Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:00, 10 January 2020

Aaron Hernandez is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee. Nominated by Slugger O'Toole (talk) at 23:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aaron Hernandez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

A news item involving Aaron Hernandez was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 April 2017.

[REDACTED]

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. College football Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] National Football League: Patriots Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Patriots task force. University of Florida (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject University of FloridaTemplate:WikiProject University of FloridaUniversity of Florida Template:WikiProject Florida Gators Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Connecticut Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Florida Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: June 23 to 29, 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Career highlights and awards addition.

2011 NFL AFC Champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2cb3:ec10:e13c:b5a:2481:1a0c (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2017‎ (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/2011_New_England_Patriots_season

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“ Aaron Hernandez suffered the most severe case of chronic traumatic encephalopathy ever discovered in a person his age, damage that would have significantly affected his decision-making, judgment and cognition....”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/aaron-hernandez-suffered-from-most-severe-cte-ever-found-in-a-person-his-age/2017/11/09/fa7cd204-c57b-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html Timblosser (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Since there are quotation marks, the quote needs to be attributed in the prose to the source, such as "According to Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post, researchers from Boston University along with Ann McKee stated that Hernandez......" Ideally, the entire passage should be rewritten so that the quote can be left out, which would leave only the properly paraphrased text to be added.  Spintendo  14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

should be greatly reduced

Really, 120K is far too much, seeing as there have been at least two docudramas aired and multiple books published. The purpose of a Misplaced Pages article should be to summarize the content presented in those sources. I don't see it unrealistic to aim for a 50% reduction, especially considering

• the somewhat labyrinthine and definitely repetitious prose throughout

and

• the typically salacious tone common to murder porn W'pedia articles.

The overall purpose of the article should be to briefly inform someone who heard/read a passing reference to "the Hernandez case" or similar as to the context. If that user then wants further detail, that user may then dig into the References section — most users will not, and shouldn't be forced to slog through a thousand words for a simple explanation.

In some other instance, I would suggest starting with a split, separating Hernandez from the litany of his violent acts. But without that, he probably would have been yet another forgotten "former pro athlete" of thousands, and not notable.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken on multiple counts. The lead paragraph is the part of a Misplaced Pages article that provides a "brief" summary of a Misplaced Pages article, and readers can find more information in the body of the article. Hernandez would also still pass (with flying colors) both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG based solely on his football career. I see you've posted on multiple article talk pages your desire to see articles cut down in length and detail, might I suggest checking out Simple Misplaced Pages? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The article has 54k of readable prose, which is not necessarily WP:TOOBIG. That said, if we can convey the same information with a better economy of words then I am all in favor. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't dig at all for the "readable prose" stat. When an article isn't clogged up with graphs, charts, & photos, the summary count can readily be used in an apples-to-apples comparison, a convenient thumbnail. The fact is that the page takes up 122K of space, as compared to (say) Marilyn Monroe at 119K or Peter Fonda (52K) or Barry Goldwater (100K).

I can understand people who believe Hernandez's case needs to be highlighted, especially considering new focus on the deleterious effects of repeated cranial trauma… but if such isn't covered somewhere else, then WP is not the place for "citizen journalism."

However, it is intellectually dishonest (at best!) to say that the introductory "lede" section doesn't need to introduce what follows. Advance apologies for rudeness, but that's utter barking nonsense.

In this instance, very few people can recall ever seeing Hernandez play. That part of his narrative is now secondary if not tertiary. He is now known for violent behavior, for a murder trial marketed (then and since) as a sort of crossroads between online porn and a WWF Smackdown, and for his suicide (replete with conspiracy theories).

Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of style#Provide an accessible overview:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

Right now, that's not the case.

As for the article itself: The great bulk of what's covered here is swiped outright from other sources. The point of W'pedia IS NOT to be the single definitive source for all the gory details, rather to summarize what is said elsewhere then point the reader interested in such details. This is made easier because WP exists only online, and therefore it can be assumed that a WP user is in all likelihood online and can thus click over directly to an online source.

With that in mind, I now make the case that everything already on the Biography site about Hernandez should be greatly beaten back, replaced by a "fifty words or less" sort of summary. The same case can likely be made for other media outlets, plus the books and in-depth articles and the various cable episodes about Hernandez.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Why should we cut back our coverage simply because Biography.com also has a page on him? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be significantly reduced, but not for any WP:SIZE reason. Editors have told Weeb Dingle before that WP:SIZE is based on readable prose. The article should be significantly reduced because of WP:DIARY, WP:YESPOV, WP:Copyright and WP:Close paraphrasing concerns. As seen at Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Stuffing the article, Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Sexuality, Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Tone and assuming good faith and Talk:Aaron Hernandez/Archive 2#Importance tag, where Bagumba, GoneIn60, Jayron32, Isaidnoway, myself and others weighed in, the issues with this article are clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This article has long suffered from too much detail, often without making it clear what the relevancy is of that excessive detail. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, nor a diary, and most of that excessive detail is not significant enough to be included in this biography. I agree that this article could be improved by a significant reduction of that excessive detail, but efforts to address these many issues outlined before have been met with resistance and edit-warring.

One example - when the spinoff subarticle Murder of Odin Lloyd was created, all that should have been left behind here at the main article was a condensed brief summary section. Instead, there is still an unduly large section in this article. The guideline found at content forking makes it quite clear that when a separate subarticle is created, you just leave a summary section in the main article, and put a link to the newly created subarticle. Currently, there is almost 1600 words here in that section on the murder (redundant), compared to a little over 2300 words in the other article. Trim it back to a summarized paragraph here, and readers can click through for more details in the subarticle. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Isaidnoway. Generally I am in favor of more information than less, but you're 100% right about spinoffs. I'll take a crack at trimming it down and would welcome additional help. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, when there is a spin-off article, the section on the material here should be a summary of the main article's most important points. This is per WP:Summary style. Regarding what you left in the section with this edit, make sure that you have adequately summarized the material. If you haven't, that is something to take on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Brain damage

The section on brain damage should be moved up, for several reasons:

1. The section on brain damage has three paragraphs. The first explains that Hernandez had CTE and what it is. The second talks about the effects of CTE and how it affected his life, including possibly his criminal behavior. The third (also the shortest) talks about a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter that never went anywhere. That discussion amounts to less than 1/3 of the total content.
2. Most of this material was in the "Personal life" section before it was recently consolidated.
3. The brain damage did not cause his death, at least not directly, and possibly not even indirectly. I am open to hearing other thoughts about where it properly belongs, but below Death and as a subsection of Death are certainly not it. At the very least, as it had an effect on his actions while alive, it should be the section immediately above Death. I think it should be even higher.

I am going to move the section up to just before Death. If others still disagree, I would suggest we strip out the part about the lawsuit and move those two sentences into the Death section. Or, if others have another idea, I would love to hear it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated, the "Brain damage" section should be a subsection of the "Death" section (like I had it) or placed directly within that section because it is about the aftermath of his death, regardless of touching on his behavior during his life. It is a poor setup to have it come before the "Death" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, less than one-third of this section is about what happened after his death. Rather than continue to edit war, I will seek a RFC. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what else I can state on this matter that wouldn't be redundant, but to try for less redundancy: The "brain damage" topic rose as a result of his death. That "the researchers suggested that the CTE, which results in poor judgment, inhibition of impulses, or aggression, anger, paranoia, emotional volatility, and rage behaviors, may explain some of Hernandez's criminal acts and other behavior" does not negate the fact that the entire section is aftermath material with regard to his death. It is not as though the brain damage topic was an active aspect of his life. By this, I mean an active discussion in his life and something that was being looked into while he was alive. So to begin a section with this "after his death" material and to then have a "Death" section following that is a poor setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the Brain Damage section

Where in the article should the "Brain Damage" section be placed? More details can be found in the talk section above. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In other words, this RfC is about whether or not the "Brain damage" section should come before or after the "Death" section. If it's to come before the "Death" section, there is also a question of whether or not it should be a subsection of the "Personal life" section. I feel that it should come after the "Death" section or be a part of it. The brain damage research is also now a part of his legacy. Legacy material comes after all of the general material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree I think it should stay where it is or add it at the end of the death section. Leaving it where it is maintains the chronological structure of this article, but then again maybe it doesn't need to be a section on its own and it can be included at the end of the death section. Cook907 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree Nobody knew about the condition when he was still alive. The details of the trauma he suffered in his lifetime merely served as contexts to the brain damage narrative. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree Keep in place as it is now. I understand why it may seem weird to have the Brain damage section after Death at first sight, but with the very first sentence we understand that the brain damage was assessed post-mortem. So this means that the brain damage had no known influence during his lifetime, since it was not known, so placing it before Death would be a kind of reinterpretation of his life under the prism of new research, and this kind of interpretation would be WP:SYNTH in my opinion. So it's better to leave brain damage after, since this reflects more accurately how the developments went, and leaves room to post-mortem interpretations on the person's life events by the reader (but not by the editors). --Signimu (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

    Update: in light of WhatamIdoing comment, since the brain damage is also pertinent for the Legal section, I support both that it is kept in place but also that it is integrated with other sections where pertinent. --Signimu (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

My issues with that suggestion are the following: Redundancy. And looking at the current "Legal issues" section, with all of its subsections, I don't see where it would smoothly fit. Yeah, we could place it at the start of the section before the subsections, but it would just seem out of place and as though we are trying to justify his actions. And why place the material there, where it can be easily overlooked, when there is a "Brain damage" section for readers to get all of the brain damage material in one area? We consolidate material in one section all the time, as seen by the current state of this article and various other Misplaced Pages articles. And it's usually for the best, as I think it is in this case. Even if we got rid of the "Brain damage" section and spread the material throughout, it's still the case that readers are best served having all of that material in one section rather than disjointed. In my opinion, the content should simply be a part of the "Death" section anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I took now the time to read more carefully the source provided by WhatamIdoing, and it's still a retrospective interpretation, so as my initial comment described, I think retrospective interpretations should not be mixed with the rest, so I agree that everything can be placed in a Brain damage section at the end of the entry. It could be done differently, but I think this is both more neutral (as we don't meddle ourselves with choosing what other sections we have to modify according to retrospective interpretations of his brain damage), and less redundant (if there are multiple interpretational consequences to the brain damage, such as death and legal, subsections can be created, if there is enough content to warrant that of course). I understand what WhatamIdoing suggests, there may be other ways to present the content in an encyclopedic manner, but here the chronological order seems to me to be the most easy neutrality-proof approach. --Signimu (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think that information about the (then-undiagnosed) CTE should be integrated throughout the article. For example, the ==Legal== section ought to mention that after his death, these violent and bizarre acts have been retrospectively attributed to CTE in sources that say things like "Medical evidence showed that 27-year-old Aaron Hernandez suffered from one of the most severe cases of CTE found in a person his age. His violent history is now linked with an ongoing CTE crisis in the NFL." (Also, that news article mentions a genetic susceptibility, which I don't find mentioned in the current version of this article.) While it's useful to have a section that explains the CTE situation, I think that the more important task is to not stuff that information in one section. We should not follow a strict chronological order of what was publicly known at the time various events happened. That's a good model for a mystery story, but it's not good for an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer that we don't want too much redundancy. Some is OK, but this section is only three paragraphs long. How would you feel, @WhatamIdoing: and @Signimu:, about moving the paragraph about the lawsuit into the Death section, the other two paragraphs into the Legal problems sections, and a single sentence in the Paranoia section about how it may have been caused by CTE? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record (although I probably don't need to state it), I wouldn't support that suggestion, per what I argued above. I just don't see how it best serves the reader to split the brain content in that way. I would be okay with the lawsuit material being moved to the "Death" section if the other brain damage material was moved there as well, with or without the "Brain damage" section being a subsection of the "Death" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think moving brain damage or legal sections in death section would be good, as they are not that much related. The only link is that the brain damage and one legal action (if I'm not mistaken) are done post-mortem, and that the brain damage may explain his death and interpret his lifelong actions, but that's a post-mortem guess, so a reinterpretation. I think that any order except chronological about the brain. But on second thoughts I can see how the brain damage could be directly integrated: the brain damage section could be placed very up in the entry and then the brain damage related infos pertaining to legal and death and other events could be integrated directly into the pertinent sections. I could totally see that for a historical figure, but since here this is a biography of a very recent personality, and the brain damage stuff is also very recent and not so much detailing, as the consequences are mostly assumptions, I can see that doing such an article organization would lead to conflicts, as then the editors will clearly insert post-mortem reinterpretations throughout the article, it's less neutral. --Signimu (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding merging the "Death" and "Brain damage" sections, it's just that (like Cook907 above) I don't see that they need to be separated. We include "after death" material in death sections all the time. Granted, it's usually only about the family members, friends, acquaintances, and sometimes also about how the public reacted. For example, the "Death" section of the Whitney Houston article currently includes a "Reaction" subsection with "Pre-Grammy party" and "Further reaction and tributes" subsections. In other cases, when a legacy section doesn't exist, legacy material may be in the "Death" section. But I'm content to let the "Death" and "Brain damage" sections stay separate in the case of the Aaron Hernandez article.

Regarding what you stated about reinterpretation, yeah, if we went with any such setup, I think editors would start adding "but his brain damage might have contributed to " or similar throughout the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this information should be "separated". I think that some (not most) should be repeated (briefly) throughout the article. Repetition is good.

Signimu, "neutral" on Misplaced Pages means "follow the sources", rather than pretending that we don't know more in 2019 than we did in 2015. If the current sources are saying "Hey, all that violence and stuff might be explained by his CTE" (and they are), then the Misplaced Pages article should do the same. We should not be burying this information in a single section, especially since almost nobody will read the entire article. If you're having trouble imagining how a (slightly) "non-chronological" form is neutral, then I want you to think about how horrible it would be for family members to read these sections without any mention of this serious mitigating factor, and ultimately how unfair that is. I don't think that "He did all of this (probably because he was a bad man)" is more neutral in any sense than "He did all of this, and later we all learned that he was living with severe, undiagnosed brain damage of the sort known to produce that kind of behavior". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see the factual and cold description of the events as being depicting the person as a "bad man", but I can understand how it could be perceived as such, particularly by the family, that's a very good point. I'll re-read more carefully all the sources about this issue and may reconsider my position. --Signimu (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, this has nothing to do with "being 'neutral' on Misplaced Pages means 'follow the sources'." We do relay that "Hey, all that violence and stuff might be explained by his CTE," but we don't have it come before "all the violence" stuff or before first having a section devoted to his death. Having it in a single section called "Brain damage" is not burying it in the least. It is right there, easy for readers to locate because it is its own section. Having it in the Personal life section or any other section (except for the "Death" section) without a subheading would be burying it. Your "the poor family" argument is highly flawed and unconvincing. Similar can be stated about the poor victims. I want you to think about how horrible it would be for victims or their family members to read these sections with the impression that none of Hernandez's actions were actually his fault; it was the brain damage that did it. We do not write our Misplaced Pages articles based on what family members may think.

Per what Signimu and I have argued, you have yet to show how it makes more sense to have the brain damage information scattered about instead of within one section or that it should go in the "Personal life" section before we have an entire section commenting on his death. Like I noted in the section immediately above this, "That 'the researchers suggested that the CTE, which results in poor judgment, inhibition of impulses, or aggression, anger, paranoia, emotional volatility, and rage behaviors, may explain some of Hernandez's criminal acts and other behavior' does not negate the fact that the entire section is aftermath material with regard to his death. It is not as though the brain damage topic was an active aspect of his life. By this, I mean an active discussion in his life and something that was being looked into while he was alive. So to begin a section with this 'after his death' material and to then have a 'Death' section following that is a poor setup." Everything you are arguing is personal preference. The sames goes for others. I suggest that Signimu stick to their original thoughts on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Another element, according to Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Order_of_events, biographies should be presented in a chronological order, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. I can see the merits in both points of views, but I still slightly sway towards moving to personal life, because after reading the sources themselves, I am now more convinced of the pertinence to better integrate this info in the entry. For instance, moving to personal life section while retaining the subheader would place "Brain damage" just after "Paranoia", which it complements since CTE is likely to explain the paranoia according to the sources. The most problematic point for me is that the Brain damage section is underdeveloped, apparently several researchers agree this is an exceptional case study (extreme CTE case + very young), and this info is nowhere to be found in the entry currently. But the fact according to the sources that there appears to be a scientific consensus that this condition has certainly influenced his life, although we can't be sure to what extent, is IMHO a good enough reason to not follow the chronological order for this content. --Signimu (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Per my arguments and your earlier arguments, I remain unconvinced that this material should be a part of the "Personal life" section. I just do not see that it's best for the article or readers to have the Personal life section go into extensive detail about research that was done on his brain after he died before we even present the dedicated "Death" section. The brain damage material is "after his death" material. And it is not as though the researchers know for certain that brain damage contributed to any of his behavior. They state "may" and "some of Hernandez's criminal acts and other behavior." "May have contributed to" or "may explain" is not the same thing as "did contribute to" and "does explain." The researchers don't even state "very likely did." At this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. No need to keep repeating ourselves. I will reiterate now, though, that the brain damage material is legacy material, which is even more of a reason that it should not be a part of the "Personal life" section. I mentioned above that it's a part of his legacy and that we have these sections come after all of the general material. And below, in the collapse box, I see the following statement: "But McKee's discovery raised the prospect that Hernandez's ultimate legacy might be his damaged brain." As for the "Bran damage" section being underdeveloped, that can obviously be remedied by expanding it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments are sensible, as I said above I can see the merits of your position too. I just wanted to clarify however that the scientists do agree that they are sure that CTE influenced his behavior, what is less certain is to what extent this contributed to his criminal acts (see the quotes I extracted below). But for example for his paranoia and other psychoses, there is no doubt. For the extent, it's the role of justice to statuate on this issue, and for the moment the case was dropped, so we'll probably never know. I think that whatever is the final choice for the section, this is a very important point to clarify in the article. --Signimu (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at sources on the matter, and I understand CTE. But I generally don't see scientists definitively stating "this influenced his behavior." Perhaps that's just them being careful with wording, especially since his behavior includes his criminal behavior and they typically aren't definitively saying "this influenced his criminal behavior." I see scientific agreement that it likely influenced his criminal behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Move to personal life section (Summoned by bot) It is currently directly after the "Death" section, apparently because the brain damage was discovered postmortem. But it belongs adjacent, or perhaps merged with, the discussion of paranoia, which gets a subsection in the personal life section. That's just common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Per further comments below, I have no problem with moving personal life section below death section. I think it would work well here, especially if it is directly below the death section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Move to personal life section per Coretheapple --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Move to personal life section per WhatamIdoing and Coretheapple. I further suggest to expand the section, particularly by using WhatamIdoing's ref and by mentioning that this is considered a case study in the safety of american football, and that his brain, with exceptional damages, is considered very valuable for future research on CTE. Also per WhatamIdoing suggestion, some infos could be integrated throughout the entry, for example Odin Lloyd's mother declaration following the reveal of the brain damage. See below for some pertinent quotes. --Signimu (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Coretheapple and Ozzie10aaaa, per what I stated above, I do not see why the material should be there as though the brain damage was an active discussion in his life and something that was being looked into while he was alive. That's not "personal life." And having the material come before we have a section devoted to his death is a poor setup. How at all is that better flow? As made clear above, I do think it should be merged with the Death section. And, Signimu, I don't see that WhatamIdoing argued to move the material to the "Personal life" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There's no requirement for something to be "an active aspect of his life", meaning something that he personally knew about, for it to be included in the ==Personal life== section. Think about what such a rule would mean in other cases, such as misattributed parentage ("Personal life: He had two kids." "Death: Actually, he had three kids, but he didn't know about one of them." Or "Personal life: His parents died when he was a baby." "Death: After he died, his famous father, who had written that family love was the highest good, said that he regretted putting him in an orphanage and letting him grow up believing that his parents were dead"). IMO this information should be handled in the Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article model. There may be a need for a fuller explanation in a separate section, but it should be mentioned throughout, much like Vincent van Gogh's health is mentioned throughout that Featured Article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about what is required. It's about what is best for this article/readers. We disagree. While there is setup consistency for Misplaced Pages articles (meaning biography articles are typically set up a certain way, medical articles are typically set up a certain way, and so on), what is best for articles varies. This isn't a medical article and I find it odd that WP:Med was alerted to it for input, but even WP:MEDORDER is clear about the following: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition." And the Misplaced Pages:Criticism essay you linked to is clear about the following: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." Also, even types of biography articles can have a different setup; for example, the usual way that articles about singers are set up vs. articles about actors. And articles about historical figures are often set up differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Isaidnoway, I know you haven't edited since October 24th, but any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Combine into death section as we already talk about CTE in that section and CTE played a role in his death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I prefer that. We don't actually know that CTE played a role in his death, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Move to personal life section per Coretheapple and my comments in the section above. While it was not diagnosed (as it can not be) until after his death, most of the section talks about his life, not his death or the aftermath.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, RfCs stay open for a month unless they are a WP:SNOW close matter or are no longer needed after further discussion. That's the way these things go. We don't need anyone to keep tally or similar. A closer will close the RfC. Furthermore, your tally is off since, from the beginning, I've been clear that I am for the sections staying as they are (the "Brain damage" section after the "Death" section) or for the "Brain damage" section being combined with the "Death" section. Three editors initially agreed with me. One of those editors (Signimu) has so far changed their mind. So anyone who has stated "keep it where it is" or "combine with the death section" agrees with me. My vote is not at odds with Doc James's vote. And we can see that Cook907 stated above, "Leaving it where it is maintains the chronological structure of this article, but then again maybe it doesn't need to be a section on its own and it can be included at the end of the death section." It's best that you be patient and let this RfC play out without continually conducting it and proposing things. This RfC isn't about other proposals. If you feel you must suggest other proposals, it's best that you start a "Discussion" section and title this initial area the "Survey" section. See WP:Requests for comment/Example formatting. You shouldn't move any of the discussion that has taken place in this section so far to a Discussion section, though. It would be taking editors' responses out of context. Because your tally is inaccurate, has become outdated with Crossroads's vote below, would become outdated with others' votes unless continually updated, and might unfairly influence this RfC, I have put it within a collapse box. WP:Consensus on Misplaced Pages isn't about votes (except for matters like WP:RfAs); it's about the strength of the arguments. I stand by my arguments on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a "both/and" approach to this information, not an "either/or" approach. We can have a section on his health, but that is not sufficient. We also need that information throughout the whole article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Just to expand on my previous thoughts and in reaction to subsequent suggestions; One perfectly viable approach is to place the "personal life" section, including within it a brain damage subsection, after the death section. The precedent for that (not that they are in any way analagous persons of course) is Adolf Hitler. I'm sure there are other bios with similar structure. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be strongly opposed to that setup. But, in that case, I would suggest that the brain damage material be moved out of the "Death" section as redundant. And either way, I see no need for both sections to mention that Hernandez's brain was released to Boston University to be studied for signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). It's unnecessary redundancy. Just cover the brain damage material in one section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes that's a good point. It seems repetitious. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Place after Death per Flyer22 Reborn. The brain damage was not a known aspect of his life at the time, but is part of his legacy. This way is more logical and chronological. To put it higher up would be SYNTH-ey and POV, as though we are editorially trying to explain or excuse his behavior. Note too that it is mentioned in the lead, which is is the most read part of the article, so people already know about it going in and it is not just in that section at the end. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Crossroads, the recent sources are saying that CTE affected his behavior. A quick trip to books.google.com turned up multiple books that say crystal-clear things like "I absolutely believe his suicide was a product of CTE", or made direct connections between CTE and violent behavior, naming Hernandez as an example. Where's the SYNTH problem in accurately reflecting the most up-to-date and serious sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No one size fits all I'm not fully versed on his background other than the basics, and don't have time to read all the input so far. I'll just say that the Aaron_Hernandez#Abuse section about the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child is currently under his "Early life" section, although I'm guessing it didn't come out until after his death or late in his life. And there's nothing wrong that it's not in the chronological order that it was made public. It helps put perspective on his life, so that's the reason it's placed earlier, and not say later in "Personal life". Similarly, his CTE and concerns with brain trauma might be placed earlier as well—or even interspersed—to provide proper perspective. However, it needs to be written neutrally, and I can also see deciding to leave it separate if a consensus on NPOV wording cannot be reached.—Bagumba (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that we shouldn't force this story into "the chronological order that it was made public". "The chronological order in which it happened" would be more appropriate. IMO we should place the various events into their proper context, in the reality-based order instead of the publicity-based order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral - I agree with Bagumba on perspective. There are a lot of details that have been added to his early life and personal life sections that were not previously known while he was alive, and only became known after his death due to extensive reporting by the Boston Globe and his brother's book. There's already a paragraph in his personal life section that starts out - Following Hernandez's death, so I kind of disagree with the arguments that just because the (CTE) was not known at the time, necessarily means it can't be included in his personal life section. But, I also wouldn't object to the status quo of leaving it after the death section, as I kind of agree with those arguments of it being part of his legacy. Hence, neutral. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba, Isaidnoway, and others, reporting on details (like the Boston Globe does) that his brother says happened during his life is significantly different than reporting on his CTE maybe having contributed to some of his criminal acts, though. I understand placing abuse material based on his brother's book in his "Early life" section, for example. But adding speculation regarding his CTE at different parts in the article? I'm just not seeing that as best, for reasons I've gone over. As discussed before, there also appears to be excessive or WP:Undue material included from his brother's book. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• After, or merged with death(Summoned by bot) since it was revealed as part of post-mortem. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Place After Death as has already been said, it fits best in chronological order and is narratively neutral. Based on some of the comments above, I sense that there is consensus for Coretheapple's compromise, i.e. putting the "personal life" section after the "death" section in order to satisfy both those who favor it in the "personal life" section and those who favor it after the "death" section.Funtoedit1212 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class college football articles
• Mid-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles
• C-Class National Football League articles
• Low-importance National Football League articles
• WikiProject New England Patriots articles
• WikiProject National Football League articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Connecticut articles
• Low-importance Connecticut articles
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• C-Class Florida articles
• Low-importance Florida articles
• WikiProject Florida articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report