Talk:Michael Vick/Archive 1

Old comments

The article titled "Ron Mexico" is an exact duplicate of this. If someone would care to redirect Ron Mexico to here it would probably be a good thing. I don't know how and would rather not screw it up. Thanks.

It already is redirected. --B 22:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't when this comment was submitted. If it was, I wouldn't have said anything about it.

For the trivia section, it is mentioned that he is referenced in Yung Berg's "sexy lady". "cause i throw it like vick from the yardline, menage a trois, it's safe to say i'm havin' hard times"-ludacris (from biggie duets cd, track 6) or "But patience is the virtue to being anxious, just might hurt you Like Mike Vick returning to the line of scrimmage too soon"-outkast (cd:Idlewild). ... OutKast and Ludacris are nationally known rappers from Atlanta, the city Vick plays in, and their references to Michael Vick are certainly more culturally relevant than "Yung Berg's 'Sexy Lady'".

"Near-improbability"? so, does that mean probability? how about "near impossibility" instead.

I don't like the caption under the picture. He was flipped by a tackler; he isn't showing his athleticism.Andrew zot 03:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. --daunrealist 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And done again. GeorgeC 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of "fan" in the following section is suspect. Whose fan? Certainly not a Vick fan. NFL fan? -- a larger set that would be too broad? I would revert back to "critics" from the prior sentence or further "detractors":

"Some fans have also reacted negatively to the constant media hype that surrounds Vick..."

The locality of the negative responses needs to be put into context -- perhaps they are coming out of pockets that have met defeat at the hands of Michael. The logic has been held that "Mike wins" which has often surpassed points and yardage logic didn't grab me from the article -- this has been a theme within the Falcons organization in the past. --Bammon 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

MV7, Michael Vick Experience

Why is it that there is NOTHING in here about MV7 (from Nike Gridiron) and The Michael Vick Experience ride in Atlanta? I don't know enough about them, so don't tell me to write anything about it. --daunrealist 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite confident that the lawsuit was dropped. If we can find out if it did or not, perhaps we should add it to the "Ron Mexico" bit.

I wasn't aware of it. GeorgeC 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

How important was it to mention that he is an AFRICAN-AMERICAN football player? I have yet to see any EUROPEAN-AMERICAN professional athletes discribed as such.

Anyone just read what the most recent editor just wrote? Such a pile of biased horsecrap. Someone needs to clean this prejudiced crap up.

What do you mean biased? Who gives a tinker's damn about someone complaining about calling him African American. Why must people be labeled ? If you are born in the USA YOU are my friend a plain ole American, pure and simple. This kind of thing is crap...African American, Italian Americna Irish American etc... CRAP! American only

The Neutrality of this article

Quoting from the original article:

NFL career

In 2001, the Atlanta Falcons traded receiver Tim Dwight and several draft picks to the San Diego Chargers for their number one selection spot in the NFL draft. Eventually, San Diego selected Texas Christian running back LaDainian Tomlinson with one of those traded spots. This was known as the dumbest trade in the history of football.

Mike Vick would later be known for using the alias Ron Mexico, then having sexual relations with young women infecting them of the uncurable sexually transmitted disease: herpes- which they didn't know he had.

Mike Vick was once an icon and role model for today's youth, now disgracing the once respected city of Atlanta, which is quickly becoming known for it's gangs and "thugs" (also known as wannabe tough posers). Thank you Mike Vick.

Style of play

Vick is noted for being a running back in a quarter back position. This isn't to say he can only run, because his arm is suburb. However lack of film study, unmotivation, and unwillingness to learn how to read defenses make Vick a one diminsional player.

If anyone would have the time or interest to fix this sooner than in a week ( I'll be around to fix this then ) it would take some work off my load.

Weight

He's listed as two different contradictory weights. one of them is outlandish. Youdontsmellbad 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Falcons victory at Lambeau

The article attributes the win to Vick while he had an adequate performance and the defense and special teams unit scored once and forced five turnovers. You can't possibly attribute the win at Lambeau to Michael Vick AT ALL. There should be no tolerance for bias toward Vick. Wikipedia should stand for intelligence and knowledge while the rest are ignorant, not be a side-show where fanboys can broadcast their ignorant views and hide the truth. Someone tried to completely delete the details of what happened in the Playoffs at Lambeau field. I have absolutely all the time in the world to keep reverting to a version which isn't biased but still tells the details and doesn't attribute the win to Vick. - Max

I moved the Lambeau criticism to, well, the "Criticism" section. See how that works? It was never deleted. Next time, maybe you should check the entire article first... - Goo Paine 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It didn't need to be moved to the "criticism" section since it isn't "criticism" it's merely a statement of the facts. At the very least you could acknowledge this and personally put it back where it belongs or change the word "led" to something more suitable. - Max

NFL Records

I'd like to see a subsection on Vick about NFL Records he has set. I think that would be cool to see on this page :) --Mjrmtg 23:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Found this info Vick's best career passer rating was 141.7 in a 41-0 win at Carolina on Nov. 24, 2002 cited --Mjrmtg 13:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Any idea where he is on the list of career rushing yards for a QB? He's < 200 yards behind John Elway, who is pretty high up there.

^ That was me, forgot to sign Cryomaniac 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Add his record for single season rushing record for a QB, set 12/16/06.

Someone should add his 40 times or something similar and put it in context. Weren't they talking about how crazy it was for a QB to be able to outrun DBs at one point? A lot of atheletes can be described as athelitic, fast and explosive. Drunken Pirate 03:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he run something like a 4.19? Thats close to an 11 second 100m, which is pretty damn good. Cryomaniac 00:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he ran a 4.46 at the combine, and a 4.36 on a fast track at Virginia Tech. I'm tired of seeing people saying that Vick ran under a 4.2, because it's just not true.

Obviously he wouldn't be able to maintain the pace over 100m (2.5x the distance).

Receiving yards

I'm going to put the receiving table back at some point, a QB having 2 career catches (especially since they were both to himself) is notable in some way, surely? I know that Elway had three catches, but they were on HB option plays, etc. Cryomaniac 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there are no objections to this? Cryomaniac 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care much. He caught them off of deflections because he is so short.

College Career

Vick's collegiate career is noteworthy (Heisman finalist as a sophomore, leading his team to a National Championship game) and should be mentioned. Nick.dilallo@gmail.com 07:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a redshirt freshman. Arkon 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited with the donation to charity for Vick's obscene gesture

Also, it was a minor edit (which I forgot to tick, sorry). I wondered why it wasn't already added. Bkid 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good add. I noticed in the edit history that reference to this incident keeps being taken out. I hope that won't continue. IronDuke 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NFL STATS

I am responsible for updating most of Vick's rushing statistics ande current accomplishment on this page as a running QB. I need to access the page for weekly updates until January -- when the regular season is over. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No1vickfan (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As long as you don't break the rules, you have access to the page, as does everyone else on the planet.  ;) BigDT 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind ... I see what you are talking about. This page is "semi-protected" because there was a lot of vandalism. Within a few fays, you will be able to edit it, even if nothing happens. There had been an orchestrated effort to vandalize Falcons pages ... ironically from Falcons fans themselves [1] ... but I think it's been long enough that we can request unprotection - the place to do that is WP:RFP and I'll go ahead and make that request. BigDT 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Need a *Records* Category

This section, while seemingly interesting, is unneccessary and repetitive. Two of his records mentioned are mentioned elsewhere on the page. Also -- the line explaining the rushing record suggests Vick broke Bobby Douglass' record when Vick surpassed the 1,000-yard mark. However, Vick broke Douglass' record of 968 one week prior. On December 24th, when he eclipsed the 1,000-yard mark, Vick broke HIS OWN single-season rushing record of 990 QB rushing yards, set December 16th. I propose deleting the *Records* heading, unless its author substantially adds to it. Compare the Records category for Peyton Manning, for instance. (No1vickfan)

You can only set one record for rushing yards in a single season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.87.90 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The entry under Records about his "contract" is an incomplete sentence, but I don't know what the intention of the sentence is in respect to a record so don't know how to fix it. --Mjrmtg 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified information regarding Vick's rushing records under the Records section, as per my complaint on this discussion page. I still believe the category is unnecessary, per my reasons stated above. (No1Vickfan)

marijuana water bottle

why isn't this in the article? --E tac 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

methinks the "Water bottle incident" section covers that -- apparently there was no drugs confirmed in the bottle -- although that didn't stop SNL from making fun of the situation :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtVnqZCndo 199.214.26.24 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, what is a Marijuana Water Bottle? I don't really understand that concept.--128.239.198.186 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A bottle with a hidden compartment, Vick now claims it was to hide jewelry... --E tac 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Records and Milestones Clean-up

Several new entries seem to be outdated and subjective. There's a line in this category about Vick becoming a bonafide star worthy of MVP attention, after just his first year. While that statement may be true, it does not belong in this section. Also, several of his milestones set in 2004 and 2005 have since been surpassed and are no longer applicable, in my opinion. I will delete them as necessary in the coming days. (No1Vickfan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.2.186.10 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Images, POV, Clean-up

All the images that were in this article belong to the NFL or another Publishing Company; Thye cannot be used without proper consent, fair use rationale, or purpose. One cannot use an image just for the hell of it - especially own with a strict copy right. The image is not only being used without permission, but also unlawfully. An Admin is not needed to remove the image, but only to properly delete them.

Additionally, several claims in this article push Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. Additionally there are no sources to back up the claim. While they content may be true, Wikipedia requires legitimate sources back up the article's claims. There's no concrete evidence that shows this article was written by a supposed professional and collegiate educated individual; leading one to believe that the article's claims could have been written by anyone and could contain anything. See WP:Verify, WP:OR, WP:Cite and WP:RS - That's WP Five Policies that this article's claims do not meet. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fairly Well-Done --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

STATS

Vick passed for 16 TD's in 2002, not 8. FYI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by APOSMUSIC (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Reaction to Virginia Tech massacre section

I think it's relevant to Vick's life and career and replaced it. GeorgeC 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be placed in Vick's personal life. I hardly think it deserves its own section since Vick was not directly involved in the incident. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vick is not a student at Virginia Tech and is one of a million alums who doesn't offer any insight into the situation. He was shocked and deeply saddened? Who wasn't? This is not worthy of mentioning here, and if you're not going to put it on every other former Hokie's page, don't put it here. Chris Nelson 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant. Many, many important people have reacted to it, and we do not include all their reactions in their articles. Unless Vick somehow become part of the story, I think the section should go. I see why people think it should be here, but it makes this article read more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry. IronDuke 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Are we going to put this on the page of every politician, leader, actor, singer, athlete or whatever? That makes no sense. Vick expressed his sorrow on the subject, and that is something everyone else has done as well. It is not noteworthy in VICK's life, which is what the page is about. Therefore, it should go.Chris Nelson 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not relevant. Of course he expresses sadness and sorrow, who doesn't? There is no reason it should be added to his page just because he made a public statement about it. In a year or even a few months from now it will just be clutter on this page. Remove it. kcnovA23 20:51, 18 April 2007

I posted this on GeorgeC's page and I posted it here:

I've already explained in detail why it is not relevant enough to be on Vick's page, and I've yet to hear a sound argument for the opposite side. Some of my reasons: 1. Vick offered no insight. He said he was shocked and saddened. This is not newsworthy, as anyone with a conscience was shocked and saddened. I think we can all assume Vick wasn't happy with the event without adding it to his biography. 2. Vick was not involved directly. He was not there, he did not know anyone there that we know of, and he offered no insight into the situation. If Vick had a relative or something involved, that'd be one thing. But he didn't, so that's irrelevant. 3. It is not an important aspect of Vick's life. When Vick retires and someone does an hour-long show on his life story and career, they won't go "Oh by the way, he was shocked and saddened when the Virginia Tech Massacre happened."

Basically, think about it like this: If Vick is not mentioned on the Virginia Tech Massacre page, which he shouldn't be, then the massacre shouldn't be mentioned on his page. It's either relevant on both ends or on neither, and I'm confident it's the latter.

In conclusion, I feel that UNTIL this issue can be explained as relevant in regards to Vick, it should remain off the page. Once you supply a reasoning that can satisfy a logical person, I'm all for it.Chris Nelson 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog Fighting Controversy Needs Work

A little sloppy, could use some work. I suggest we down size it or we move the entire controversies section to it's own page. The Controversies section is nearly biggest than everything else in the article. Semaj137 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should do that after the current event is resolved. Right now, IMHO, the investigation in Virginia is using appropriate space. It is hard to keep up with the developments in the article. Keeping that section accurate is the best use of WP editors time right now. According to the sheriff quoted in the June 6 Daily Press, more witnesses against Vick are apparently coming forward. It isn't clear yet whether they are credible or not. I will try to update the article with this information. Vaoverland 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am having computer trouble, but have outlined at home how to purge stale portions, stuff which was current when it was added, but contrasts with better more current information. I will try to get this cleaned up and streamlined in next 24 hours, assuming no new developments are announced before I do so. Vaoverland 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Major developments as of 3 PM EDT on June 7, as feds and state police apparently took over this afternoon, and were conducting a search at the property in Surry County per current online of USA Today. I am working on an update and re-write off line. Also, cousin reported to interviewed by WAVY (Norfolk-Portsmouth) which will be on tonights 11 PM news cast. Anyone wanting to help, let's collaborate and keep this emotionally charged and volatile part of article both NPOV and accurately referenced. Vaoverland 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the WAVY broadcast. The most interesting thing was an interview with Davon Bodie (Vick's cousin who lived at the house). There was nothing earth-shattering - it's all a conspiracy and nothing happened, but if it did, he apologizes to Vick for putting him in the spotlight. --BigDT 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The interview is accessible from a video on the left side of http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6629536 ... I'm not sure how to cite it as a source, though. --BigDT 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch that video again. Davon Boddie essentially confesses to being involved in drug activity, but has "no idea" why 65 dogs besides his french poodle were at the home where he lived in. This guy obviously has no lawyer, or if he does, he is blindsiding him/her; IMHO, the worst criminal lawyer in Virginia would not have knowingly allowed a client to give such an interview. Vaoverland 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I heard that ESPN radio has a report about multiple dog carcasses(spelling) have been found on the property. If this isn't just a rumor and it really is on ESPN radio I suggest we do not add it until the facts and everything has been clarified by sources from the DA, Poindexter, or some other official source. Semaj137 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the story from WVEC - http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_060807_vick_property_update.29fbf67a.html. Anyone editing the article needs to be EXTREMELY careful in what they claim this implies. People breeding large numbers of dogs are going to have plenty of attrition, even if they only engage in legal activities - it doesn't mean that they died fighting - everybody dies at some point. In other words, if I keep 100 dogs for a year, some of them are going to die regardless of how well I treat them. Merely the fact that dead dogs were found does not mean anything in and of itself and it is important that this article not draw conclusions - we need to stick to the facts. --BigDT 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Several of us of WikipProject Virginia are working on it, and we agree. Striving to be fair and factual. Vaoverland 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

2 cases in point of the above: After events of June 7, some media described feds as "taking over" the investigation. While local authorities seem puzzled by federal investigation, they stated the opposite: feds told Poindexter they were welcome to continue local investigation, and it now appears that there will be parallel activities. That's clearly not the same as "taking over." On another matter, Vick's Football Camp for youth at Christopher Newport University in Newport News has been canceled this summer. However, there are differing statements about who made the decision. The University says it was Vick people and they say it was the University. Thus, we don't have clear references yet to add this to the article, although it is big disappointment to the youth who were to attend, and is probably (but we don't know this factually) fallout from the dog fighting investigation. We are watching news daily here (nearby), but will continue to strive for responsible edits for the WP article only. Comments or help in accomplishing same are welcome by WikiProject Virginia working to this end. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The dog remains found on Vick's property report has been corrected by ESPN. See the paragraph at the bottom of the page in this link.

http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_060807_vick_property_update.29fbf67a.html

"Correction Friday, WVEC.com reported information about dog remains allegedly found at the Vick property. We attributed the information to ESPN Radio. That information was not reported by ESPN and cannot be confirmed by WVEC. We regret the error." Semaj137 00:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

per this comment on Talk page, no correction in the Wikipedia article is necessary. We have not added anything about dog remains from any media-only source(2) unless and until we have better information such as quotes from authorities. It appears that our caution has served WP well in this instance. Vaoverland 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All the information on the indictment http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick1.html you can read the whole thing.

Sections

This article has way too many sections, every season or phase of his life doesn't need a section. Trevor GH5 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at an article like Lawrence Taylor for a good example of an NFL bio good article with the appropriate number of sections, it's actually longer (in terms of numbers and KB of prose) but not bogged down with 30 sections. Trevor GH5 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Split article?

In view of the most recent developments (as of July 6, 2007), it may become appropriate to split off the dog fighting investigation and related matters. Instead of naming the resulting article for Vick, who at this point seems to be criminally only potentially culpable as the property owner, a likely violation of state dog fighting law, but not necessarily federal, perhaps Bad Newz Kennels Dog Fighting or something like that would be a better title than has been suggested. Thoughts, comments? Vaoverland 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup if content and timeline. We will need to move soon as Vick article is too big for WP. I didn't want to act on a move without input from others. Comments, anyone? Vaoverland 22:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need all that info about every little aspect of the investigation. Certianly, the article as it stands now is grossly overweighted. If others feel it's important and should be somewhere on WP, then it could go to a daughter article. But I will be removing large chunks of the text within the next 24 hours per WP:BLP and WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. IronDuke 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, I have moved the text to talk. If someone wants to make an abbreviated stab at this, go ahead, but the amount of space devoted to one incident that may not even come to directly involve Vick grossly distorts the article and violates WP:BLP. IronDuke 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree about the size problem. Let's move the dog fighting investigation content as it current stands to a new article which we can name Bad Newz Kennels Dog Fighting for now anyway. There is no question that Vick is involved in this mess, at least as far as being the property owner (and perhaps no more). To what degree (if any) he was more involved, and whether he is to face any criminal charges, either state or federal, is still unknown. We will just have to follow events and see where all this goes. Vaoverland 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further information: Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation

Kraft

Original version: Vick is a spokesperson for many companies; his endorsement contracts include Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, and Hasbro.[26][27] His contract along with his endorsements had Vick ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005.[26] However, on May 8, 2007, Vick's contract with AirTran Airways expired and was not renewed; he had been a pitchman for the airline since 2004.

Edited version: Vick is a spokesperson for many companies; his endorsement contracts include Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, and Hasbro.[26][27] His contracts along with his endorsements had Vick ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005.[26] However, on May 8, 2007, Vick's contract with AirTran Airways expired and was not renewed; he had been a pitchman for the airline since 2004. Additionally, his relationship with Kraft Foods ended in 2005.

I made a spelling correction and added a statement to clarify his current relationship with Kraft Foods Corp. This information was provide to me by the Associate Director of Consumer Relations for Kraft. --J e calvo 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

J e clavo, welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia asks that article content be attributed to reliable sources. In other words, the statement that he is no longer with Kraft needs to be more than just hearsay. Can you provide a reference from a news article or some such thing discussing the issue? Thanks. --B 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorsements Original version: Vick is a spokesperson for many companies; his endorsement contracts include Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, and Hasbro.[26][27] His contract along with his endorsements had Vick ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005.[26] However, on May 8, 2007, Vick's contract with AirTran Airways expired and was not renewed; he had been a pitchman for the airline since 2004.

Revised version: Vick is a spokesperson for many companies; his endorsement contracts have included Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, and Hasbro.[26][27] His contracts along with his endorsements had Vick ranked 33 among Forbes' Top 100 Celebrities in 2005.[26] However, on May 8, 2007, Vick's contract with AirTran Airways expired and was not renewed; he had been a pitchman for the airline since 2004. His relationship with Kraft Foods Corporation ended in 2005 and Coca-Cola discontinued their association with him three years ago. --J e calvo 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, folks, I now have found a news article reference to all this.

I am editing the article to include the above and will be citing the sources: Atlanta Journal-Constutution and MS-NBC. Vaoverland 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WoW reference, "Kasamoto"

I can't find a "character" (assuming it's actually an NPC) named Kasamoto in any WoW database, nor any reference to an NPC mentioning Vick. As any WoW player will know, if the NPC existed it would be very easy to validate. If it's really a "character" like the alleged trivia says, that's a player of the game and not a reference at all. So - what's the real name of the NPC, name, race, zone and position, and links to thott/similar database entry for such NPC. Otherwise, delete it. //

The information about WoW was entered by an anonymous user, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Vick&diff=138709311&oldid=138515440

Removed. (At first, I was wondering what Michael had to do with Willy on Wheels.) --B 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

personal life?

is/was he married? does he have any children? is he bisexual? Kingturtle 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. User:B, please do not delete my inquiries. My questions are not answered by the Michael Vick article, and such information should be added to the article. Kingturtle 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a general discussion on the topic of Michael Vick. Unrelated discussion can and will be removed. (I believe, by the way, that the answers are no, yes, and no.) --B 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree mildly with B that this isn't the place to discuss whether such things should be in the article. Better here than in an edit war in the article. However, I respectfully disagree with your statement: such information should be added to the article. Just because you apparently would like to know doesn't raise such personal information automatically to the level of tight WP standards for articles about living people. Despite the extensive publicity MV has had, especially recently, I cannot find any published sources which address the personal items you want to knwo about. CBS News did a story named: Mixed Signals For Gay Athletes: Gays Try To Find Their Place In Sports World in 2004. It states: Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick felt compelled to go on the radio to debunk an Internet hoax claiming he was gay. "Everybody who knows me knows how I get down," he said. [2] I think you have to agree that even that published item doesn't provide answers to your question, although it seems to imply that he considers such matters less than public. His website is silent on your questions. Since the news media also seems to find those matters not pertinent to his notoriety, the fact that our article lacks such content seems correct at this time. Vaoverland 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A statement that he's not gay does not need to be in the article - that would be silly. I'm 95% sure that he has a son and that could be added if it can be well-sourced. I stand by my removal of irrelevant conversation [3] - this question was not phrased as something to go into the article - it was general discussion about Vick. Wikipedia is not a message board and talk comments unrelated to the development of an article should be removed on sight. --B 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

B, the purpose of a TALK page is to discuss the content of the article. If an article doesn't answer particular issues, said issues should be discussed in the TALK arena. If he is married, the article should say. If he is single, the article should say. If he has or doesn't have kids, the article should say. If he is bi-sexual, the article should say. Countless Wikipedia articles about people contain basic information about their personal lives. Kingturtle 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New home

The news media is reporting that Vick us building a new home in Virginia. I added a small section with this. Another WP user reverted, suggested this is not worthy of inclusion. I think in view of the fact that he has been living in Atlanta, it is worth including. I told the other user that I was restoring teh content, but of course, I will abide by consensus here. So, what's the thoughts, comments? Vaoverland 22:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone moving and having a house built is not encyclopedic material unless there are exceptional circumstances. It certainly doesn't merit such a large section. --ElKevbo 22:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We certainly have exceptional circumstances. However, maybe what I added is too big; I was careful to include include NPOV comments/balance from community. I am not in a MY WAY mode. Let's keep this article at the best we can, whatever that is. Suggestions for a balance, anyone? Vaoverland 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For right now, it may be best to leave this bit out of the article, because he has more important things in his life than a new house. Even if this was in the works before this mess he is in got started, I am not sure if it is as important for people to know about a new house, unless we can find out something important related to the house he is planning/building.

I am removing the section entirely from article and bringing it over here for now. It may or may not become a more important part of the article in future. At least we will have it if that should develop. It also occurs to me that with WP, we do not need to publicize his personal information, especially at a time when he is generating such strong negative public feelings, and security could even become an issue. Vaoverland 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In July 2007, the Suffolk News-Herald in Suffolk, Virginia reported that workers were building a new home in the upscale Governor's Pointe development for Michael Vick, described as one of the neighborhood’s newest property owners. The newspaper quoted Angie Chandler, executive director of the Suffolk Humane Society. "It'll be interesting as he tries to assimilate to Suffolk...He needs to understand he's going into an extremely pet-friendly neighborhood and cat and dog lovers are throughout."

The article described Vick's new home with brick facade in Governor's Pointe as "a massive three-floor home on the waterfront. Neighbors said it has an elevator and two 30-foot long fish tanks inside." The newspaper interviewed one neighbor, a teacher at a local independent school, who has watched the construction with interest, but does not fear Vick having a negative impact on their community. He stated: "It sounds like he's in this deeper than what they said... I have my concerns, but we've got to let the courts do their job."

The new home is located just a few miles from the residence of Vick's mother, Brenda (nee Vick) Boddie, and his younger brother, former Virgina Tech and professional football player Marcus, both of whom who already live in Suffolk. The Governor's Pointe development is located about 21 miles east of the Surry County location of Vick's 15-acre mansion and property where the dog fighting is alleged to have been based. The new home site overlooks the Nansemond River. Suffolk is one of the large independent cities which form the Seven Cities of Hampton Roads, and is located across the James River from Newport News.

Current Event?

Michael Vick may not be a current event, but a current event is described in the summary of the Michael Vick article, in addition to later in the article. Thus I would argue that the current event tag should remain, or the discussion of the allegations of Vick should not go into as significant of detail. Leebert 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not really what the tag is for. Having the section tagged properly categorizes the article for those who patrol that category for vandalism. If the intro is being rapidly edited, then that's a problem - it's going beyond the scope of what should be in an intro. --B 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it without reading the talk, but I do believe that the "current" tag is needed for the duration of this scandal. There have been some wild accusations and rumors going around and this article is bound to change relatively quickly for the foreseeable future. As this article will more than likely be vandalized off and on, the current AND protection tag should stay for at least a few months.--Hourick 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dog fighting section needs a trim

I don't know how much I want to tackle it, but please keep in mind that this article is a biographical one. There's a whole separate article on the dog fighting scandal. Just as an example, I have removed quotations and trimmed the section on the Humane Society/PETA/Byrd/Kerry down to one paragraph. This is not List of people who think Vick should be suspended. I don't claim to have all of the right answers ... but the focus of this article needs to be Vick, not a play by play of the investigation. --B 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree I think I'll give it a couple days before I trim this down unless someone else wants to get this done first. Also the investigation on the alleged Dog Fighting incident doesn't really seem neccesary in the intoduction does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.0.78.40 (talk • contribs)

The dog fighting incident is a key aspect of the topic, so it should be covered in the intro. It shouldn't be huge - certainly half of the intro or less, but it definitely needs to be there. --B 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation was a spin-off from the article to keep that growing aspect from overwhelming this entire biographical article. As long was we keep good links to it, we can keep working at limiting a lot of those details here. I think that article should be the main repository for aspects of the federal and local cases and updates as they move along. However, let's keep in mind that the NFL suspension was deliberately kept separate from the criminal case by Commissioner Goodell and not expect the BNK article to carry that also. That part belongs here, IMHO. Part of why public options are running so high against MV right now seems to be the extreme brutality Vick himself is alleged to a have participated in. However, neither he nor co-defendants have been charged with any specific crimes (yet) to address that aspect, which seems to be an area where the state laws would be an appropriate venue for criminal accountability, and that is being delayed by the practical aspect of when the feds will share enough of what they have developed with the local authorities, which probably won't happen before the fed acse gets futher along. One suspects that Goodell will have to be (and perhaps is) addressing the brutality which is perhaps more offensive conduct-wise to the NFL and the public than the federal crimes of dog fighting and gambling. Vaoverland 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't question that the suspension belongs here ... I trimmed the intro because the intro doesn't need to go into that much detail - but everything I have removed from the intro is covered later in this article. --B 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual with this particular article and the related ones, I am in general agreement with B. Vaoverland 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vick received steroids

On Saturday's Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://www.ajc.com/news/report-man-supplied-vick-281772.html Add where appropriate please. --Mjrmtg (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There it is. I used the Dallas Morning News instead of the AJC because they're who Jacobs talked to, and the AJC article kind of comes off like a game of telephone. And to nip it in the bud, I caution against anybody mentioning details of Jacobs's death, since they're not relevant to this article's subject. Şłџğģő 06:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just added the same info to Jacobs's page. Şłџğģő 06:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

lead section contradiction

The fisrt and third paragraphs of the lead section contradict: one says he served 19 months the other says 23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.90.98 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, neither number was right. Fixed, I think. Şłџğģő 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One additional category for accuracy.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Allocate Proper Weight Regarding Section.

Request & Topic Details:

I'm requesting the development of information and placement of a proper term with definition to be inserted into the page under the proper section regarding either the legal matters or another appropriate section regarding victims and killing involvement by Vick. The request is for the part notating information regarding mention of victims [dogs section] please notate the term and dictionary definition information below linking proper placement. Below you will find provided the dictionary term references. The term by definition upholds proper placement and accuracy regarding incident matters and should be addressed by notating it.

Please note, all other negative convictions and issues have much weight but this subject has only been briefly addressed seemingly lessening the actual event in history. This subject section lacking information and attention doesn't seem developed enough considering the national weight factually held due to the government's Federal Agency involvement versus the other issues highlighted more in depth.

Last request, maybe more information pertaining to Federal Information, Media Coverage, Widespread Reaction, etc... can be explored in addition to my suggestion above. This would then fairly depict the entire pages balance covering both past positive accomplishments (e.g. charitable contributions to organizations) vs. past negative accomplishments (mass killing, convictions, & FBI)as well. Perhaps there should be a standard template dedication section highlighting a secondary table as well for Legal/Convictions, Media, and Societal Impact.

Sincerely, Juliet

Definition According To: [Dictionary.com, ] serial killer n. A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Reference Link: [Dictionary.com, ] serial killer noun someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Reference Link: [Dictionary.com, ] --Julietkiss (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"

Smappy (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Wow this page is goin to get vandolized

You should protect this even more because some person is going to edit the first sentance into "Michael Vick is a professional dog fighter. I know I would write that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.78.246 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One way of protecting a page is to have a bunch of people watch it. I, for one, have reverted vandalism on this page several times because vandalism shows up on my watchlist, which I monitor daily. Another solution: Several automated users, called "bots," are very good at recognizing vandalism and removing it almost automatically. ClueBot is really good at this sort of thing. Either way, if someone inserts that kind of vandalism, it wouldn't last five minutes.

Of course, because you're such a helpful, intelligent person, you just brilliantly threatened to vandalize a page that, as you guessed, has been vandalized countless times. Good job. Şłџğģő 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very welcome. Thank you for the kind response ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.78.246 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

shooting

Why isnt there any information on the shooting investigation that Vick is involved in? It is all over the major news outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.203.101 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Spuds67, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Spuds67 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing requested. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dog fighting

In his dog fighting incident, let's not forget it was reported that many cats were killed as well. There were reports that the cats were thrown at the dogs and were ripped apart and malled as practice for the dogs. Later, any underperforming dogs were killed as well. This should be in the article as well; not to make him look bad (I think he handled that himself), but because it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Left-handed

vick is left-handed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.93 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)