Jump to content

Talk:Steve McNair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RC-0722 (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 6 July 2009 (→‎He was murdered.: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Retirement

"Announced" his retirement is correct. He has stated that he is considering it; many feel that he does not want to go out on such a negative note and will in fact attempt to play at least one more season. Rlquall 04:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Roster bonus

It says he is due a $50,000,000 roster bonus in 2006. Shouldn't it be leik 50,000 or 5 mil? fifty million seems kinda unlikely. --198.102.62.250 20:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$50m is correct. He'll either renegotiate it or be released. --Dan121377 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the $50m is an option to extend, he's already contracted to play in 2006. 68.34.203.200 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ahead of ourselves?

We know he's gone, but right now he still appears on the Titans roster. The information should reflect that until the release becomes official. 208.47.17.91 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gang member?

I am here in California and my brother said he had gang affiliations I just want to verify those comments. I don't think that he did but my brother seems to think that he did. let me know on here just to either shut him up or prove he is right. I really think that he was brought up right.(75.48.36.47 (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Non-verifiable, not even worth the time. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 06:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trade to Baltimore takes 1/2 the article?

McNair has an 11 year career with the Titans/Oilers, and the trade to Baltimore takes up half the article? Does this really need a "timeline" of the trade?

I know, he has an illustrious 11 year career with the titans, but its summed up in 2 paragraphs, and his ravens 1 year career takes up 1/2 the article?LazyManJackson 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)...[reply]

One reason might be that wikipedia wasn't around/popular when he had his "illustrious 11-year career", but it was and there was someone updating it when he was at Baltimore. It's not laziness, just no one has put it in. --86.146.48.11 (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STEVE MCNAIR WAS A MEMBER OF THE HONORARY OMEGA PSI PHI FRATERNITY.

Find a source and it's gold. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement is official!

He filed the paperwork, so you can stop being a Wikinazi.

Prove it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You like the Miami Dolphins. I don't have to prove anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsterblich856 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] At what point would one consider him really retired? --Blackbox77 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Who wrote this, his brother? It's too much like a 3rd person POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.95.247 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His brother? I was thinking more like his mother. This reads like a highly embellished short story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGREED... this article needs to be TOTALLY rewritten. Unless we rename it It Took Balls: The Steve McNair Story. Drcwright (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it needs some shortening and major tone changes. I might do it later. Well, probably not actually. Yesitsnot (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this page work. How should I know what to write on this page. Somebody help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.146.64 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Breaking news on twitter is reporting he died. Should this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.194.181 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My change re: his death got reverted, here's a source: http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=10643916&Call=Email&Format=Text The page is protected now so I can't make it myself.

BNO is also reporting it on their web site but fails to give a source. --Megyn (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=10643962&Call=Email&Format=Text —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmazingSyco (talk • contribs) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "murder-suicide" when the source cited says "double homicide". Krenzo (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it says murder homocide, which is just redundant. And misspelled.
Homicide isn't necessarily a murder. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of a source that says when today he was found dead? That might be something to add in if we can find a source. DinosaurRAWRZ (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source was updated. When I cited it, it said murder-homicide.CH52584 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNN reporting him to be found dead. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, police believe he was killed in a double homicide[2]. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys here's a source saying murder-suicide.

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=92323&catid=2 Danman1202 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original report from the local media. They are now saying double homicide.CH52584 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest no potential determination be posted till we are absolutely positively sure which one it is and have corroborating reports. Not to mention one that reported murder-suicide retracted their story and posted double-homicide. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, Nashville's News Channel 5 says that the incident happened near 2nd South & Lea Avenue. [3] DinosaurRAWRZ (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2009. (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be worded for now saying that he and another woman were found dead at this moment and when the investigation is concluded it can be changed to reflect their findings. Danman1202 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Wikipedia is about Verifiability and there certainly is a lack of that here. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read reports that his wife died and yet wikipedia reports that he is survived by his wife, although the footnote points to a source that says nothing of the kind. 173.48.138.219 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Initial media reports erroneously indicated McNair's was a murder-suicide." - Where is the evidence that they erroneously indicated this was a murder-suicide? Shouldn't this read, "Initial media reports indicated McNair's was a murder-suicide, but police haven't confirmed this" or something like that? Show me a source that says this is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.218.248 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove this as well for now. We cannot be sure that she was not the unidentified woman killed. Danman1202 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is every article locked shut right after someone dies? I live in Nashville and could update this article since it is all over the news here but of course,I can't do that because it is locked. I guess you can only edit if your a admin. --70.156.0.160 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are locked for reasons. This page is only semi-protected so it's editable by users and admins alike. People like to target pages, especially those of recently dead persons, for vandalism. False information is also easily spread during these times. Such is the reason for Page protection. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use the {{Editsemiprotected}} template and someone will edit it for you, or you can get an account instead. However, you will still not be able to edit semi-protected pages until your account is 4 days old and has at least 10 edits. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hand me that "semi" stuff! The article is now locked!!! This is why Wikipedia sucks now. I NEVER HAD AND NEVER WILL SIGN UP FOR AN ACCOUNT SINCE THAT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT OF WIKI! The page is usually locked with false information and EVERY TIME someone dies some stupid person with an account rushes over and reverts the CORRECT information without even checking the facts then the page is locked. 76.241.79.50 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe the person isn't stupid but it's a stupid thing. I say again I will not be forced to sign up for an account now or ever!76.241.79.50 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the spirit of wiki? Shall we go back to signing our post manually as well? Well, that's not a fair comparison but to say that protecting Wikipedia from unverifiable material or original research as well as allowing vandalism to spread rampantly without protection and expect others to fix it... That's not the Wikipedia I signed up for. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not STUPID. Let me tell you that having spent 15 years in the Army, with two tours of duty in Iraq, it's an automatic assumption that first reports regarding an incident are often WRONG. If you haven't paid much attention, the TV guys are more interested in being FIRST TO REPORT, regardless of how inaccurate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so having "real time" information is not as important as having correct information. If you want to have access to semiprotected pages, quit whining and sign up. Nobody's twisting your arm, but IF you want access, that's what you're going to have to do. And please spare us your righteous indignation. It ain't about you. Caisson 06 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences to all. 76.241.79.50 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not locked, it is semi-protected, which means that IP addresses and non-autoconfirmed accounts are not allowed to edit the article. If you want the article fixed, use the template I showed you. The majority of articles here at Wikipedia are open for all to edit them. However, to protect articles from vandalism, articles are semi-protected temporarily. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And rightfully so, considering every single death article draws anyone and everyone. You notice no one starts complaining about wikipedia policies until someone dies? Then suddenly everyone wants to edit. How about making an account before someone dies? The purpose of it is to prevent unverifiable material from being spread and to prevent vandalism as is seen in every other death that has occurred. I'm happy that an admin had the sense of urgency and logic to fully lock down the Michael Jackson article after he was reported to be in the hospital. You couldn't even get on wikipedia. Imagine trying to correct information between database server dropouts and edit conflicts to fix disinformation and vandalism. We saw that once before. Her name was Anna Nicole Smith. I don't care to see it again, personally. 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad news. This comment may not be relevant very long, but the "Not seeking suspects" line is misleading in the context of the article. This is police speak for not having an idea of who is responsible--people are "persons of interest" or "subjects" at this stage. It doesn't imply that they think aren't investigating, or think it was a murder-suicide, which is the impression I think you'd get from reading the sentence in the article. 71.139.180.57 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cease the speculation

It seems every time I come on, someone has added that it was a double homicide or a murder-suicide based on, not the police statements as they have made no determination yet, but the determinations of newspapers and a journalist who probably saw one to many episodes of CSI. Seriously people, some of you want to ask what wikipedia is about? Let's start with Verifiability for starters. Cease to add speculative material till facts are out. When the police say it, then fine. But as long as it is unverified, I'm about as inclined to leave it as I am to read The Sun; And as of 5 minutes prior to this post, the AP has it as follows:

You'll understand if I'm more willing to go on "not 'readily apparent'" for the time being than no less than a few dozen conflicting news articles of "double-homicide" and "murder-suicide". So much for Journalistic integrity.... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence suggests that former NFL quarterback Steve McNair was killed in a murder-suicide with Sahel Kazemi, a 20-year old woman he had been dating for several months, media outlets are reporting.
Yet, later in that very article...
Enough Said. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and content

Everyone please read our Policies on adding content to Wikipedia. Failure to do so will result in your additions being removed. The first and main thing here is proper sourcing and citation. Read WP:Reliable sources, WP:VERIFY and WP:Citing sources. Additionally read WP:BLP and do not add any content against this policy, even if it's not about McNair but about some alleged girlfriend. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Female was the victim?

"On July 4, 2009, McNair was found dead of multiple gunshot wounds, including one to the head,[16][17] along with a female victim".

So the guy shot the woman with one shot and then killed himself with multiple gunshots? Sounds logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.71.48 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why people need to stop adding "double-homicide" and "murder-suicide" when the authorities themselves have not even said who is to blame. Guess what that means? No "The wife did it" either. Any additions of the previous 3 shall be reverted on sight as vandalism. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, can't agree more. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to "the authorities" doesn't change what reliable sources are reporting; Further, the Nashville PD spokesman has already said that they are not seeking any suspects in this case. If there was even a scintilla of a chance that this was a homicide, don't you think they'd be seeking suspects? The police don't have to say murder-suicide for it to be so. Enough other sources are reporting on it. At the very least, include it as "The Tennessean said that..." There has to be some compromise between fully reporting the facts and sticking our head in the sand, doesn't there? --SSBohio 16:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said, reporting the facts. As wikipedia is about Verifiability, a reliable source speculating on the cause of death is inherently neither reliable nor verifiable. Now a compromise could be reached in that one could say that media outlets are speculating it to be a murder-suicide while police have not commented on the circumstances of the death. I will admit that my thoughts lean personally towards it being murder-suicide based on the surrounding evidence made available to the press, but I also have a nice big red button that also says "Objectivity". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As your comments about me have been personally insulting, I'm electing not to address you directly. However, the fact that the newspaper of record in Nashville describes the case as an apparent murder-suicide should carry some weight, even if only to report it as what multiple publications are saying. Backing up this description is the fact that the police have said they are not seeking any suspects in the case. The objective way to handle this is to report the fact of what reliable sources are saying; Attempting to paint over the situation is far from objective. --SSBohio 16:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I make no attempts to personally insult people. Sorry if you took it as such. I am also fully against censorship of any manner, but I do have something of a strict personal standard when it comes to journalism. Blame it on being a freelancer. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To refresh your recollection: You said I "can't read" and you described my edit as "vandalism." Both are insulting to me personally. You follow it up with a classic non-apology apology: "sorry if you took it as such." Until you can be sorry for what you said, rather than for how I took it, we're at an impasse. Using such attacks to gain the advantage in a content dispute is anathema to the principles of Wikipedia. Since this is a personal issue between us, please return to my talk page so we can continue our discussion. --SSBohio 17:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made the edit, I think it is satisfactory. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good consensus edit until enouh facts accumulate to meet everyone's standard of proof. --SSBohio 16:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing other editors' comments is highly incivil, so I've reverted Evilgohan2's attempt to do so. --SSBohio 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my own unnecessary comment above. Please accept my apology. --SSBohio 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a revert, that was a move. There's a difference. Stop taking every little thing so personally. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, that was something that could just have easily been posted in the edit page summary. Who's the one making personal attacks, again? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you added the content elsewhere, you deleted it from here. Community consensus is that you shouldn't do that. You're responsible for your own actions, not anyone else. --SSBohio 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what, because this has gotten out of hand and because I no longer wish to engage in these childish games, I'm backing away from this article entirely. I will no longer make edits on this talk page or your talk page from the point of this comment. Have fun. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 18:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with your past conduct, not where you choose to edit in the future. Judging from your contribution history, you are a worthy contributor to the project. Nevertheless, your conduct is an issue. If you & I can't resolve this, then I have little other choice than to pursue it through channels. I'd much prefer to bury the hatched & be done with it, but the decision whether to take responsibility for your words and deeds or not is up to you, not me. --SSBohio 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was murdered.

He was murdered. It was confirmed today in the Tennessean by Metro police spokesperson Don Aaron- http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090705/NEWS03/90705014/Autopsy+shows+McNair+was+murdered Of course,I can't add this because the article is locked.--70.156.0.160 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The female (Sahel Kazemi) that died with McNair is Iranian American according to her former boyfriend Keith Norfleet.page 2..."Norfleet said he moved to Nashville with Kazemi from Jacksonville, Fla., where her family lives. She was raised by a sister. Her mother, a native of Iran, was murdered when Kazemi was 9, Norfleet said...", [4] Also, her facebook account has many Iranian names as friends. Does it hurt to expose her nationality? I think we should add this into the article.--119.73.1.247 (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt but I don't see why it's so relevant that it just must be included. It has no relevancy to the death at all, to be honest. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is so that we help the confused readers know who she was before they start searching elsewhere. Her name stands out too much. It's obviously not a typical American name.--119.73.1.247 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP is fascinated about people's race and ethnicity; deplorable really... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's an "American" name anyway? Kazemi's a much more "American" name than "ArglebargleIV" or "119.73.1.247". Ethnicity makes no difference in the article, and I wouldn't care if readers had to look somewhere else, it shouldn't go here. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people becoming ignorant about all this? Sahel Kazemi was born in Iran and her name is Middle Eastern. Someone with names such as John, Joe, Mike, Steve, Tony, Robert, etc., are American names. I'm surprised you don't know this. Someone with a name like Ali Baba is most likely a Middle Easterner. I mean it doesn't really f... matter if her ethnicity is added or nor, at least it's revealed in news. The fact remains that a 20 yr old Iranian woman killed this American black guy. Hahaha that's funny aint it? Hey and I'm from Pakistan and I find it funny. I also find it funny that I am teaching you westerners a thing or two.--119.73.2.103 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just an idealistic and cynical sort, I guess. (And American, by the way, but I have no real way of proving that any more than you have about your claim of being Pakistani.) Idealistic because I think that if you come over here, and you're part of America, then you're American and your name is American. What you are calling "American" is really "Standard European", tending towards Anglo-Saxon. Cynical because usually (although not necessarily in this case) when somebody gets insistent about mentioning the ethnic background of a suspected wrongdoer in an article, there's usually a nasty ulterior motive. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, those who disagree with you aren't ignorant -- we just don't see the relevance. If you think that we're ignorant -- well, explain to us why it's relevant. Try to cure our "ignorance". -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't really see why her race would be an issue, or why it should be included in the article at all. Kimu 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the valid sources report it, then it's fair game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's reported elsewhere doesn't mean it has to be reported here. Clearly, if we include it it needs to be sourced, and we can't say something contradictory to what a reliable source says, but there's no obligation to report it here. Sourced + verifiable is necessary, but not sufficient -- editorial judgment is also required. I'm saying that editorial judgment (at least my editorial judgment) is that it doesn't belong here. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as how (at this point in time) her race is not a crucial piece to the murder investigation, and subsequently is not advantageous (but nor is it disadvantageous) to the article. Kimu 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_McNair&oldid=300644331"