Talk:Mark Hardy (ice hockey)

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

Nationality[edit]

Decided to use Swiss Canadian (to avoid edit war). Dicuss differances here, before editing. GoodDay 15:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss, really ? You can't simply guess one's nationality by his birthplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.192.34.39 (talk)
If you continue to edit war, you risk breaking the 3RR rule (3 reverts in 24hrs) which may get you blocked. You risk getting the page 'semi-protected' (thus stopping you and other anon-users, from editing this page). Stick with the compromise, or get some other 'registered users' opinons, before reverting again. Get a consensus. GoodDay 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the page's history, I didn't remove any content. GoodDay 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did (however) remove your comment. Comments don't belong on the article itself. Seeing as you're relatively new at Wikipedia, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia rules & policies. GoodDay 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Rangers official website, Hardy is Canadian (eh!). I've made the change and added the 'source'. GoodDay 13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to an article I just read on the Canadiens' website, [[1]], Hardy is Swiss. I'm guessing that he has dual nationality, so I think we should go back to the "Swiss Canadian" formulation. AnthroGael (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct First & Middle Name[edit]

According to the records of the Superior Court of the Disctrict of Columbia in Washington, D.C., (case no. 2010 CF1 009048, styled "United States Vs. HARDY, LEA M."), the correct name for this guy is Lea Mark Hardy - not Mark Lea Hardy. See https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/ 24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus_OMG —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Correct Date of Birth[edit]

According to the records of the Superior Court of the Disctrict of Columbia in Washington, D.C., (case no. 2010 CF1 009048, styled "United States Vs. HARDY, LEA M."), the correct date of birth for this guy is 1956, not the 1959 year that was originally given for this article. Where did that 1959 info come from?24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus_OMG —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Abuse accusations[edit]

He was accused May 21, 2010, of putting his hands down the pants of his 21 year old daughter, Jessica Hardy, in a Washington, D.C. hotel room while they were both drunk and sleeping in the same bed together. Jessica is a well-known volleyball player at Georgetown University who graduated in May 2010. They are from Manhattan Beach, Calif. These are all well known facts that have been PUBLICALLY reported in the news all across America. The so-called complaintant, his daughter Jessica, has also been repeatedly and publically identified. 24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus_OMG —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I just added updated information regarding his upcoming court appearance, what he has been charged with, the definition of the charge, and the possible range of punishment.24.243.2.132 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Biggus_Dickus_OMG[reply]

I've removed definitions of the charge that Hardy faced - the full definition and legal ramifications of the charge do not fall under the scope of a BLP. If they belong anywhere on wikipedia, it would be in their own category for legal definitions, and you may then link to such a listing. (Among other things, since the case was actually dismissed, such detail does not belong on this page, and the only reason to perpetuate it on this page would be to deliberately sully Hardy's name.) Further, I've removed defamatory language that was directed at the accuser, Hardy's daughter (saying "so-called" instead of "alleged", etc). User RenamedUser5 reverted the edit regarding the case description, and evidently has an axe to grind regarding the case, judging from her edit tag "Hiding the truth", which frankly doesn't even make sense. I reverted that edit, and put commentary on her User Talk page. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that she did it because you are, in fact, trying to hide the truth. The daughter is a complete and utter liar. This is a very important event as it is not often that some guy gets accused by his fool daughter of having sex with her while they were drunk in a hotel room, sharing a bed. Mark Hardy is completely and totally innocent. The daughter, Jessica, is a total liar. Truthful statements about events are not defamatory. Please look up the proper definition of the word. The truth is that a sexual assault allegation was made by a daughter against her very famous father. The truth is that the charge was a very serious allegation that could have lead to Mr. Hardy doing hard time. The truth is that the charge turned out to be false and there was no evidence to support it; thus, the case was dismissed with prejudice and Mr. Hardy was completely vindicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.31.191 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated actions of one or more editors to this section suggest a complete lack of impartiality and neutrality, which is against the spirit of a BLP. Calling a reverted edit "vandalism" simply because you do not agree with the position does not make it so. The fact is, the case was dimissed - you will notice I had left that in - and my edits were intended, if anything, to lessen the impact of the accusation on this page. Whether an allegation was untruthful or not, yes it existed, but your edits are editorializing the allegation's nature without empirical proof. And as mentioned, the full legal definition and sentencing guidelines for the charge do not belong in a BLP. If your goal is to reduce the impact of the since-dismissed case against Mark Hardy, repeated insertions of the details defeat that goal. If you represent Mr Hardy in some capacity, and feel that he has been slandered by content on this page, there are courses of action within Wikipedia that you may take. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read what you say before you post it? "[e]ditorializing the allegation's nature without empirical proof", just what is that phrase supposed to mean? At the time the legal definiation & sentenance info was posted, that was relevant because the case was still on going and had yet to go to trial. My goal is not to reduce the impact of the now dismissed case. Mr. Hardy was done a great disservice here due to the false allegations made by Jessica Hardy against him. Mr. Hardy is the victim here. And this is a very notable event in this man's PUBLIC life. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the commentary posted on your user page. You have been warned about posting information about this sexual assault case without proper citations. By repeatedly calling attention to his daughter in this case, you only defeat the purpose of your position. You obviously feel very strongly about this case. Write a blog. Don't take up your cause on Wikipedia, that's not what it's there for.Echoedmyron (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I've come to this discussion from the 3O page. The attention on the sex scandal in the current article is completely disproportional--right now, something like two thirds of the article is on this scandal. I'm of the opinion that the scandal doesn't belong in the biography at all--since the accusations were dismissed, it doesn't seem important to mention them in the biography, per WP:NOTSCANDAL. Also, the biography is short, and the whole story of accusations-being-made-and-then-dismissed has nothing to do with the reason for notability of this individual and would be hard to summarize in a way that's sufficiently brief to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies on writing appropriately balanced articles. If further questions about the suitability of this material arise, I'd suggest taking them to the noticeboard on biographies of living people. I'm going to go ahead and remove this section from the article for now, since I don't believe it's compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks,—CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
maybe u guys should do a better job of actually reading the information contained within the references. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We did. TMZ is not a credible source, it is a gossip site. You really should read up on guidelines for citing sources in Biographies of living persons. The credible sources do not mention the accuser's name or relationship, so you are absolutely prohibited from placing that information in this article. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this "we" that you refer to? All of wikipedia? Or just you, yourself? TMZ is owned by Warner Brothers & Ted Turner of CNN. It is a credible source. Just because they focus only on Hollywood-type news does not make them any less credible then the Wall Street Journal does for business-type stuff. Before you come into an article with yor own personal agenda and start hacking away, please do some research first. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the hope that other opinions may assist, I have raised it at the BLP noticeboard. In the meantime, as I believe that is is a contentious BLP issue, we should seek consensus before adding it back. Hopefully we should get some help on that score, either way. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We" refers to the Wikipedia community at large. TMZ is considered a gossip site, and the fact that they occasionally get something right does not change this. Again, you may want to do some reading on the subject: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think you may also want to read this one, it seems to apply: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. They both should help you understand what Wikipedia is, what it is for, and why some of "us" keep referring to "we". Otherwise, it may be time to drop the stick. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how does "you" get to speak for the millions of "we"? Was their an election that I missed? And what does Tendentious mean? Oh, and I am not holding a stick. I am holding a mouse. But I have no sticks. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've asked, "I" get to speak in the same way that you do, as part on the wikipedia community. Where the "we" in this case comes in is via achieving consensus - you may want to read up on that here: Wikipedia:Consensus - which basically means that when the majority of editors agree with a position, that is what is kept, and similarly when one editor is being over-ruled, that unless a compelling argument can me made to change that consensus, you need to let it go, as in "dropping the stick". The edits we've been discussing have been over-ruled and disagreed with by numerous editors. I am guessing, but it sounds like you didn't read the articles that were suggested to you to read up on definitions and procedures; if you had, you would have learned what was meant by tendentious editing. That article also explains consensus and provides links to other articles and definitions you may find useful. Echoedmyron (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Echoedmyron and Bilby. Show me a reliably sourced conviction, and I will agree it needs to be in the biography. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also there is enough in the article article already. No conviction, not even a trial - if he hadn't connected to it through standing down from his position I would support removal of the issue completely. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Hardy (ice hockey). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Hardy_(ice_hockey)&oldid=1207549195"