 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Bollea v. Gawker be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Layman's request?
editCan a legal expert clarify if this recent judgment is 100% official and the ink is dry? Or is it subject to appeal and re-trial? 72.196.97.136 (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
How Hogan's tape got leaked
edit@DrFleischman:, not sure what's wrong with this edit -- isn't this a fair citation? --The lorax (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The cited source doesn't verify the content at all. There's nothing in the source about leaks of videos, or about police reports, or about former employees. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Lead revision
editBollea v. Gawker was a lawsuit filed in 2013 in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, delivering a verdict on 18 March 2016. In the suit, Terry Gene Bollea, known professionally as Hulk Hogan, sued Gawker Media, publisher of the Gawker website, and several Gawker employees and Gawker-affiliated entities, for posting portions of a sex tape of Bollea with Heather Clem, at that time the wife of radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge.
This was formerly one sentence. The non-bold italic was added and much of the former lead sentence was demoted to the second sentence, so we now have when and where leading over who, what and why.
The problem with diving into "who" is the wall of who-cruft:
- known professionally as Hulk Hogan
- and several Gawker employees and Gawker-affiliated entities
- at that time the wife of radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge
All that who-cruft really needs its own sentence, so it's better I think to keep this inversion. — MaxEnt 18:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at this a bit more, the "who" question is implicitly answered to a sufficient degree by the page title to justify setting its elaboration back to the second sentence. — MaxEnt 18:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)