophomore year..."? "Enjoying great popularity with sports fans..." give a citation! This is soooo slanted. There are tons more examples. This article is a joke. 68.210.70.100 05:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, referencing and citations are critical. However, there is no requirement to inline cite every fact, particularly if it's uncontroversial and supported by the references. Sounds like most of your objections are to style rather than to substance. I disagree that any of any of the positive information you cite is controversial. For example, saying Vick was successful at VT is not editorializing, it's a clear statement of fact - the team lost one regular season game in two years and went to the national championship. There is so much negative press about him at the moment, quite rightly in my humble and irrelevant opinion, that it's important to have some balance with the positive information.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think any assertion that calls for a citation should be cited. If Vick has been "widely protrayed as a role model," this is POV writing unless you can cite it. If it is so "widely portrayed," then can't you find a single source to back it up? This is POV hagiography by the pro-Vick koolaid kids. Hobo-nc 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your characterization is unneccessary, but I see your point. The previous mass addition of "cn" tags went too far and was disruptive; however, I have no objection to addressing specific points in a more orderly fashion. I will look for a citation for the role model point.--Kubigula (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Vick is gone...

ESPN reporting that he has agreed to a plea bargain. Virginia DA is apparently continuing with his state charges, and Roger Goodell is likely to impose a minimum 1 year suspension AFTER Vick's jail term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.224.52.193 (talk) 19:03, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

good source from ESPN (timeline):

ESPN put together a decent timeline here that could be useful for additions/tweaking. --Bobak 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead: here we go again

One might be mislead by the massive deletions and edits to the lead into thinking the legal situation is resolved, or what follows now is merely formalities. That is perhaps wishful POV thinking, but the reality is far from it. I believe that we do no one (whatever their POV on this) a service to misrepresent the big picture. The details contained in sections below should not completely vary from the impression of the lead, so oversimplifying the lead in an unbalanced way is just plain misleading to our readers. If we cannot agree on lead content, then simply a title would be fairer. That would force anyone looking to read details, and at least, not mislead them.

The only things that changed today were 1. Vick has announced he will also enter a plea agreement 2. we have a date for him to appear before Judge Hudson and 3. He is officially acknowledging some guilt through his lawyer's statement. If anyone has anything else new besides opinions, I haven't read it. Please advise.

We can revise the lead as is was a few hours ago to reflect these new things, and condense some content since now there are 4 men who are in plea agreements with the feds, apparently won't face more federal indictments, and will be awaiting sentencing. Nothing has changed regarding possible (likely?) Virginia indictments, no one had indicated any deal which will limit Virginia actions against any or all of those involved in any wrongdoing in Surry County, and there is nothing new about the NFL or Falcon situations. Speculation, opinions and comments are not needed in the lead.

It has been revised AGAIN as per the above. I see no reason to sweep the brutality allegations, sentencing power of the judge, the state investigation, the reaction of product endorsement companies, and the NFL and Falcons away from the summarized lead as if they are no longer significant.

The Lead is supposed to summarize important parts of the article in 4 paragraphs or less. Details can be saved for other sections, as has been done, but the lead is intended to be more than just a title.

I do understand that many people would like to see all the current stress and uncertainty resolved. It is very painful locally, but at WP, we are merely compiling and reporting, not controlling events. We have (jointly) been doing a pretty good job on this article. Let's stick with integrity over emotions, please. Mark in Historic Triangle 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro really needs to be trimmed. I know that the WP:LEDE suggests 3-4 paragraphs max, but I think we should keep the first sentence, use one para for his football career, and another for the dog trail things. We need to keep the lede simple, there are other places for those details, including later on in the section of the article and the page for the dog ring as well, not the lede. Biggspowd 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is there absolutely nothing about the dogfighting trial in the lead. He is obviously more known for that right now than his football accolades.--E tac 05:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Achievements

This article - not surprisingly has taken on a lot of content and is way to long. Per WP:LENGTH, I'm about to move some of the achievements content back to an article i created some time ago (List of career achievements by Michael Vick. There was a contentious debate about this at the time, but i believe the circumstances have changed significantly. I'm going to go ahead with this - but please feel free to discuss this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Allocution?

Will he? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.203.156 (talk) 11:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Indef Suspension

Because he was indef. suspended from the league, I changed the lead to say he is a "former quarterback". I'm not sure if this was the correct thing to do, so if you feel it was wrong, discuss it here or change it yourself. New England Review Me! 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know ... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What language are media sources using? "Former Atlanta Falcons quarterback" is certainly correct, but "former quarterback" may not be. --B 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think of that. I'll fix the lead to reflect that point. New England Review Me! —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
Please review WP:DATE, statements that are as "time sensitive" as that one should not be included and certainly not in the WP:LEAD Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing in either policy saying we can't include this. I doubt the indef. suspension will lifted anytime soon (and most reports indicate he will be suspended at least a year after he gets released). It should be incorporated into the lead because of its relevance. Perhaps if he plays again, it can be removed. New England Review Me! 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is appropriate for the lead. He is not currently a quarterback in the NFL and will not be for awhile... at the very least. The truth is the truth, whether it's time-sensitive or not. Currently, he is a former quarterback.--69.219.4.5 05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No ... he is a quarterback. He is a former Atlanta Falcons quarterback. The former is a chosen profession and the latter is a particular job. Suppose that I am a janitor for McDonald's. I go into work one day and my employer informs me that my services are no longer required. I am not a McDonald's janitor any more, but that doesn't change the fact that my chosen profession is to be a janitor. I may be an unemployed janitor, but I'm still a janitor. Similarly, Michael Vick may be an unemployed quarterback, but he is still a quarterback. --B 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with changes to the first part of the lead by User:Jmfangio. The fact that he is suspended does not make him a former football player, etc. His status employment wise with both NFL and endorsement companies is adequately covered elsewhere in lead. I also trimmed some detail, and added important content from Surry County and his father and coach. I think we are still doing a good job keeping this NPOV. Mark in Historic Triangle 09:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I am 99% sure he is still on the roster of the Atlanta Falcons even though he has been indefinitely suspended. He won't be there for much longer, I am sure, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (Heh, although one might argue it doesn't take a crystal ball to know Vick won't be a Falcon for much longer, ha ha ha...)
In any case, I do not think there is any legitimate argument to say he is a former quarterback, at least not yet. --Jaysweet 22:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's best to just say he's currently under contract with or his rights are currently held by the Falcons. He is on the team, but on the suspended list and not the active roster. Is this acceptable?►Chris Nelson 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right, I just checked and he is not on the roster. My bad. But yeah, he is still under contract. Thanks for fixing the lede so quick. --Jaysweet 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

They put him on the Suspended list, at the very bottom here. Doesn't change anything in this discussion, just letting you know.►Chris Nelson 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsorted stray comments

This comment was placed at the top of the page and has been refractored here Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the transcript Of Vick's apology on 8/27/07. It appears as if it the entire transcript, but it is not - will someone please edit to reflect a partial transcript of include all of his comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.130.231 (talk) 14:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding years in infobox

For those of you that think the years should remain "2001-present", I ask you this question - let's say, theoretically, a player goes to prison for life. Let's pretend this would happen to Vick, although we know it's not. Let's also say the Falcons never released him, which is certainly possible considering they wouldn't be paying him anything and he would have no involvement in the organization. Theoretically, he would remain under contract his whole life. So let's say he dies in... 2060. Would you then put his years in the infobox as Atlanta Falcons (2001-2060)? If your answer is no (and I assume it would be) then you have just shown there is no reason to keep "present" in the infobox years as is. Just because he is under contract doesn't mean we HAVE to put present. The years should be when a guy played, or at least was present (i.e. on injured reserve, practice squad, whatever). Logically, it makes the most sense to put 2001-2006, and then add his next team if it ever comes to that.►Chris Nelson 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again POV

Once more, we have deletionist attacks on this article. The lead of gutted of most of the significant albeit negative facts. Worse yet, an entire section about how community leaders who worked with Vick are handling the recent developments with the local youth, properly sourced, was eliminated as supposedly "unencyclopedic". Even Micheal Vick himself acknowledged and has spoken of that aspect in his sole public statement recently. In what way is that matter unencyclopedic? If it is poorly written, improve it, but don't try to just make it go away. It is a significant aspect of the article.

In general, this article cannot be NPOV and be just about a sports figure, outlining his athletic accomplishments, and have a brief mention of an "investigation" and no mention of the impact upon his former mentors and community. We passed that point a day or two after April 25.

The fact is we don't know how the future will go, but to entirely fail to mention the felony conviction and gambling issues, the fact that he awaits federal sentencing and the fact the he is facing attempts by the team to recover some of their money in lead at all makes that section glaringly POV.

Personally, I hope he will take more steps to mitigate the bad stuff with his future actions, but we are reporting this historically significant man and the circumstances surrounding him as events occur, not trying to rewrite the past more favorably, or distort or influence the present. We are covering the same issues over and over in a kind of slow motion edit war; I think we will need to get some more formal help from WP if this foolishness and irresponsible editing continues. Mark in Historic Triangle 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now this is downright in appropriate - in fact, i even went to your talk page - the lead was gutted because it read like a series of current events on the Bad News kennel. More work is need to it but the edits were right on. Most of the content in this article is horrible - in fact the style of play section was a joke. The content that was in there was falsely sourced - and one of the sources was an associated content link written by some fan that was not a verifiably reliable source. Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it should stay. That section reads like a list of quotes that don't say much more than "vike has screwed up. What he has done is dispicable in my mind - but this is not the place for soapboxing or anything else. The article checked in at just around 83k when i looked at it tonight. I'm not trying to rewrite this and make him look like a nice person, i'm just getting rid of the poorly written information so that well written information can be put in it's place. If you look at the edit summaries - you will see that there were several notes with regards to the temporary nature of the edits. You just reverted without looking at any of that stuff. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it goes in an article. This thing is in horrible shape! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be kept rather brief. It doesn't need to tell the whole story - just the executive summary. --B 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why expunged much of the material. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I did edit some of the messy BNK investigation section while you were working on it without realizing you were doing so, and for that, I do apologize. It needed (and probably still needs) more work. I will not mess with your continuing efforts there.

However, other than that, the only thing I reverted was restoring the section you deleted entirely about how community youth leaders in NN are dealing with their challenges, inasmuch as they had used him as an example of what they were doing right. That part is significant and belongs in the article. Even Mike himself knows that is a major issue; he accepted awards and gave interviews which led to the image he had with youth and those working with them, and what is happening now and in the future in that regard is part of his story that goes far beyond personal life details or items of no significance.

Regarding the lead, I have consistently supported trimming too many details about the legal trouble, but I still maintain that eliminating any mention of gambling and felony conviction aspects in the lead while describing it all as simply "an investigation" has the effect of making what is presented misleading.

I do not think you are editing POV in the sense of Pro-Vick. However, I feel that perhaps non-sports issues seem to be less important to you than I think is NPOV. At this risk of being repetitive, I will repeat: I beleive that this is not just a sports article; this guy is a public figure in other regards as well at this point. Through much debate and editing, we have agreed to certain content in the lead, including a very well-written description of his status as a NFL player by another editor (Kubigula, I think), a debate and fine tuning of content of the lead in which I played no part. You swept away that content also.

I assume you are working in good faith, as I am. If necessary, I am ready to stand back from this one if I am wrong. However, you could be wrong as well. Perhaps someone beside the two of us may want to chime in here. Mark in Historic Triangle 07:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent editing isn't really the problem here - it's that you have approached this as if i'm trying to "ruin the article". The title for the previous section doesn't say "hey let's work together" to me. I appreciate your passion for this article and notice you have identified your self as a "go-to person" on the articles content - but perhaps it's time to step aside from that duty as you have suggested. I have submitted this article for the WP:AID (per the tag at the top) and assuming that one other person votes on it by the 4th, we'll have some major help here.
I didn't expunge anything in particular - i simply looked at the article and removed the most problematic sections. I'm sure that there is good content in the Bad News refractor - but as i said on your talk page - it's still. If you look at the refractor - you will see a direct call for attention. I did not want to slap it into the other article because of the refractored contents size.
What's important to me is that this article (and all articles for that matter) adhere as best as possible to the content related guidelines and policies that people have taken a great deal of time to formulate. I feel like the information in the reverted section is not bad, rather, it needs a serious scrubbing a re-presentation. I have always operated under the premise that bad content is worse than no content.
I'm not trying to hide the fact that Vick's "persona" and notability has risen in recent months due to the events - but this is also a very touchy subject and we have to be very careful not to go overboard. The article is heavily dated right now and spends too much time talking about the "here and now" instead of addressing it from an encyclopedic nature. We should always remember that people like Vick, Lawrence Phillips, and Maurice Clarett would not be in the national spotlight if it weren't for their football careers.
The latest reversion of the lead (which we have all contributed to) does assert that he plead guilty - that's a pretty unbiased and fair representation of the information. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Was

Vick is no longer on any roster or being paid or employed by the NFL, so he "was" an NFL QB, not "is". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetaco (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He is still on the Falcons' roster, listed as suspended.[2] Until he's released, he is an NFL QB.--Kubigula (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
So if he is "suspended indefinitely", is he still an NFL player as long as his contract is valid or he is released? Couldn't this go on for years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetaco (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Future with NFL: mention in lead

I think the statement "Goodell has stated that he wants to let legal process runs its course before ruling on a future for Vick with the league" is a very appropriate NPOV comment about the NFL at this time, and is appropriate in the lead. Unless he states otherwise, it is reasonable to infer that Goodell is in no rush and would be wiser to wait. There are many legal aspects to Vick's current situation. The grand jury thing coming up in Surry County is certainly a major unknown at this time. 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but it's a little misleading, because Goodell said that before the guilty plea and the indefinite suspension of Michael Vick. I am no longer so sure that Goodell is waiting for the legal process to play out. I don't think it's POV, but the statement is misleading, because it seems to imply that Goodell said this recently. But he didn't. He said it a million years ago, when we thought there was going to be a federal trial. --Jaysweet 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I personally believe that few of us following this closely thought there was going to be a federal trial, and I also seriously doubt that Goodell has conveniently forgotten about Virginia, nor that he will want to be criticized for prejudicing whatever happens there. You are right; it has been over 2 weeks since his comments. Why don't we date his comments and let him speak for himself whenever he is ready to? I will add back the August 17 date of that quote. Mark in Historic Triangle 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That works for me. I had attempted to qualify it in a similar way, but my wording was a little awkward and it apparently got copy-edited back out. As long as it's clear to readers that this comment from Goodell came when Vick was not yet technically guilty, I think it's fine.
FWIW, I've been following this super-closely, and until the remaining two co-defendants flipped, I thought for sure that Vick was going to take it to trial, so that he could at least sew some seeds of doubt for when he inevitably tries to make an NFL comeback. But that's neither here nor there... ---Jaysweet 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No insult intended. I live nearby and have some personal sources close to case. I was aware of the damning amount of overwhelming evidence; The fact is consideration of a NFL comeback would not be much of an issue if he faced RICO charges and sentencing. IMHO, with the 90-95% federal conviction rates and long sentences, he made the only sensible move taking the best plea deal he could. I cannot call it on Surry County; I personally think the defendants carefully chose that location with the jury pool in mind; race and the fact that there is some southern dog fighting culture would both have been factors they probably considered more favorable than some other spots. Surry has really gotten some bad national press from all this, so that choice of venue could end up being more poor judgement by the BNK guys. Surry (with majority black citizenry) will be extra careful to not use race against these fellows, but that doesn't mean they turn a blind eye to the law either. Personally, I do hope something good can come out of all this which has come at a high price of pain and sadness to animals and people. Mark in Historic Triangle 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Teenage parents?

I know this information is critical to gain an understanding of his background, but isn't it a little overkill? Details like his mom working at K-Mart are unnecessary. I think this could be covered in about three paragraphs:

Vick was the second of four children (including older sister Christina ("Niki") and younger siblings Marcus and Courtney) born to Brenda Vick and Michael Boddie, then unmarried teenagers of modest finances. His mother worked two jobs, obtained some public financial assistance, and had help from her parents, while his father worked long hours in the shipyards as a sandblaster and spray-painter. They were married when Michael was about five years old but the children elected to continue to use their "Vick" surname.
The family grew up living in the "Ridley Circle Homes", a public housing project in a financially depressed and crime-ridden neighborhood located in the East End section of the port city, an area known in hip hop culture by the slang names "Bad News" or "Bad Newz". A 2007 newspaper article published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch noted "not much changed" by observations of local people almost ten years after Michael Vick left. One resident interviewed, who said that there is drug dealing, drive-by shootings and other killing in the neighborhood, suggested that sports was a way out... a dream for many.
In a 2001 interview, Michael Vick told the Newport News Daily Press that when he was 10 or 11 "I would go fishing even if the fish weren't biting, just to get out of there" and away from the violence and stress of daily life in the projects. Even though the area is, by all accounts, troubled, several people interviewed were disbelieving that dog fighting was a local activity there.

(Obviously putting back in the proper citations...) Maher-shalal-hashbaz 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The lede, redux

Okay, I concede that it is now appropriate to give more weight to the dog fighting charges than before (my statement that this would never rise to the level of O.J. seems a bit naive now, eh?) However, the current lede is way, way too long. What are the basic, critical biographical facts that need to be presented? Marijuana use and the Bank of Canada seem rather insignificant (now) in the story of Michael Vick. If you have any issues with these edits, please state what they are here when you revert. Thanks! Cmprince 21:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The marijuana induced probation violations are pretty much going to seal his chances of getting on any reputable (if any) team in the future so its a major part of his past and future. A lot of critics and apologists alike have suggested that dogfighting is a little light. Maybe marijuana is, as well. But I can only imagine a sports team hiring anyone who is known to use illegal substances and after the "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" firing, it's not unreasonable to think that Nike, Addidas and the Atlanta Falcons are probably going to be repulsed from any further association. That is at least until pot-smoking, dogfight gambling football players come in vogue, I suppose ;) As such, the marijuana probation violation should stay since it is likely a major development and now a part of who Mr. Vick is. Let's not put it in the first sentence, but keep it in the lead is my recommendation MrBill66

That is still speculation, and should not be placed in the article and presented as fact. The introduction looks very unbalanced as it stands right now, because it spends several paragraphs going on and on about his dogfighting involvements, pot smoking, etc. He is notable for being a football player, and the introduction should discuss him as such. His other activities deserve to be discussed there, but they should not take over the intro as they do now. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

haha... i dont know why people keep saying hes notable for being a football player. i guess bc these people watch football often? to most people hes notable for being a criminal... seriously, ask around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.36.39 (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Years in infobox revisited

The years for Atlanta should only say 2001-2006 right now. This is not simply a guy on I.R. or a guy suspended for a game. He is not with the team. He is not getting paid. He is not playing. Think about if Vick goes to jail for a few years, then Atlanta releases him, then he signs with Oakland in say... 2011 (just hypothetical). It would be ridiculous to have it say Atlanta Falcons (2001-2010), Oakland Raiders (2011-present). I think we can all agree this would be very misleading to visitors of the article. Him being under contract with the team should not be the deciding factor. Tiki Barber is still under contract with the Giants, it doesn't mean we should add "-present" to his infobox. Can we get some agreement on this?►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not getting any agreement from me, Chris. Take a look at a couple other articles: Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones. Both of those players are suspended right now, is that true? Look at their infoboxes. For Johnson, it says "Dallas Cowboys (2007-present)". He hasn't played a game for them yet but he's on the team and is under contract. Whether he gets paid or not or whether he plays a game or not are different matters than whether or not he's on the contract. For Jones, it says "Tennessee Titans (2005-present)". He is suspended for the entire 2007 season, as is Vick, so how is this any different?
Is Vick on any of the other 31 teams in the NFL? No. Is he on any team in any other league? No. He's still in the NFL and is still under contract with the Falcons. He isn't with any other team, and hasn't been yet, so therefore, his tenure with the Falcons hasn't ended. The infobox years need to reflect this. If you say "...(2001-2006)" to show when he played for them, this implies that his tenure with the team ended in 2006, which isn't the case here. Ksy92003(talk) 06:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So why not say Tiki Barber's Giants tenure is 1997-present? He's still under contract.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Um... maybe because Tiki Barber is retired? Ksy92003(talk) 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But he's still under contract and he hasn't technically retired. He's just on the reserve/retired list. Just like Vick is on the reserve/suspended list. There's technically no difference. Both are under contract. Both aren't getting paid. Both are on a reserve lists. As far as the teams are concerned, it's actually the same situation.►Chris NelsonHolla! —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean he hasn't "technically" retired? According to Tiki Barber, "He officially filed his retirement papers with the Players Association on February 12, 2007." If this isn't official, then what is? Ksy92003(talk) 07:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. You could substitute another player in for Tiki though. Tarik Glenn, perhaps. There are others.
But here's another thing. Why don't we put Rae Carruth's years with Carolina as 1997-present. To my knowledge, he has yet to be released by the team. He's just been in prison for eight years.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I really need to research before arguing.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Alright, look at Rae Carruth's article now: "The Panthers released him a few days later, citing a morals clause in his contract." Why don't you actually read the articles before making arguments? Ksy92003(talk) 07:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cecil Collins.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Collins' article doesn't even have an infobox. It doesn't say "(1999-present)" does it? Are you even looking at these articles? Ksy92003(talk) 07:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether it does or not is irrelevant. I'm saying, according to you, a Cecil Collins infobox would technically have to say 1999-present. Do you honestly think that if Vick is suspended/incarcerated for I don't know, four years, and isn't released until after, that his infobox should read Atlanta Falcons (2001-2011)? When the last time he'd ever set foot at Falcons headquarters was in training camp of 2007? That would just be stupid.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There's one major point that you're overlooking when talking about Vick: he isn't in jail. He wasn't arrested, so he currently isn't serving a sentence yet. His hearing hasn't happened yet. It'd be a different story after that happens. All the examples you've given me have involved the player having been arrested, jailed, and sentenced. None of those things have happened to Vick yet. Ksy92003(talk) 07:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So let's say the hypothetical situation I outlined, or one similar to it, comes to fruition. What do you do with the years? Does incarceration change it?►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a major difference between suspension from the league and federal punishment. Currently, he is suspended from the league only and isn't serving a sentence. He hasn't been released by the Falcons, banned from the league, or sentenced to jail time. He's still with the team. He just doesn't play for them because he is suspended. The same thing with Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson: they don't play with the teams because they are suspended, but they're still with the team, they still have a signed contract to play for that team when eligible, and that's why they can be said as "present". Ksy92003(talk) 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet another reply where you don't answer my question. Good job.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Vick hasn't been incarcerated. He's currently only suspended by the league, and nothing else. He's with the team and is serving league punishment, so he can be said as "presently" on the team roster. If you want to go ask hypothetical questions, then go ahead, but I don't feel like I need to answer a hypothetical question that has no current significance.
I don't know what's gonna happen with Vick's legal situation, nor do I care about it now. I'm only acting on what I know for fact right now and not about any "hypothetical situation" you have. And what I know for fact right now is that Vick has only been suspended by the league and hasn't been sentenced to prison time, so his infobox should read "(2001-present)", much like Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson. He's on the roster, and is still within the league, within the team. Ksy92003(talk) 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example: Scott Niedermayer. He was suspended by the Anaheim Ducks for not reporting to camp. But he is currently on the team's active roster, despite the suspension. He's under contract with the team, and therefore, he is still a Duck. His article lists the Ducks as his current NHL team. Just because a player is suspended doesn't mean that his tenure with a team ends, and that is what "(2001-2006)" implies. Ksy92003(talk) 08:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: All the other articles' infoboxes may be wrong, too. It's not like the Tank Johnson article is some pillar of Wikipedia that all the infoboxes must emulate. Personally I think that for situations where someone didn't play for a whole year, the infobox might give the dates he played, but under it also give the dates of gaps with the reason. For Tiki Barber, it shouldn't say "-present", that's pretty absurd. But Tiki is done, and Vick might not be, which makes the decision less clear. If Vick were to be done, with something like a lifetime suspension announced by the NFL, then it should say "-2006". Tempshill 13:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:CRYSTAL makes this very clear. It has to say "-present" for now. While it is certainly not a likely outcome, it is possible that on Dec 10 Vick will be sentenced to probation rather than prison time, that he will be found not guilty of the state charges, and that Goodell will chalk up the 2007 season as "time served" in regards to any sort of suspension, and we could conceivably see Vick playing for another team as early as September '08. I'd put the odds of that at about 100,000:1 right now, heh, but WP:CRYSTAL is very clear on this.
Until Goodell announces a lifetime suspension and/or he is officially released by the Falcons, the infobox must read "-present". This is very cut-and-dry in my opinion.
I would propose we put a moratorium on the infobox discussion until Christmas. We should know a lot more by then. --Jaysweet 13:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And I say this particularly because Chris Nelson makes some interesting arguments, but until Dec 10, all of his arguments are entirely moot. Like I say, as per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia can not even assume Vick is going to jail. It is still technically possible that he could just get probation.
If it's early 2008 and Vick is sitting in the federal pen and Goodell has not yet announced a lifetime suspension, then we can have this discussion. Until then, the infobox situation is very, very clear: "-present." --Jaysweet 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Ksy. I've asked your for your opinion like eight times, as opposed to the "why" of the situation, and it keeps going right over your head.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I count only four times. Secondly, it's not going "over my head". I just am not going to answer a hypothetical question because it isn't of any concern right now. This discussion isn't about what to do in the future, we're talking about right now, and that's all I'm talking about. All your hypothetical situations are completely pointless right now. Nothing has happened yet, and I'm not going to waste my time by having a discussion about something that isn't even relevant right now. If you want to waste your time, then that doesn't bother me at all, but I'm not going to.

I've nothing more to say about this: WP:CRYSTAL is quite clear on this. The possibility of him not being sentenced to jail time and returning to the NFL for the later weeks of the season still remains. Nothing has been decided yet, and it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume otherwise or imply that his tenure with the team has ended.

I'm not wasting my time any longer. There is no reason why I need to answer hypothetical questions because we don't know what's gonna happen. Ksy92003(talk) 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just... wow. It is impossible to interact with you at a human level.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How is it impossible to interact with me? Are you calling me "inhuman"? I've demonstrated my point again and again and again. All you've done is given me hypothetical situations.
I think you're just upset because nobody else agrees with you, and Tempshill and Jaysweet both agree with me. Ksy92003(talk) 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that's not it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Then what is it? Why else do you feel the need to insult me by saying that it's impossible to interact with me at a human level? I'm answering the relevant questions, am I not? I don't see what else I need to do.
You get all mad at me for no reason. There is no reason for me to need to answer your hypothetical situations, is there? I'm not going to waste my time. You say it is impossible to interact with me, when you're the one who's trying to provoke me with comments like these:
  1. "And yet another reply where you don't answer my question. Good job.
  2. "...it keeps going right over your head"
  3. "It is impossible to interact with you at a human level."
Ksy92003(talk) 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(sysop intervenes) I've been asked to weigh in on this. To all concerned: let's do our best to resolve this amicably and go to dispute resolution. Try an article content request for comment on the content dispute here and let the potential civility issues alone. Without naming any names I have the following recommendations: for both sides of this disagreement, do your best to show mutual respect. It earns respect in the long run. If that doesn't work, then on one side please use the arbitration enforcement noticeboard instead of my userpage when you want intervention and to the other side please be mindful that post-arbitration and post-brief block you have already gotten all the slack that any administrator is ever likely to extend. Sports are supposed to be fun. Do your best to remember the fun part. Or, like I did, play a sport instead of watching one. DurovaCharge! 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my compliments that Chris and Ksy are talking (if not always productively) rather than edit warring. As I see it, the problem is that no line in the infobox can adequately capture the complexity of Vick's situation. I tried "(2001-present(suspended))", but that looks a bit goofy. Given that there is no ideal solution, I think the best option is to leave it as "2001-present" until the sentencing in December. A prison sentence or additional suspension could certainly change how we describe his status.--Kubigula (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I believed the whole time that we should simply leave it as "-present" until the legal processes run their course. As of right now, he hasn't been sentenced and he hasn't been released by the Falcons so there is no logical reason why the infobox should imply that his tenure with the team is over. Ksy92003(talk) 03:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

College Park?

I removed information from the section under "1st Bank" pertaining to the city of College Park. Several sentences described the city, who lives there, what it's known for, etc. None of this had anything to do with Michael Vick directly, except that a failed business venture was located there, and that mention should suffice.Kingsley911 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored only a small portion. The locality information about these investments is important because Vick told the AJC in March that he was engaging in a plan to invest in the community and improve his public image. From the AJC on March 15, 2007:..he is the main shareholder of three investors. "It's good for people to see that I'm giving back to the community, where people can see me trying to do something that's positive. There's a lot of people speculating about things I do that are not so positive."...Opening this restaurant and an adjoining wine store with business partners Earnest Greer and Frank Jenkins, in an area Vick deemed as "underserved" is part of a plan to establish a better relationship with the local community. [3] Of course, you may already be aware that College Park and East Point are adjacent localities. Mark in Historic Triangle 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts in introductory paragraphs

The first paragraph of the article claims that Vick is being held in jail awaiting sentencing, but the second paragraph says that he's out on bond awaiting sentencing. I don't know anything about it myself. -- Creidieki 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

he was and is currently in jail as of Dec 3, turned himself in early apparently to start getting credit for time in custody. I think we have fixed that snafu. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

SENTENCING: 23 months in jail

Can someone edit the article and put todays sentencing in, please? Yahoo News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.234.67 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kankakee Tax

Does anyone have anymore information on the Kankakee tax situation? It seems like the staement that this somehow keeps him from paying taxes in Virginia or Georgia is incorrect. As this link claims, the agreement allows cities in Illinois to refund some of their revenues to the business owners. There is nothing in this that would prevent Vick from paying taxes in GA or VA. Thoughts? http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=18683&seenIt=1 67.79.126.173 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Urban Dictionary

Resolved.

THAT REFERENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED. URBAN DICTIONARY IS A DISGRACE AND HAS NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA - EVER.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.43.103 (talk • contribs)

Done --B (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Overview Section

I agree that the removal of the Overview section is a good move. However, there are so many items in those 3 paragraphs that would be best served if they were redistributed among the topic areas in the remainder of the article, that I question the decision of simply removing the Heading without doing the redistribution work. There is so much duplication of content that this article is becoming unnecessarily long.12Dorsa152 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC) micheal vick is a sadistic douche bag who's never really been a man. he farts cum for a living now and has some guy named bu-bu carving his initials in micheals back. my advice to him is DROP THE SOAP, because thats all he's good for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.15.244 (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

why he's gay

micheal vick is a sadistic douche bag... actually i'm pretty sure thats what he's used for in prison, douching other mens asses, his new profesion other then taking it like a man is farting cum, as you read this article right now he's probably got his boy friend bu-bu carving his iniials in his back. my adavice to mr.vick is DROP THE SOAP!!!! because thats all he's good for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.15.244 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to go out on a limb here, and I might be wrong, but this seems like WP:OR. Do you have any WP:RS? If not, it might not be able to be included without a Template:Fact tag because of WP:BLP.--Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In prison until 2019?

"Observers have speculated that Michael Vick could be released from prison as early as late 2009 or not until 2019." I am guessing the info in the introduction is incorrect? Marcel VanDalfsen (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)