Talk:Peyton Manning

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Factfool (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Additional info the wiki page for Colquett says his was injured in UCLA game not Miss. game.

Alan K McCarter

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Blanking large amounts of content without seeking consensus

Why have large parts of the controversy section been blanked without any discussion on this talk page? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to me. The alleged media favoritism doesn't belong in controversy section because manning is not an active participant in it. if it's an issue it's the media issue, not Manning's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillsonSS3 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What a whitewash! I came to Wikipedia to get some perspective on the recent sexual harassment scandal linked to Peyton Manning, and instead I find NOTHING!! Completely discredits Wikipedia, because obviously someone is intent on keeping anything out of the article that might make Manning look bad. I though Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral!!! Instead it's obvious someone is controlling content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.29.25 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) issues in controversy section (also it's getting too big)

One issue is it's getting to large to read comfortably. Some parts need to be shortened. For example the It is illegal to prescribe HGH off label,as the only legitimate ailments in which HGH can be prescribed to adults are for patients with childhood pituitary gland disorders which are carried over into adulthood, patients with Short bowel syndrome, and late-stage HIV patients. HGH was outlawed by the NFL as part of the collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified on August 5, 2011 is unnecessarily long and repetitive. HGH was outlawed by the NFL as part of the collective bargaining agreement should be enough the get the point across.

Also, Manning's alleged anti women comments highlighted in the first title in controversy section have never been proven. It seems to be original research, or worse, possible vandalism. Also rewriting the title. WillsonSS3 (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beasts, Mike freeman quote doesn't appear to add anything to the investigation, besides proving he has a negative view off Manning. He doesn't specify any incidents or people relevant to the ongoing issue, he just comes off as being bashfull. Removing unnecessary filler. If you disagree, let me know and specify. WillsonSS3 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I also think that this "controversy" section is way too big. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

one way to shorten it would be the removing or shortening of the Lack of media coverage on scandals section. This controversy is only partially about Peyton and is more of an opinion on the media covering the scandals than Manning himself. He has no direct personal involvement in this controversy. WillsonSS3 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't just remove comments because you don't think they are "constructive." To imply that Peyton Manning has no involvement in Peyton Manning controversies is absolutely ridiculous!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.29.25 (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed this part in an effort to shorten the controversy section. He also added that "women in the men’s locker room is one of the most misbegotten concessions to equal rights ever made" and that "[w]hen Dad [Archie Manning] played, there was still at least a tacit acknowledgment that women and men are two different sexes, with all that implies, and a certain amount of decorum had to be maintained. Meaning when it came to training rooms and shower stalls, the opposite sex was not allowed. Common sense tells you why. My reason being, it doesn't add any new info about the scandal. Also i don't feel commenting on th preference for separate locker rooms for men and women should be categorized under controversy. If you disagree, let me know. WillsonSS3 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A dedicated Controversy section goes against the WP:STRUCTURE policy of not isolating controversial information. Why not fold it into a "Public image" section? Anyone that didn't know any better would think his image is on par with Bill Cosby's right now. The size of it violates WP:UNDUE. This article is a candidate for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if it's not addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I would point you to the Lack of media coverage on scandals. Manning has little(who am I kidding) to nothing to do with the media's decision on who to be more lenient or critical off. I feel it just adds WP:UNDUE to the section. WillsonSS3 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It actually appears as if Manning is very much in control (or at least attempting gain greater control) over his PR, especially as he pre-emptively hired Ari Fleischer to sway the media in his favor prior the original Al Jazeera report and the fact that he has the same agent as Jim Nantz who is the mouth piece through which most people hear about Manning. The Nation (the oldest and one of the most respected news magazines in the entire world) article discusses at depth the "special" relationship which Manning has with the press and how he has spent much time and effort in molding his own image. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080201185230/http://www.heisman.com:80/winners/c-woodson97.html to http://www.heisman.com/winners/c-woodson97.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081030141720/http://www.colts.com/images/news_photos/communitydynamic/2008_mediaguide_sec7.pdf to http://www.colts.com/images/news_photos/communitydynamic/2008_mediaguide_sec7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422223003/http://www.nfl.com:80/gamecenter/recap?game_id=29742&displayPage=tab_recap&season=2008&week=REG15&override=true to http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap?game_id=29742&displayPage=tab_recap&season=2008&week=REG15&override=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024100148/http://www.stvincent.org:80/ourservices/childrens/peytons_legacy.htm to http://www.stvincent.org/ourservices/childrens/peytons_legacy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080612083527/http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2005/11/051108084527.htm to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051108084527.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061222165412/http://www.ncaa.org:80/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf to http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book/2006/2006_d1_football_records_book.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605230659/http://www.businesswire.com/news/fedex-corp/20050202005172/en/NFL.com-Voters-Select-Colts-QB-Peyton-Manning to http://www.businesswire.com/news/fedex-corp/20050202005172/en/NFL.com-Voters-Select-Colts-QB-Peyton-Manning

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Article getting too big

The prose size of the article is now 66KB of readable prose. Per WP:TOOBIG guideline, an article > 60 kB is "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". Game-by-game recaps can be moved to the respective team season articles, there's the thread above about the undue Controversy section.—Bagumba (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@ParkH.Davis: Your removing the bulk of a semi-decent overview in the lead is not the best place to cut if you are going to cite WP:LENGTH in your edit summary. Per MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." On the other hand, WP:NPOV on your part is becoming a concern when you are fine with re-inserting minutiae like testicles and anal areas. I'm not saying Manning is God, but we needed to apply due weight, and avoid righting great wrongs. Unless the assault allegations dominate the press a la Bill Cosby, it's too soon to tear down his generally positive reputation to date.—Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to only include information which is being reported on by reliable source. During the last 24 hours it has been widely reported that Manning put his anal area (or rectum), his testicles, and his penis on the trainers head and face. I realize that sounds horrible, but it is what is being reported. Manning's sex scandal is being widely reported on my numerous reliable sources. It would POV to censor out content just to preserve Manning's so called "generally positive reputation". This is not a Manning fan page and should not be censoring out content which may seem to portray him in a negative light just because some people like him. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to only include information which is being reported on by reliable source. You're going to run in trouble if you truly believe that text only needs to be reported. WP:NPOV is a policy as well that requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Therefore, we don't add content merely because it can be cited, we must maintain give proper WP:WEIGHT to sources. Moreover, you haven't addressed your paring down notable career accomplishments in the lead because of WP:LENGTH, but are willing to bloat the article with excessive detail over charges that have been given sporadic and generally light coverage. It's not censorship, its giving due weight and avoiding WP:RECENTISM.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It says "all of the significant views", meaning that other views than pro-manning views are to be represented. Virtually all of the news coverage about Manning these days is about his HGH scandal and his sex scandal. It would be POV to suppress these in favor of making Manning look like an infallible god or something. It does not violate BLP to report what reliable sources are saying. It is censorship to suppress any information about Manning's scandals and it is POV to pretend like they don't exist. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The article 'List of career achievements by Peyton Manning' has to be completed and that should include the complete list of Manning's achievements while Manning's main page should have only the essential. Look as example the Brett Favre's page.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Several issues

I recently edited the page to re-info which is vital to understanding the topic, including a specific description of the sex allegations against manning, the specific mentioning of the three specific ailments in which GH can be legally (under federal law) prescribed to an adult (which is a fact both from the original report and repeated by multiple other reliable sources) and changing the date in which GH was banned by the NFL from 2011 (which is inaccurate and possibly misleading) to the correct date of 1991. WP:TOOBIG refers to the whole article's size and not the sizes of specific sections, the HGH allegations are being widely reported on in the media and has been talked about by the NFL commissioner and was talked about on the Super Bowl broadcast; manning is also being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB. It is not undue to include a section on it on this article. Including the information about how Davies verified Sly's employment is vital as without it, it seems to endorse the hypothesis that Sly had not been working at the guyer clinic during the times he alleged. None of the content in question violates any copyright, as it is all well sourced. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to congest everything into one big sections. Especially the legal and medical explanations of certain products. It needs to be said, that it's banned by the NFL and possibly from when. Anything else, especially to whom it can be prescribed to doesn't have anything to do with Manning and it makes for unnecessary filler in an already oversized page. Also, making an oversized controversy section gives negativism on the page WP:UNDUE weight, (as it has already been mentioned by several others). WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The three specific ailments in which GH can be legally prescribed to an adult under federal law is a fact explicitly from the original report and is an oft repeated fact in subsequent reports concerning the allegations against manning. It is unclear as to whether either Manning or his wife was suffering from any of the three ailments. I'd say most (before the Super Bowl) and about half (after the SB) of the articles written about manning have been about his HGH scandal and there has been an upturn in articles about his sex scandal recently. The GH scandal is being talked about by numerous sources on a fairly regular basis and he is being investigated by two major pro leagues and by the highest anti-doping body in the USA. Also, without the sentence on the employee verification, it appears that this article is endorsing the falsehood that Sly had not been working at the clinic during the fall of 2011. Also, the word "claimed" should be avoided, "said" is a much better alternative. It should specifically be stated when GH was banned by the NFL, when the testing regime was agreed to and when testing began, as to not confuse the reader as to the timeline involved. A specific desprciption of the sex allegations against manning should also be present as "he sat on her face" is not accurate as to what the trainer accused and is possibly misleading. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as the sexual assault allegations, there'd be more freedom to go into more detail perhaps in a standalone article on the overall hostile sexual environment charges against UT, which include the Manning incident.[2] Otherwise, it's too soon today to give too much space in his bio to this. Of course, things might change.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd support starting a new article which discusses Manning's sex scandal in depth. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

In the sexual assault allegations section: "On February 13, 2016, the New York Post published an article recounting the case. The Post republished 74 pages of Polk County Circuit Court documents that further detail the incident, including statements from Manning's teammates that contradict his version of events, statements from Manning that contradict his earlier statements, as well as suggestions from University officials that the incident be blamed on a black player instead of Manning." Please change "the New York Post" to "the New York Daily News" because the article written by Shaun King was published online in the NY Daily News website. Please also change "the Post" to "the New York Daily News" because Shaun King article did not appear in the Post.

SDDCMN730 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Good catch. I't's definitely more reputable being from the Daily News instead of the tabloid.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"re-settle"

The article says, "In 2005, Manning was forced to re-settle again after violating the court's gag order by claiming she had taken advantage of him in an ESPN documentary special program about him.[313]". However, I read the source and that is NOT what it says. All it says was that the litigant filed for re-settlement. It does not say what the result was. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Manning Bowl

Why have the controversy sections been moved to be subsections under the "Manning Bowl" section? It makes no sense for those sections to be there. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My bad, they were meant to go under "Personal life", or basically anything other than the red flag "Controversies" section(WP:STRUCTURE). Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

Would it make more sense for there to be a stand alone article discussing the sexual assault allegations against Manning and other at the University of Tennessee and then just link to there from here? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also the cited policy doesn't discourage sections entitled Controversy or sections discussing controversies surrounding the topic of an article, it simply states that sections which are themselves controversial should not be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:STRUCTURE: It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial" (Emphasis added by me). The allegations would still need a summary here even if a standalone were created (see WP:SUMMARY). I'm not convinced it's notable enough at this time for a standalone article. Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." I feel a standalone would just be a gratuitous he said, she said, the equivalent of a standalone article for each game in a season with excessive play-by-play. The overall UT lawsuit by the former students seems like a better topic (if it hasn't already been created).—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    • It does not appear as if a separate article concerning the UT sex scandals has been created. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over this

ParkH.Davis: Considering you started the "Controversies" segregation on December 27, it's laughable you cite "BRD'" when you just reverted the removal of the section after it was integrated NPOV into "Personal life". Considering your edit warring history, it's becoming clear that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Manning. Please stop.—Bagumba (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am here to make sure that all notable information being reported about Peyton Manning by reliable sources is being included in this article and that controversial sections are not be censored out to preserve Manning's public image. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't mention NPOV, again. A blog or discussion board might be more suitable for your interest. Or consider Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not making things up. Every single bit of content I have added is back up by multiple reliable sources. It is POV to not include information which is being widely reported by reliable sources just to protect manning's public image. I get that many people want to suppress manning's sex scandal and want to pretend it never happened, but regardless, it DID happen; and it is being widely reported upon by numerous reliable sources. I suggested that, as this article is maybe getting too big, that an article dedicated to Manning's scandals be created. There is more than enough content to justify such an article and is definitely notable considering the amount of coverage this topic is getting by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"I get that many people want to suppress manning's sex scandal and want to pretend it never happened" Care to provide diffs to identify these alleged editors? If not, please cease with the exaggeration. There is no consensus so far to add more gratuitous detail to this article. You're on your own if you choose to create a standalone.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I never stated that the hypothetical people which I was referring to were Wikipedia editors. I was simply stating that there appears to be a relatively strong hegemony which is seeking to downplay or ignore the sexual assault. There was no mention of the assault until recently on this article, even though it occurred over two decades ago. Not discussing Manning's sex scandal on his Wikipedia page would be like not mentioning Barry Bond's drug use on his or not talking about President Clinton's sex scandal on his page. It is POV to not discuss the sex scandal, especially as almost every article written about manning recently has been concerning his sex scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Davis, the media has been aware of this incident for years but never really publicized it that much, likely because that court document only tells one side, the accuser's, and the Mannings are forbidden from commenting on it. For obvious reasons, the media is hesitant to make accusations when only side is available. Shaun King, apparent isn't, and from what I understand he is now getting intense backlash against his editorial for presenting such a one-sided and apparently agenda-driven viewpoint. Cla68 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The court document was not made public until a couple days ago. The court document tells the facts of the case, it is not one-sided. This is not a manning fan-page and you cannot censor out information which you personally don't like if it is being widely reported on be reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research. Manning violated the court's gag order twice and Dr. Naughright successfully sued him twice for defamation. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP dictates that we take special consideration when considering adding pejorative information to a covered article. We treat sources with negative information with extreme prejudice. If you want to see a good example, check the talk page archives for the Shaun King (activist) article. You'll see what I mean. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that all information be backed up by reliable sources. It is censorship to delete information from a page simply because you personally view as "pejorative". ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not to drive your discussion to far off-topic, but isn't it at least questionable as to whether the accuser should be named? I'm not that big of a sports fan, but it seems that she falls short of WELLKNOWN and hence should not be named. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I originally did not name her, but recently (within the last week) another editor added her name. I support removing her name. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case it's ok to name her because she has publicly identified herself and she has been named in mainstream news media. Cla68 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Controversy" section

I would just like to know why a "Controversy" section is allowed for Peyton Manning, but not for other players who have been accused of sexual assault, like Jim Brown and Julian Edelman. In all three cases, there haven't been convictions, although, Brown did receive punishment for a domestic issue. I tried to include those sections for Brown and Edelman, but I was told that was a BLP violation, and they were removed by other editors. The allegations were sourced with reputable publications, like USA Today and Los Angeles Times. So, what's the difference here? To me, there seems to be a double standard in place, but maybe somebody can elaborate as to the difference. Dsaun100 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not support the controversy section on Manning's page. The section, as it currently appears, is WP:UNDUE but I know if I were to condense it, I'd be immediately reverted. This might be worth opening an RfC. Thoughts? Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

An RfC is an overblown solution. See #Controversy section, where I just tried to take the content into the 'Personal life" section, with the rest of the content intact. AFAIC, the only one who keeps restoring the polarizing section name has been user ParkH.Davis. I would encourage others to make bold edits, and report others to WP:AN3 for edit warring as needed (that user has already been blocked for their edits on this page in the past).—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is necessary. It appears that there are 3-4 of us who want to make a drastic change to the controversy section, and only one editor who wants to keep it as is. So, we have consensus. Make the controversy section how you want it, or delete it entirely, up to you, then post what you did here. If it has majority support, it will stay and it doesn't matter if one editor tries to revert war about it, he/she will be going against consensus which is against the rules. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that this controversy section is too big and undue. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that this controversy section is too big and undue. Recent press coverage of a certain issue does not mean that it should be reported in an encyclopedia. I would agree there is consensus to remove this section and fold it into the personal life area. User ParkH.Davis, please try to gain consensus for the changes you would like in the future. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the section entirely, and will attempt to insert the relevant bits back into the article under the Personal Life field.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad we can all agree on this. Looks like our best approach is to remove the entire section, which has already be done [3], and we can work to reinsert the significant information into the Personal life section. For some reason I previously thought there was more than one editor supported keeping the section as is. Meatsgains (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT censored. You can't remove content just because you personally disagree with it. Virtually all of the media coverage about manning is about his scandal, so it is not in any way "undue" to discuss his scandals. Consensus is not "majority rules". Consensus means that there is a lack of opposition. I am willing to compromise, but deleting the entire controversy section would be nothing more than censorship and POV pushing. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. If, as is the present case, reliable sources are widely reporting on manning's scandals, then it should be included on the article in which he is the subject. This article should report on manning's life in the same proportions in which reliable sources report on his life. Most of the articles coming out of reliable sources at the moment concern his sex scandal and his illegal drug scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling it "his sex scandal" and "his illegal drug scandal" is skirting dangerously close to the line. This is exactly why we have and follow WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not being violated here as the the word "scandal" is being used by numerous reliable sources. BLP is only being violated when content which is not being cited by reliable sources is being used. Just because you personally disagree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal preference. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why was I not allowed to add similar accusations for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman? Those allegations were cited by reliable sources. I was told that, in the case of controversial content, there must be consensus when adding it, particularly as a primary section of a page. Maybe an administrator can elaborate, or somebody who is well-versed in BLP. Dsaun100 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speak for any other page. Manning's scandals are being widely reported on by numerous reliable sources. I do not know why some are seeking to censor this article, but it is clear that there is a number of editors that are seeking to remove any content which they personally don't agree with. Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The controversies involving Ray Lewis, Adam 'Pacman' Jones or Jameis Winston for example are part of their own wikipages, so this should be exact the same with Manning. Leo Bonilla (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, as I pointed out, accusations should be allowed on the pages of Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, but they weren't, due to consensus and supposed BLP violations. So, the same logic should be applied here. Dsaun100 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow. Consensus on those pages is local (and would relate to the degree of coverage and focus those scandals had relative to the subject's overall history); it doesn't establish precedent. I would argue that Peyton Manning's scandals are an entire order of magnitude more high-profile in terms of the length, depth, and duration of coverage; they definitely need to be covered in considerable depth on this article (I would argue, based on my perception of coverage, that they could make up a significant portion of the entire article without violating WP:NPOV or WP:POV.) The question is not "does this hurt the article's subject?" or "do we cover scandals elsewhere?" The question is "is the way we cover this proportionate to the way it has been covered in other publications about the article's subject?" I think that in that respect, the deleted Controversies section absolutely belongs in the article -- it is typical of any discussion or coverage of Manning you're likely to see in the mainstream media. --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that view is incorrect. Please read WP:NOTNEWS. We do not let the media write the content of an encyclopedia. We do not write encyclopedic articles based on the mainstream media news cycle. We can draw from such articles, but if we wrote wikipedia using the current news cycle stories, I'm afraid we would have a very poor body of content. The University of Tennessee has asked that the lawsuit drop Peyton Manning as it appears to be just a publicity stunt to generate a buzz (http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/ut-asks-for-peyton-manning-claims-to-be-removed-from-federal-lawsuit-2c79f911-0695-1eed-e053-0100007-369895141.html). It looks like it worked exactly like the filers intended in the news universe, but thankfully our encyclopedia is more discerning. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the comparison with Kobe Bryant's page is pretty reasonable. We can't censor stories based in tested information, and let me remind you that the 'alleged sexual harassment' part was in the article for years before new information came in January of 2016. Remember that the Controversies section was redacted as allegation stories they are, and not as accusation stories. And I can cite the Bill Belichick's page which include a Spygate section as a example.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I only added the sexual assault section a few months ago. It seems that the sexual assault incident has been being censored from this page (intentionally or not intentionally) for almost a decade. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we keeping or deleting the content in question? I am really confused at this point. I am against removing the content altogether, I am not against moving it to the "off the field" section. What do we have a consensus on? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the the best consensus is moving the 'Controversies' section to the 'Off the field' section to show a better NPOV in this article. I cited a lot of examples with Kobe Bryant's page as my main example. So this specific issue should be discussed by the collective of Wikieditors. Also it's worth to add the new information published by The Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/02/19/the-mysterious-1994-incident-between-peyton-manning-and-a-tennessee-trainer/ Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting info in that WaPo report that Manning's lawyers wanted to suppress that incident, but the main witness located by the Post took Manning's side. Anyway, a smaller section with a neutral heading seems fine to me or incorporate it into the personal history section. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There hasn't been consensus for the inclusion of the "Controversy" section yet. If it is allowed, then again, you must allow it for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman. That's why I asked if an administrator can elaborate on the matter, or those who are well-versed in BLP. Dsaun100 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Current consensus on this talk page appears to be fairly clear against having that "controversies" section. Cla68 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to talk with an administrator: Wikipedia:ACE2015. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@ParkH.Davis: I talked with a member of the ACE (User talk:Casliber#An advice) and he suggested we can use these tools: WP:RFC; BLP noticeboard. Leo Bonilla (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to initiate the complaint or should I? I also think there is an NPOV noticeboard as well. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are the indicated to start this process. I hope other people may give different opinions because we are a small group discussing rhetorically and as I said, we are going nowhere. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reading this section, it seems clear that there's a broad consensus to include the material from the Controversy section in some form (which I agree with; I think everything that was there clearly belongs in the article) but that it should be restored under a different section heading. Do we have proposals for a heading? --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If the section is to be restored and re-titled, it needs to be condensed significantly to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

Talks of retirement Karlos2003 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Ditto

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I am confused

I am confused. There appeared to be a consensus to move the content in question from a "controversy" section to an "off the field" section, but it now appears as if some editors are attempting to blank the content altogether. It is clear the content in question does not violate WP:BLP as it is well cited by reliable sources. It is also clear that some sort of inclusion of this content does not violate WP:UNDUE as virtually all reliable sources are almost exclusively discussing manning's scandal at this point and for the last couple months. I want to reiterate that Wikipedia is NOT censored and is not subject to the personal whims of editors. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and there are more than enough reliable sources to justify the inclusion of this content. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus to move the content, as evidenced by the section on this talk page, "Inclusion of 'Controversy' section." As I've stated all along, if accusations don't violate BLP, then they must be allowed for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, which was not the case for either one, despite the fact that there were reliable sources. I was told that there must be consensus to add controversial content altogether, otherwise its inclusion violates BLP. I'm only applying the standard here that was set forth for other pages, and as of this moment, there hasn't been any consensus whatsoever that the content should even be included. Dsaun100 (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored and that deliberately removing content to further a personal agenda is against wikipedia policy. I don't think that's what is going on here, but it something to keep in mind. There clearly was a consensus to move the content into an "off the field" section based on the thread above. The content in question clearly does not violate WP:BLP, as if it did, it would have been removed several months ago when it was first added. The content in question is well cited by numerous reliable sources. manning's scandals are vital to understanding his life and omitting them would violate WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you post the information you are attempting to add here on the talk page first so we all can discuss and reach somewhat of a consensus on what should be restored. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You can access past versions on wikipedia. I have made it clear several times about what content I want to be preserved. Either all of it is re-added or there should be no mention of any of manning's scandals. A half-hearted mention of his scandals would be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I am fine with the whole section being blanked, but only if a POV tag is added to this page and its good article status is removed. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dsaun100, you are acting illogically. You are trying to ice Wikipedia editions based in two isolated examples. According to your own logic, all the controversies in Wikipages from every people mentioned in National Football League player conduct controversy page specially Ben Roethlisberger should be deleted. Wikipedia is important database and media source, so if more information we can provide better conclusions users make. But in your defense, there are other cases apart from Peyton Manning's Wikipage and those you mentioned to be solved like the Florida State Seminoles football page or if a Deflategate section should be added apart in Tom Brady's page, but that's going out to the point. This kind of issues should be solved being seen from major points and not from minor points. Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How am I acting illogically? You continue to miss the point here, which shows you're actually the one acting illogically. I didn't contest the inclusion of controversial content in the first place. How many times do I need to say that? I'm merely applying the same standard that was used, according to the logic of other editors on player pages who've had similar allegations, as part of their consensus. Also, it's not as if the players in question are "nobodies," so to speak. They're high profile as well, so the way in which their controversial information is handled compared to Peyton Manning is valid, in my opinion. You can't have it both ways. Either you include sourced accusations, or you don't. Your issue should be with them, not me. Dsaun100 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

So finally we agree. On the bottom there's someone who expresses my point better than I. Leo Bonilla (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I said above, "how were scandals handled elsewhere?" is not a useful question to ask. How we cover scandals (like anything else) is decided on a case-by-case basis according to the weight they are due based on their coverage in reliable sources. None of the other examples you've been trying to compare this page to, as far as I can tell, had anywhere near the level or duration of coverage that the Peyton Manning scandals did; so clearly, the controversy section belongs on this page (although possibly under a different title.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added a POV tag as it is clear that the NPOV status of this article is under dispute. Either Manning's scandals are given the same weight that they are given by reliable source or they are not mentioned at all. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Technically, that's not the correct use of the POV tag. Since the issue in question is an interpretation of WP:BLP, that issue supersedes all other rules, including POV. Cla68 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not the issue here. The main objection the controversy section was that is was POV pushing. The content in question clearly does not violate WP:BLP as it is well sourced by numerous reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP is the issue here, because this article IS a BLP! You need to understand that BLP trumps all other policies, including sourcing guidelines. So, POV is a secondary consideration with this article, and that's why your tag isn't appropriate for the situation. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The content in question clearly does not violate BLP though. The objections raised against the content is that is was POV pushing, not that it violated BLP. I am disputing the neutrality of this article now that all mentions of manning's scandals have been purged from this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It violates BLP because it is undue. Please familiarize yourself with those policies before slapping tags on well written, established articles. You seem to be the only one that believes this article has POV issues, so please remove the tag and discuss your thoughts on this talk page.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

He is not the only one. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag. Lets discuss. As Cla68 noted, your concern is a BLP issue. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Zetrock was clear about our concern as he wrote below. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that the neutrality of this article is under dispute my multiple users. Please stop removing the POV tag until there is a consensus that this article has a NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconding this. There are serious WP:NPOV issues here that will remain until the issue of how to handle the scandals is resolved. --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Be Aware!

I am not accusing anyone but I'm starting to suspect that there is a PR staff or firm involved in how Manning's page is handled. And I'm saying it because something related have happened. Evidence here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9671471/Finsbury-edited-Alisher-Usmanovs-Wikipedia-page.html

Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

One of WP's rules is anonymity by its contributing editors. Cla68 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean 'psuedonymity'? Every editor either has an IP address or an username. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyway to report this to administrators? We do need to assume good faith, but I share your sentiment. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a way to talk with the administrators. Hope they listen. Link here: Wikipedia:ACE2015 Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leo Bonilla and ParkH.Davis: If you feel this page is being "whitewashed" and would like administrators to get involved, you can take the issue to WP:ANI, however I advise against it because I do believe you are wrong in suspecting there is a PR firm working to protect the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. There seems to be more whitewashing here than even a nation/state (Israel, for example) can accomplish. GXIndiana (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Lack of mention of HGH or sexual assault allegations is troubling

I have read through this discussion page, and I understand the concerns of some of the people who favored blanking all controversies. However, it clearly violated NPOV to omit all mention of it. It is a well sourced FACT that there was an incident involving Manning and a female trainer at Tennessee. It is a well sourced FACT that there was a confidentiality agreement that resulted from this incident, and that the female trainer filed a lawsuit against Manning for allegedly violating that order. It is a FACT that this litigation happened.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of this situation and the law in general (or you just have a very biased opinion). One main problem is that it's not at all a "FACT" that he violated the confidentiality agreement, as the 2003 lawsuit was not concerning that at all, but rather, it was a lawsuit claiming defamation in his/his dad's book regarding Manning's comment that she had a "filthy mouth"; the court documents prove that this was a defamation lawsuit, and nearly every news outlet covering this has made that clear. The fact that you are ignoring this or have misunderstood the situation shows that you do not have much authority to speak on what should be written about concerning these subjects, since a failure to recognize such crucial facts shows a clear bias or a lack of knowledge. Another big problem is that none of these things are facts, just allegations from both sides and third parties. Again, this shows a clear lack of legal knowledge on your part, since what is factual is determined by the jury should it go to trial. It did not, as it was settled, and none of the statements by either side can therefore be definitively determined as factual.

You do realize that this whole saga involves multiple lawsuits, right? There was the initial settlement from UT followed by a confidentiality agreement signed by UT, Naughtright, and Manning. In 2002, there was a defamation suit filed in response to the book. That suit was settled, and a subsequent confidentiality agreement was signed by both parties. In 2003, there was another lawsuit, this time regarding Manning's alleged breech of the confidentiality agreement from the 2002 lawsuit. That lawsuit was also settled.

Yes, there are multiple sides to these stories. However, how is it a solution to that issue to simply ignore the story altogether? Report the undisputed facts, that being the fact that these lawsuits were filed and settled. Then present the conflicting reports. Manning, in a 2001 affidavit, called the incident the "mooning incident," and says he pulled his pants down for a brief moment in order to moon Malcom Saxon, as a joke. He says his pants were never all the way down and that he did not make contact with Naughtright, who was examining his ankle. On the other hand, Naughtright says that Manning placed his unclothed testicles, rectum, and taint, on her face, and that she had to push him off.

So there, we can present the undisputed facts. The lawsuits happened. They were settled. That is not an issue. Then we can present both versions of events. P.S. sign your comments. Zetrock (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25488074/peyton-mannings-2003-affidavit-surfaces-to-tell-other-side-of-the-story

https://mgtvwate.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/peytonmanningaffidavit.pdf

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2712091/Factsofthecase.pdfZetrock (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a FACT that allegations of HGH use arose in 2015.

Now, there is a difference between including the substance of these allegations as truth, and simply reporting that the allegations occurred. Yes, this is a BLP, but including well sourced facts, couched in the context of the confidentiality agreements that resulted, does not violate any part of BLP.

So do not say Manning used HGH or that Manning did sexually assault a trainer. Report the parts that we know: there were allegations of inappropriate contact with a trainer resulting in settlements and confidentiality agreements. There was an allegation of HGH use, and that Al Jazeera report has been called into question. Zetrock (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a tag saying the section needed to be rewritten but instead that information was blanked. And if you see on previous version of this article there were a lot of citations sustaining what was written, but of course, it was likely in a inaccurate tone. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Julian Edelman etc., were given as examples of this material being omitted, here are a couple counter examples of BLP articles where allegations are included in the article: Ben Roethlisberger, Jameis Winston.Zetrock (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been saying these days. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there need to be mentions of the HGH and the lawsuit but they don't need to take up as much space because it would be undue. Peyton Manning is notable as a professional athlete, not as a participant in a lawsuit from the 90s or as a user of HGH. We need to try to gain consensus on this talk page for how that should be worded and formatted, taking care to satisfy WP:BLP.Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

So, why anybody took the job of rewrite the section and just got it blanked? Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The section absolutely needs to be restored. Looking back over it, I can't see any real WP:BLP issues, but in any case people need to be more specific about their objection -- deleting the whole thing was a massive and serious WP:NPOV violation (since it removes a core part of the article's subject, something that based on coverage ought to make up a significant portion of its text.) I strongly support restoring the entire section as soon as possible; the people who object can then suggest narrower changes based on the parts they disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you. I would argue that the contentious section was removed (WP:BRD) as a method of eventually reaching consensus on what should be restored, especially because this is a BLP. The scandals Manning was involved in are far from being the core part of the article and just mentioning it would be adequate. I don't see any need for this to consume a significant portion of the article's body. These scandals are not why Manning is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Not a significant portion but they have to be mentioned. Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Zetrock, but you are either very biased or you know very little about the facts of this situation, and about the law in general. You argue several things which are completely false and are misinterpreting

• How Zetrock is wrong? Tell me. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes to identify you or you may be blocked. Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like pointing out that this "scandal" has been included in this article for the past 10 years. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peyton_Manning&diff=41431638&oldid=40685169#Scandals. It has only been in the past month that this has become a BLP issue worth of blanking the entire section. It is troubling that as soon as this story was in the news again, all traces of it have been deleted from the article. It screams POV.Zetrock (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

I have started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard regarding this article. I have notified all the users involved. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The link to the discussion is here for those who would like to participate. Meatsgains (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@ParkH.Davis: I think it's better to close (shut down) the NPOV noticeboard and start a BLP noticeboard, as it seems on the consensus the concern is not how the "controversies section is interpreted", but instead if the content in question is harmful to Peyton Manning's reputation/career/name/legacy. It's not our point of view for some of us but it seems like a consensus, which is the reason we started this long discussion. Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My complaint has nothing to do with BLP policy though. My complaint is that the lack of even a mention of Manning's scandals is violating WP:NPOV, as without said content, the article portrays Manning in an arbitrary positive light without discussing his flaws whatsoever. If someone is concerned with how Manning's "legacy" is being affected, they should take that up with the reliable sources being cited, not with me. I am not trying to destroy anyone's "legacy", I am simply trying to add information from reliable sources which is relevant to the subject. Wikipedia is not for fan pages, it for unbiased summaries of encyclopedic subjects. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I know, I know. But we are having trouble making people understand that arbitrary positive light is being biased. That's why I talk about the perceived consensus (at least for me). Let's check the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ted Cruz. There's a difference between established birth place and an incident but our discussion and their discussion have similarities, it's interesting. I'm just trying to find options. Leo Bonilla (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• The regulars at the BLP noticeboard usually have a very good sense on how to proportionally present negative information in a BLP so their input can be very helpful. That is, if there are any of them left anymore because WP has been bleeding established editors like crazy lately. Cla68 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Manning Bowl"

Why is "The Manning Bowl" information in the "Personal life" section instead of the "Professional career" section?? That doesn't seem to make any sense since it's all about the NFL games the two brothers played against each other, so it should be moved to the bottom of the Professional career section as section 3.4. Also, the phrase "as of 2013" is used twice in the paragraph, but it is not necessary at all and therefore should be removed because all the information is current, and the dates of each game are given (2006, 2010 and 2013). It's not like a statistic that changes frequently, where you'd need to say "as of". It's just three games in their entire careers, so "as of 2013" is not needed; it's current. Tracescoops (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done The subsection was moved to a more appropriate location. However, I left in "as of 2013" because it is referring to two different things. Meatsgains (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but you don't understand. "as of 2013" still needs to be removed (both times) because they serve absolutely no purpose. Read the paragraph as it is currently. Now read it again without "as of 2013" in there either time and you will realize that they're completely unnecessary because it's not as of 2013; it's as of right now (currently), so "as of" anything is pointless. If they ever play against each other again, you would simply add the date of that game. Tracescoops (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Meatsgains (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

List of career achievements by Peyton Manning

I repeat: The article 'List of career achievements by Peyton Manning' has to be completed and that should include the complete list of Manning's achievements while Manning's main page should have only the essential. Look as example the Brett Favre's page. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion Closed?

Why was the NPOV Discussion closed? Am I understanding that this article can't even mention the scandals anymore? The sexual assault allegation occurred in 1996, how is that "recent"? Both of the defamation lawsuits occurred more than a decade ago. I am a loss as to why this article has been systematically censored of any and all mentions of the subject's scandals. This is NOT a Peyton Manning fan page and the point of this article is not to make him seem like a god on earth. These scandals actually happened in his life, as is well documented in numerous reliable sources. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!!!!! The reasoning given by the admin who closed the NPOV discussion was extremely racist and offensive. The admin blamed black people for "manufactur[ing]" the allegations against Peyton Manning. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't say what I redacted. You can say it was alleged. It is absolutely a violation of BLP and if you repeat it I will be forced to bring it to an administrator's attention. Please re-read what many editors have told you regarding BLP claims. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't remove other editor's comments. The sections in question both explicitly contained the word "allegations". This is clearly not a BLP violation as all of the content in question is well sourced by multiple reliable sources. Censoring this article of any and all mentions of the scandals is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have an obligation to remove false claims against living people. Please provide proof that he was convicted of what you claim, or else please add alleged. I will continue to remove this claim until you back it up. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said that Manning was ever convicted of anything. I will report you if you continue to remove my comments. Please review WP:TPO. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you linked that policy because it's clear you didn't read it. I will quote: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies" is an example of acceptable editing. I will say this one more time, and then we're off to the admin board. It is a violation of BLP to say "The sexual assault happened." FULL STOP. You can say "the alleged sexual assault happened." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My comment is not libel, a personal detail, or a violation of copyright, living persons, banning or anti-promotional policies. You removed my comment with the intent of changing its meaning which is a violation of WP:TPO. I will say again, the titles of the content in question explicitly, EXPLICTLY, included the word "allegations". Please stop removing my comments. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling something an allegation is not libel. It can be proven that he allegedly did the claims people are making because the numerous of well respected sources reporting it, but where libel comes into play here is by saying he did do it. Honestly, if this really is that serious of an issue worrying about legalities I'm sure Wikipedia has a legal department that can contacted to insure nothing included is libelous. However, with the research I just did on libel, it is pretty easy to call any claims of sexual assault libel. Does Peyton Manning and lawyers care about what's on his Wikipedia? Probably not. Should Wikipedia take this risk? No.--Rockchalk717 21:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparison to other sexual allegation sections

The Ben Roethlisberger sexual assault allegations section is 1230 words, the Peyton Manning sexual assault allegation section was 523 words at its largest size. The Kobe Bryant sexual assault allegation has its own article. Which parts of the content in question do those in opposition to me specifically oppose? ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF, go ahead and add back in the material you think should be in. Make sure to refer to allegations as allegations. Make the sections as long as appropriate according to WP:UNDUE. I will help you. I can't add the sections myself at current, but by next weekend I'll have time. Maybe some helpful other editors will get to it first. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I supporting restoring all of the content, however, I will not put it back up if it is going to just get removed again. I would prefer that we go sentence by sentence and determine exactly which info should be included and which should not. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I suggested two weeks ago before you took the issue to two different noticeboards. Meatsgains (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You never suggested that. I have repeatedly asked those who disagree with me to lay out exactly which parts of the content in question they disagree with and why, but that is in the past now. Would you like to start now and move on? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did here and here. Again, I suggest you and anyone else looking to restore the material back to the page, post on the talk what you think should be added back so we can discuss. Meatsgains (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think all of the content should be restored, as I have stated repeatedly before. If there is no objection to this, I will go ahead and re-add it and remove the POV tag. If there is objection to this, I would like to know specifically which parts you want to be cut and which you are okay with keeping. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in any of this and don't really care what happens other than it being handled correctly, but anyone can see this is obviously an extremely contentious issue and there's been a lot of edit warring over it. This is a serious issue because it's a BLP. Therefore, I don't think anything should be added back until there is a clear consensus among a significant number of editors about exactly what to do. And those involved in resolving this issue should include very experienced editors with a lot of knowledge about BLP policy. Without a clear and meaningful consensus, there will be chaos that will seriously harm this article's credibility. Therefore, I suggest starting a proper, formal discussion and posting a notice on other relevant pages to encourage participation from as many editors as possible. Don't look for a quick solution, but rather the correct solution that most editors can live with. Tracescoops (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been stated numerous times that what we should do is include the allegations against Manning, his responses, and move on. Anyone should feel free to do this. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The scandals are both major events in the subject's life and arbitrarily downplaying their significance is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Be Roethlisberger's sexual assault allegation has over 1200 words and Kobe Bryant's sexual assault allegation has its own page. Which specific words/sentences do you in opposition to me believe should not be included. Obviously including all of it is not an option and obviously not including it all is a violation of WP:NPOV. I am not a mind reader and cannot anticipate which parts will be accepted and will be removed again. Please tell what exactly which parts of the content you do not want to be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Get a true consensus. The same few editors have been debating this issue for a month. Open a formal discussion and post proper notices on other pages to get wider community involvement so that a lasting solution can be found. I would also recommend editors stop comparing this article to other articles. Wikipedia has over five million articles and many of them do things incorrectly and/or have different circumstances. Each article needs to stand on its own merits and adhere to all the relevant policies and guidelines, especially with a living person's biography. Tracescoops (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I posted this on the NPOV noticeboard and started a dispute resolution, both of which have since been closed. I have made it clear that I believe that all of the content should be restored unconditionally. There is no reason not to compare this situation to other situation with exactly the same topic, which is sexual assault allegations. It appears that there is precedent for including information on sexual assault allegations, if not for there to be the creation of an article devoted to the sexual assault allegation against Peyton Manning, which I have also previously suggested. Completely omitting any and all information of Manning's scandals is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. I will happily restore all of the content and remove the POV tag, but only if it will not be removed again in the future. In lieu of this, I would like to hear specifics on what other editors think the final product should look like. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I respect your passion for trying to resolve this matter. If you really want to hear what other editors think and are committed to finding a lasting solution, then start a formal discussion here and advertise it on other pages to get wider community participation. My hunch is that restoring the content without a meaningful discussion and consensus will only lead to an ugly battle. I know it may be hard, but be patient. The world won't fall apart if the content isn't in the article for a few weeks or a month. Getting it right is much more important than getting it fast. Tracescoops (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My reluctance to unilaterally restore the content is to avoid the same confrontation which occurred three days ago. I would like to participate in a discussion in which those who want to remove content describe specifically which parts they object to and why. I have explained that I would like the entirety of the content in question to be restored unconditionally, but I realize that this unlikely to happen. I have exhausted my recourse and am now to the point where I am simply pleading for specifics. Arbitrarily cutting the content in the first place is the event which never should have occurred, The editors with objections should have removed only the portions which they believe should not have been included instead of removing all mentions of the scandals without discussion. Do you have any specific suggestions as to which content should and should not be included? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is this information?

Where is the section about sexual assault allegations in this article? I can't find anything. Please let me know. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're joking, but if you read above you'll see this talk page is full of discussions about this topic that go back a month. Also, the editing history of the article makes it clear what's been going on. Tracescoops (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

His question is more than valid. The sexual assault allegations were included in this article for over a decade and then were suddenly removed recently. I am still questioning as to why the article was censored of all mentions to the scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that Joseph has been editing for nine years. It's practically impossible for someone with that amount of experience to miss the dozen or so threads above, not to mention all the recent edit warring in the article about it. So when he says "I can't find anything," I would be very surprised if he truly doesn't know why. Tracescoops (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

His question is valid regardless. No explanation has been given for removing any and all mentions of the scandals in this article, which had been included in this article for over a decade. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you really saying no explanation was given? You've been told here, on numerous noticeboards, and your own talk page exactly why the information was problematic. I won't bother reiterating it because you clearly aren't trying to understand why the content and your comments violated several of our core policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I came to the article, fully expecting to find some info about the subject. (It has been all over the news.) I did a quick, cursory glance at the article (the heading topics and such). I didn't find anything at all. I did a "control-F" with the words "sex" and "assault" and even the name of the Doctor, I believe. Nothing came up. I had no intention of reading the full article to "search" for something that might not be there. And I did not read -- or bother to read -- the entire Talk Page and its archives and/or the article history. As I said, I honestly could not imagine that the topic would not be present in at least one mention (one sentence). So, yes, my question is wholly valid. So, what's the answer? There is no mention at all in this article because someone decided to remove it and that decision has stood. Is that the answer? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully we don't let the news write our encyclopedia. If you're interested in reading about Manning wrt current events, well then I think your best bet will be to continue to read the news articles about him. The content that existed previously was in violation of several of Wikipedia's policies. You can read a few sections up about the consensus that was reached to err on the side of caution, blank the violations, and work to improve the article. This collaboration was halted by edit warring and the insertions of more core policy violations to the article and this talk page. If you would like, please take a moment to help us improve the article by re-adding the appropriate content. Your help as an experienced Wikipedian is much appreciated. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• The previous sections were not in violation of any wikipedia policy which I am aware of. The content in question was randomly blanked recently without consensus or explanation after it had been part of the article for over a decade. The article, without the content, however, is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV as it completely ignores the existence of the scandals and thus pushing a POV which is sympathetic toward the subject. There is absolutely no reason for the scandals not to be included in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't support this proposal due to WP:UNDUE. Please try to trim it down. Peyton Manning is notable as a football player. The article and the corresponding contents should reflect that. Ask yourself this: would these issues be encyclopedic if Peyton Manning were not a world famous professional athlete? Additionally your final section "lack of media coverage..." is mostly original research. Please do not use deadspin as a credible source. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please point to exactly which portions you feel cause the sections to violate WP:UNDUE, I don't know which parts you want to be omitted and which you would potentially be okay with including as I am not a mind reader. As I support the full inclusion of my proposal, I do not feel comfortable randomly cutting it to meet an undefinable standard. All of my content together would make up approximately 5% of the article and come at the very end. Also, my proposal would still be far shorter than other sexual assault allegations sections on other professional athlete's articles. The vast bulk of the article would still be dedicated to his football career. The last section explicitly quotes The Nation, which is the oldest and one of the most well respected weekly news magazines in the USA. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the stats [4], all the content which I have ever added to this article is 6.4% of the article, much of which is not part of the content which we are here discussing. Given the high estimate of 6.4%, the non-controversy sections of the article still make up 93.6% of the article. I don't understand how having a small section at the bottom discussing Manning's controversies can be "undue".ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

• As a start, I would propose we add the following:

Off the Field

In 1996, while attending the University of Tennessee, Manning was accused by female trainer Jamie Ann Naughright of placing his genitals on her face during a foot examination. Manning said that he was just exposing his buttocks to another athlete in the room as Naughright bent over to examine him. Naughright settled with the university for $300,000 for its alleged failure to properly handle the actions of Manning and others in various incidents, and she agreed to resign from the school.

However I'm still not certain we should go with that sourcing, as the Inquisitr article as it reads as opinion piece (note the comment at the end "What do you think readers? Should America reevaluate how it sees Peyton Manning?"

Would appreciate some other opinions though. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The "prank" hypothesis has been widely discredited by numerous reliable sources and therefore we should not use that word. There is no mention that the only witness affirmed Dr. Naugright's allegations. Also, your proposal completely disregards the fact that Manning was successfully sued for defamation in 2003, which resulted from several defamatory statements made by Manning in his book and which resulted in Dr. Naughright losing her job. Also, there is still completely no mention whatsoever of the drug scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a quite reasonable proposal Mr Ernie and thank you for trying to put something forward that can resolve this dispute. I suggest that the section should also contain a sentence or two about the subsequent libel lawsuit and settlement that resulted from Manning's book, but not much more than that. I would not use the Inquisitr article for sourcing. The MMQB article seems to be the most thorough reporting on the situation and I think should be an adequate substitute. Ncjon (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely great idea thank you for the feedback. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is my proposal: ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

Sexual assault allegations, violations of court orders and misogynistic comments

In 1996, while attending the University of Tennessee, Manning, while being examined by a female trainer, pulled down his shorts as she bent over behind him to examine his foot to determine why it was hurting, and she has claimed he then sat on her face and proceeded to rub his anal area and testicles on her face until she pushed him up off of her.

According to a court filing by the trainer's attorney, she reported Manning's actions to the Sexual Assault Crisis Center in Knoxville within hours. Manning apologized but claimed that he did not do everything the trainer alleged and that he was just mooning teammates across the room when she happened to be behind him. Despite Manning's denial, at least one eyewitness confirmed the trainer's account. In court documents filed by her attorney, the trainer also claimed that Manning later taunted her by re-enacting the incident on two occasions, called her a "bitch" when she attempted to give him a drug test, and threw a pen across the room that he was supposed to use to sign and date the drug test sample. The trainer later settled with the university for $300,000 for its alleged failure to properly handle the actions of Manning and others in various incidents, and she agreed to resign from the school.

Manning then referred to the incident and described the trainer as having a "vulgar mouth" in his autobiography published in 2000, Manning: A Father, His Sons, and a Football Legacy, saying he was "crude, maybe, but harmless" in his conduct towards her. He also added that "women in the men’s locker room is one of the most misbegotten concessions to equal rights ever made" and that "[w]hen Dad [Archie Manning] played, there was still at least a tacit acknowledgment that women and men are two different sexes, with all that implies, and a certain amount of decorum had to be maintained. Meaning when it came to training rooms and shower stalls, the opposite sex was not allowed. Common sense tells you why." As a result of the "vulgar mouth" comment, the trainer was demoted from her job as Program Director at Florida Southern College. The trainer sued for defamation, resulting in an undisclosed settlement in 2003 and a court-ordered gag on Manning and the trainer ever talking about the settlement or each other again.

In denying a request for dismissal of the suit, Polk County Circuit Judge Harvey A. Kornstein stated "[e]ven if the plaintiff is a public figure, the evidence of the record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of actual malice of the part of the defendants", going on to say that "there is evidence of record, substantial enough to suggest that the defendants knew that the passages in question were false".

In 2005, Manning was forced to re-settle again after violating the court's gag order by further discussing the incident and claiming she had taken advantage of him in an ESPN documentary special program about him.

Performance enhancing drugs allegations

On December 27, 2015, Al Jazeera America released a report conducted by the Al Jazeera Investigative Unit investigating professional athletes' use of Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) which named Manning, among other prominent athletes, as having received illegal drugs from Charles Sly, a pharmacist who had worked at the Guyer Anti-Aging Clinic in Indianapolis during the fall of 2011. The report involved Liam Collins, a British hurdler, going undercover in an attempt to obtain banned substances from Sly and other medical professionals. The report claimed that Manning's wife, Ashley, had been shipped off label human growth hormone (HGH) by the Guyer Institute during the fall of 2011 while Manning was out with a severe neck injury, with the intention of hiding that Manning was the one actually receiving the drugs. Sly told Collins during their conversations that "[a]ll the time we would be sending Ashley Manning drugs [...] Like growth hormone, all the time, everywhere, Florida. And it would never be under Peyton's name, it would always be under her name."

It is illegal to prescribe HGH off label, as the only legitimate ailments in which HGH can be prescribed to adults are for patients with childhood pituitary gland disorders which are carried over into adulthood, patients with Short bowel syndrome, and late-stage HIV patients. HGH was outlawed by the NFL as part of the collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified on August 5, 2011. The Indianapolis Star reported that in 2007 federal indictment was brought against Thomas Bader and College Pharmacy of Colorado Springs which alleged Guyer received Chinese HGH that was not approved by the FDA from College Pharmacy "on or around Feb. 22, 2007." and that Bader was later found guilty in 2010 and sentenced to 40 months in prison for illegally importing human growth hormone from China and other charges related to his sale of HGH.

Manning issued a statement stating, that he is "angry, furious [...] disgusted is really how I feel, sickened by [the allegations]". He told ESPN's Lisa Salter that he had visited the Guyer Institute 35 times during 2011 and that he had received both medication and treatment from Guyer during this time. Sly recanted his story and requested that the report not be aired via a YouTube video following the release of the report. Sly later claimed to ESPN that Collins had taken advantage of him during a vulnerable time in his life as Sly's fiancée had allegedly died, although Sly refers to his fiancée, "Karen", several times in the present tense during his conversations with Collins and gave no indication to Collins that she had died.

Sly told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that he is not a pharmacist and was not at the Guyer Institute in 2011, as Al Jazeera claimed, but state licensing records indicate that someone named "Charles David Sly" was licensed as a pharmacy intern in Indiana from April 2010 to May 2013 and that his license expired May 1, 2013. Sly later stated that "[w]hen [he] was there, [he] had never seen the Mannings ever. They were not even living there at that time," and that "[s]omeone who worked there said they had been there before. That was the extent of any knowledge I had. I feel badly. I never saw any files. This is just amazing that it reached this point."

An employee at the Guyer Institute named "Heather" later confirmed to Al Jazeera investigative reporter Deborah Davies who called the clinic to request an "employment verification" that Sly had worked at the clinic during the "fall of 2011" and confirmed that his start date was October 17, 2011.

On December 28, 2015, both the NFL and MLB both initiated investigations into the allegations made by Sly.

Al Jazeera America reported on January 3, 2016, that the Al Jazeera Investigative Unit were in contact with a second source, who was "impeccably placed, knowledgable, and credible" and was a former employee at the Guyer Institute, which confirms Sly's allegation that HGH was sent to Ashley Manning.

On January 26, 2016, it was reported that the USADA had joined with the MLB to investigate the allegations made by Sly, but that the NFL was refusing to cooperate with the joint MLB and USADA investigation. The NFL later denied the reports, stating that the "NFL has worked with USADA & MLB from the start.".

On February 5, 2016, Ari Fleischer confirmed that Ashley Manning did receive shipments from the Guyer Institute, but refused to confirm that the shipments had included HGH.

Bullying of accusers

The Daily Beast reported Mike Freeman, Bleacher Report’s NFL national lead writer, as saying when asked why Manning turns to bullying when he’s challenged by an accuser, that "[f]or every classy part of Manning, the one that sells pizzas and says, ‘Golly gee and aw shucks,’ there is a bit of a ruthless guy [...] this is not stated maliciously. It’s stated honestly. I think what he did with [the trainer] is an example of that. He does that [exposes himself] to her, which is a despicable thing, and then later in his book, takes a shot at her. That shot was calculated. It was a way of trying to diminish [the trainer] and her original accusations"

On February 5, 2016, it was reported that Manning secretly hired private investigators to investigate Charles Sly and his family. Two men, wearing black overcoats and jeans, visited the parents of Sly, and according to a 911 call from [Sly's parent's] house during the visit, stated that one of the men initially said he was a law enforcement officer but didn’t have a badge. The two men later acknowledged that they weren't law enforcement officers and stated they were looking for Sly and not his parents. After the 911 call, the police went to the Sly house, but after identifying themselves as private investigators, the parents decided to talk with the investigators, and the police left. Sly's parents informed them that their son was due to come home for the holidays the next day. Manning’s investigators spoke with Sly on December 23, 2016, though they refused to identify specifically who they were representing.

Lack of media coverage on scandals

Manning's performance enhancing drugs allegations published at the end of 2015 did not have a big media coverage compared, for example, with Tom Brady's issues towards Deflategate scandal earlier that year. Some media even handle the issue on an evasive way, such as a Fox News opinion talk show host claiming that the PED allegations reported by Al Jazeera were a plot to go "after American icons and US institutions," citing the allegations against Peyton Manning as the prime example, even though Al Jazeera's reporter Deborah Davies gave specific details about the reports to media outlets such CNN and NBC News. CBS Sports sportscaster and NFL on CBS #1 Play-by-play commentator Jim Nantz, who shares agent Sandy Montag with Manning, refused to acknowledge the Al Jazeera report while on the air, referring to it as a "non-story". Nantz has appeared in advertisements with Manning for Papa John's Pizza, of which Manning owns every franchise in Denver metro area, as well as Sony products. In an e-mail to the Daily News, Ari Fleischer wrote, "I didn't even know Sandy represented Nantz and in all cases, I haven’t asked Sandy to do anything on this."

A comparison has been made by several sports writers, highlighting the lack of media coverage of Manning's wrongdoings, as compared to several prominent black athletes, including Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton and Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Jameis Winston, whose wrongdoings have received far more media coverage. Dave Zirin for The Nation stated that "[t]he financial power of Peyton Manning means that he operates by a different, deeply corrosive set of media rules than any other player". Zirin went on to state that "Manning is a commercial leviathan not only because he has had a storied Hall of Fame career but because he is a white, All-American superstar from a prominent family in a league that is 70 percent black."

References

Once again, I say start a formal discussion and advertise it to attract wider community participation. A few editors cannot solve this complex matter, particularly when you're dealing with very contentious content about a highly notable person. As I said previously, I don't care which information ends up in the article, as long it's done properly and within the rules for BLPs. Park, I can't help but notice that you seem to have a clear bias in this matter against Manning. Editors need to remain completely neutral when editing articles, especially BLPs. For example, it is completely irrelevant whether Manning's "prank" claim is true of false. The only thing that matters is whether or not he actually made that claim or not. No one is disputing that he did. We are not a court of law; we're editors of an encylopedia. Therefore, we need to be guided by what the reliable sources are saying and then present anything notable in a balanced manner. If you really want to resolve this matter properly, then start an RfC, which I've seen work very well in other articles to resolve complex issues. Don't avoid or be afraid of getting the wider community involved in the discussion and listening to their opinions. Tracescoops (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My only bias is towards this article having an NPOV, which it lacks when every mention of the scandals is removed from the text. The "prank" hypothesis has been widely discredited as it shown in multiple reliable sources, therefore it should not be included in the article; wikipedia must be factual. I have attempted to start two discussions with the wider community both of which were shut down. I do not feel comfortable starting another outside discussion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the tendency of this article to use flowery language and to engage in peacocky. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page and the point of this article is not to enshrine his perceived accomplishments, while ignoring the less flattering aspects of his life. Refusing to mention the scandals, while continuing to enlarge the accompaniments sections, would be like HItler's article including a bunch of mentions of how he built the autobahn and turned germany's economy around after the war, but not mention the holocaust a single time. I realize that this is an extreme example, but the same standard on including a full picture of a subject's life and times should be applied to all BLPs. There is no reason to censor this article of all mentions of the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "The 'prank' hypothesis has been widely discredited"? Are you saying that reliable sources do not say that Manning made that claim (that it was a prank)? Or are you perhaps misunderstanding my point, which is that it doesn't matter whether it was a prank or not; all that matters is that Manning said it was a prank? You are actually incorrect when you say "wikipedia must be factual". Actually content in this, or any, encylopedia must be verifiable and not necessarily truthful. The verifiability policy even links to the "verifiability, not truth" essay. You're right, this is not a fan page and any flowery language should be removed. But that also means the opposite applies, as well; the article should not include negative content about him unless it's notable and presented in a very balanced manner. In terms of the comparison to Adolf Hitler, let's not go there. What you haven't done is start an RfC here, which I've suggested multiple times. I can see that you're very resistant to doing so and I don't know why. From what I've read and seen, an RfC cannot be shut down in less than 30 days ("the default duration of an RfC") unless a clear consensus is reached or the participating editors agree to close it. If you're very confident in the way you think this matter should be handled, then you should also be confident that you can achieve a consensus for your side. Tracescoops (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said. The "prank" hypothesis has been widely discredited as false. There simply was no "prank", nor is Manning ever been quoted as even saying that word. I will not start a third outside discussion, as my two previous attempts to do what you have suggested have been shut down and I have been banned for do so in the past. I will continue to fight against the forces that seek to whitewash this page of all info on the scandals. There is no reason to not mention the scandals in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This second proposal gives WP:Undue weight to the allegations. Manning is not primarily known for these incidents. Should consensus develop for something of this level of depth, this proposal would need heavy editing as it does not meet WP:NPOV and there are several statements that do not appear to be supported by their sources or are relying on sources that do not appear reliable, such as the Inquistr article. Ncjon (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Which parts of my proposal specifically do you believe violate WP:UNDUE? As I have stated before, all of my content makes up approximately 5% of the article and comes at the very end of the article. I see no reason to arbitrarily downplay the significance of the scandals. I have also suggested the creation of an article dedicated to the allegations against Manning as a compromise. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it. Your proposal is more than 1,800 words when the allegations can be succinctly and sufficiently covered in four to five sentences, i.e., less than 150 words, for each of the two claims. It's not about a percentage of the overall article, which in my opinion is probably too long anyway and could use a serious paring down. This does not warrant a separate article. Ncjon (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegations section which I have proposed is only about 500 words. Ben Roethlisberger's article has a sexual assault allegations section which is over 1200 words. Two decades of coverage by reliable sources have created more than enough content on the scandal to warrant its own article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is about 400 words too long. My statement about warranting a separate article is not based on a lack of material to write it. There's been plenty of ink spilled on this story. It's a question of whether it's a situation that warrants an entry in an encyclopedia. In my opinion it does not. No criminal charges were ever filed. The lawsuit against Manning was for libel, not sexual assault. There was never a criminal investigation and no arrests were ever made. In my judgment, those are significant differences in what level of attention this situation deserves, as compared to allegations against Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger. Many of the same editors who are trying to assist here were involved in the discussion over how to handle the allegations against Patrick Kane. It might be useful for you to look at that older discussion, as well. Ncjon (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am coming in new to this discussion and have only (very) quickly scanned the Talk Page. If this article has no mention whatsoever of the various allegations and scandals, that certainly violates NPOV. Oftentimes, in the case of a celebrity (such as Manning), the celebrity's page is edited by hard-core fans. Who have a tendency to want to "white wash" negative info. Even if that info is reliably sourced. I imagine there are tons of sources to assert, at the very least, the existence of the scandals and the allegations. That in and of itself should not be controversial. The fact that this article does not even have one sentence about the scandals/allegations does not pass the "smell test". It violates NPOV and gives at least the appearance that something suspicious (in terms of editing) is afoot. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The previous section contained several policy violations, confirmed by numerous editors and administrators. We decided to err on the side of caution (WP:BLP...) and remove the violations completely until they could be reworked. However, this collaborative effort was halted by edit warring and arguing, as clearly seen above in this section by certain users. Please try to AGF, we aren't here to whitewash the article, but we certainly can't let WP:BLP violations just sit right on the page. Additionally, the prose was bad, it was just a point by point repeat of news articles. Everyone agrees that the incidents need to be mentioned. Many experienced editors and administrators have supported this when it was on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. The consensus there was to describe each incident, include Manning's response, and then move on. This effort is still being opposed because ParkH.Davis would like the section to be much larger. Anyone is welcome to help out and go ahead and write what needs to be there. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that, collectively, we cannot come up with one single sentence that (neutrally) says: "these incidents have been reported" or "it was alleged that". It simply doesn't pass the smell test. Sorry. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I formulated an attempt. You can read it up above. What do you think about it? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Where above? There are myriads of discussions to sift through. I didn't see it. Why not re-post it right here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the first comment in this proposals section that you came into and started a thread in. I'd ask you to go up and take a look at it. Having Mr. Ernie repost it multiple times in the talk page adds to the ongoing confusion about why the material was temporarily removed and why an appropriate version of it has not yet be restored. Ncjon (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There never were any BLP violations though, as all of the content was well cited by numerous reliable sources. There has never been a "consensus to describe each incident, include Manning's response, and then move on", and there most certainly was never a consensus to remove all mentions of the scandals from this article. The content was unilaterally blanked without consensus or reasoning and has yet to be restored. There is no reason to not include info on the scandals in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what the current politics of Wikipedia are, but the fact that there are editors actively attempting to justify completely omitting very well-sourced information about (Redacted) by a polarizing public figure should indicate a possible conflict of interest. (EDIT) In other words, I don't think there's necessarily reason to "WP:AGF". 143.229.237.245 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my voice that it is absurd that this article does not mention any of the alleged crimes committed by Manning when they are openly and regularly discussed in all forms of media. It seems, fortunately, that consensus is moving in that direction and these highly suspicious attempts to censor Wikipedia are being more widely seen by visitors. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Should information regarding Peyton Manning's alleged sexual assaults and/or alleged performance enhancing drug use be included in this article? And if so, how can this be achieved without an edit dispute? DJLayton4 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I came here after reading the Monday Morning Quarterback piece, then the ESPN piece questioning part of that account, and I am amazed there's nothing here about it.

  I cannot say anything about the HGH allegations, but ... the continuing fallout from the locker-room incident should be covered. It has been reported on by reliable sources, it was the subject of a lawsuit after Manning and his father briefly mentioned it in a book, so there are court documents discussing it.

  However, maybe it should have a separate article at this point ... it's too long and convoluted to really fit comfortable in this article at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I fully support the creation of an article dedicated to the sexual assault allegations (similar to Kobe Bryant's article on the same topic). This, it appears, would be the only solution which would make both me and Mr. Ernie happy. My proposal is above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. – These topics should be addressed in this article. I also was amazed to see nothing mentioned at all. I posted a few comments above, to that effect. I am quite sure there are plenty of reliable sources. Attempts to remove the info amount to NPOV violations and white-washing of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, there should be a link to a page discussing the allegations. The HGH performance enhancing allegations may merit inclusion when there is sufficient, objective evidence. Whiteguru (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, but we should be careful to avoid undue weight to that section. Peyton Manning is notable as as football player. See above for my suggestion for how to include the locker room incident. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

In 1996, while attending the University of Tennessee, Manning was accused by female trainer Jamie Ann Naughright of placing his genitals on her face during a foot examination. Manning said that he was just exposing his buttocks to another athlete in the room as Naughright bent over to examine him. Naughright settled with the university for $300,000 for its alleged failure to properly handle the actions of Manning and others in various incidents, and she agreed to resign from the school.

Someone else can come up with the performance enhancer section. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ernie - I would suggest you go ahead and add your suggested paragraph to the article. For the time being this article needs at least some mention of this. WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Needless to say there at A LOT of prominent, reliable sources that discuss these allegations. Whether they are true or not is not for us to judge, so we just have to go by the sources available to us. Anyway Ernie, for now your paragraph is better than no paragraph, so please go ahead and put it in if you would. Thanks. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not think any of the content should be re-added without a consensus on what exactly is re-added. An arbitrarily small mention of the scandals still violates WP:NPOV and there would still be no mention of Naughright's lawsuits against Manning or the drug scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• No The HGH claims are of the pure "second hand rumour store" (WP:TABLOID) level, and unless and until something concrete is shown, there is no way such "claims" belong in the biography of a living person. The (Redacted) involve, as far as I can tell, a single case of exposure in a locker room, and warrant a single sentence only, and anything more hits UNDUE levels very quickly. By the way, folks who bandy "whitewash" as their argument do not impress me - the policy WP:BLP requires us to write articles in a conservative manner, and not to write then in the online "clickbait" style. "While in college, a female athletic trainer accused Manning of deliberately exposing himself, which Manning said was actually him simply (Redacted) a fellow player." covers the allegation and denial succinctly, and without bringing in the names of the trainer, etc. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Beware of partaking in peacockery. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page and the point here is not to glorify the good parts of his life while completely ignoring the negative aspects of his life. He is clearly a very polarizing and controversial figure and it would make no sense to only push an arbitrarily pro-manning POV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Redacting" a normal Wikilink is silly. And the issue is one of weight - Manning is not generally noted for being a horrid multiple "sexual assaults" offender by a mile, and to give excess weight in this BLP is an affront to the policy. Nor are the HGH accusations past the "pure rumour" stage at this point. By the way, your clear implication that I am simply a "fan" of anyone is absurd and contrary to any rational behaviour here. Nor am I "pushing an arbitrarily pro-Manning POV" - I am doing what we are all supposed to be doing - writing an actual encyclopedia in as neutral a manner as possible and in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a "mooning" ever occurred and therefore saying one did, violates BLP policy. Wikipedia is based on facts and reliable sources, not on conjecture and speculation. Also, as was made clear to me, BLP policy is still in effect on talk pages. Censoring this page of all mentions to the scandals is by definition, POV pushing. You cannot have a neutral article here without mentioning the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Manning used the term (Redacted), and the sources say he used the term, so "redacting" it is silly at best - and the claim is that Manning called it mooning so it is not a BLP violation. And I state there is no whitewashing when rumours and innuendoes not sourced as fact in reliable sources are removed. And, (FITB), deliberately adding rumours and innuendoes in the guise of "making an article neutral" is the worst possible sort of abuse of policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Manning did not use the term "mooning", Mike Rollo is the one that created the "mooning" story. The only witness affirms that a "mooning" never occurred. It is a BLP violation to say that a "mooning" occurred, when there is no evidence to back this up. There is no reason, which I can see, to completely censor this page of all mentions of the scandals, except to push a POV which benefits from the scandals not being mentioned. Please stop trying to whitewash this article, Wikipedia is not censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful -- you redact my quoting the word mooning and then use it yourself! Neat-o! As for your interesting assertion that sources do not attribute the use of the word to Manning - see [5] inter alia: "The Broncos quarterback said in an affidavit that he was trying to “moon” a University of Tennessee teammate", "Manning said he initially “did not believe that she saw my mooning of” the teammate for making a joke" (note this is a direct quote attributed to Manning), "After hearing this comment, I pulled down my shorts for about one second to expose my buttocks to him, or is as colloquially know, to ‘moon’ him,’’’ Manning testified." Again - direct quote from the testimony. Your claim that Manning did not use the term is false. Your claim that Rollo "created" the story is false. Your denial that the reliable sources specifically attribute the use of the word "mooning" to Manning in his testimony is false. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am only quoting your use of the word, you did not have quotes around the word or attribute its usage to anyone. There is a ton of evidence that Mike Rollo fabricated the "mooning" story as per [6]. The "mooning" hypothesis has been widely discredited and it is false to say that it happened. Saxon was not a "teammate" of Manning's and never played on the football team at Tennessee, so it would also be false to say that any "teammate" of Manning's was involved whatsoever. It is obviously consensus that the content in question should have never been removed and should be promptly re-added. There is no reason whatsoever to whitewash this article of any and all mentions of he scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Bickering aside, the HGH claims are mentioned by ESPN, among others. ESPN is not a WP:TABLOID. [7] DJLayton4 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The scandals are both being extensively covered by numerous reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis we are trying to work together here which means we need you to help us reach a compromise. Up above you stated that you will continue to fight this until your preferred views are added (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Please try to work with us and understand the things that people are telling you. Collect is an experienced editor, especially in BLP topics. Arguing with him is not productive and does not help us improve the article. Again I would ask that we take the piece that I started and work to get agreement on the wording so we can add it to the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Compromise is a two way street. I have suggested that a separate article devoted to Manning's sexual assault allegations be created as a compromise, so that coverage would be minimal on this article, but the topic would not be neglected. I will continue to advocate in favor of this article having a NPOV, that is all. Those who seek to remove all mentions of the scandals are preventing this article from having a NPOV. This can end right now: I will support your proposed wording if you agree that a separate article may be created. How is that for a compromise? ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this separate article would just cover the sexual assault allegations and not any other controversy, ala Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't need any agreement from anyone to create that article (WP:BOLD). If you think it's notable enough then go ahead and start the article. I'm not sure it would pass the notability criteria and in my opinion that article wouldn't last very long. I do appreciate your willingness to work together to get the right content into the Manning article. If no one else takes the lead, I'll insert my proposed wording into the article once a little more discussion has occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to receive consensus before I create the article, as I do not want to go through an unnecessary AFD process. I think you should hold off putting in any of the controversial content. Lot's of people are going to come out the woodwork to edit this article in the next few days with Manning's retirement and I don't want to inflame the situation any further. The POV tag will lead them here so that they can participate in the discussion if they please, which I think is fine for the time being. My objection is to the complete lack of any content in any article which discuss the scandals. A sentence or two on this article and a link to a separate article would fulfill WP:NPOV and represent all sides without violating any BLP. There is precedent for a sexual assault allegation against a prominent professional athlete having its own article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the stats [8], all the content which I have ever added to this article is 6.4% of the article, much of which is not part of the content which we are here discussing. Given the high estimate of 6.4%, the non-controversy sections of the article still make up 93.6% of the article. I don't understand how having a small section at the bottom discussing Manning's controversies can be "undue".ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the alleged (Redacted) incident—it deserves more than a sentence or two in this article. Had it been limited to that one day itself, we might not need to mention it. But ... Manning and his father mentioned it enough in their book for Naughright to sue them for defamation, and claim that someone privy to her identity (not given in the book) used that information to make like so difficult for her at Florida Southern that she had to resign and basically end her career as a college athletic trainer.

And ... it gets continuing coverage. It was cited in the Title IX complaint recently filed against UT. There have been the two articles I linked above in the last week. The sports media continue to explore the question of whether Manning has been truthful about that incident and (see the MMQB piece) whether Naughright is a reliable witness herself (she also continues to try to make an issue of it with the media).

The media have, for better or worse, decided this is notable. We cannot substitute our judgement for theirs. We must write a separate article, and we must do it in scrupulous adherence to BLP (Yes, I realize I'm sort of (ahem) volunteering myself to at least help). Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Of course it needs to be in here, but I don't see--as yet--why this would have to be a separate article. It only gets to be long and convoluted if it's poorly written, with no eye on what's encyclopedic and what's not. It can be covered in three paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is precedent for having a separate article devoted to sexual assault allegations against a prominent professional athlete in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. The sexual assault allegations have been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources for the last 2 decades, which would easily fill an entire article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am baffled there's nothing whatsoever in the article, and I am going to insert Mr Ernie's paragraph, from above, which I believe is fairly written though short. I stand by my above comment, that a balanced and well-sourced overview can be done in a few paragraphs. And ParkH.Davis, your edits make no sense. First you reinsert the POV tag saying the article has nothing on the alleged matter, and then you remove my insertion of a paragraph on that matter. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And one more thing, ParkH. Davis: I saw the attempt you made above, but really, that's two thousand paragraphs--that's exactly why we have NOTNEWS. In addition, how many allegations and "according to"s do you want in an article? Drmies (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My proposal is hardly "two thousand paragraphs"; your is nothing but hyperbole. The sexual assault allegations have been reported on by numerous reliable sources for 2 decades; this is not a recent event. There is no reason to not include content on the scandals in this article. Reliable sources have determined that the scandals are notable, therefore they should be included in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Hyperbole or not--why on earth did you revert my addition of it? Because you're creating a bit of a mess now, since that other editor just reverted me. In other words, as a result of your thoughtless action, there is now nothing in it, since I don't want to get accused of edit warring, even though that other editor also has three or four reverts today. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • This is a complex dispute and there is no easy fix. Mr. Ernie has made it clear to me and all other editors that the content (in whichever form) should only be restored after consensus is reached on how to re-add it. Mr. Ernie did not object to a separate article, and the creation of this separate article will likely be the long term solution to this dispute. I want the content to be re-added, but only after consensus has been reached on how to re-add it. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Drmies, ParkH.Davis is absolutely correct on that particular point. You had no right to insert that content into the article while this RfC is going on. So Park was right to revert you on that, yet you chose to edit war with him and re-add the content. Therefore, I removed your additions. Please do not restore them again. Tracescoops (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis it's starting to be clear to me that you won't accept any version of this article that does not contain undue weight on the allegations. Numerous editors and administrators have tried to work with you and at this point I'm not sure how we can proceed. You didn't accept the version I proposed, even to stand in as a placeholder, while we continue to work on it. I will re-add my proposal so the article contains at least a mention of these issues. Please do not revert, but work to improve. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A short 500 word section at the bottom of the article is hardly "undue". I will accept your proposal if you agree that a separate article may be created. Only having two sentences discussing the scandals still violates WP:NPOV. Nothing should be re-added until we can come to a consensus on what to re-add. I will continue to dispute the neutrality of this article until the scandals are given their proper weight. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works. Editors can not make backroom deals like "if you add that then I get to do this." It has been directly explained to you, multiple times, on multiple fora, by multiple people about why you are wrong about WP:NPOV. You need to drop the WP:STICK and let us improve the article. You are free to create whatever article you want. There is no trade off. But I would wager a new article on the allegations will be a candidate for speedy deletion a few seconds after you click the "create" button. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a "backroom" anything. Anyone can read all of this discussion. I am simply seeking consensus to make a change. I have created Peyton Manning sexual assault case. This article still lacks an NPOV as it still makes no mention of the drug scandal or the defamation lawsuits. pretending like the scandals never happened or downplaying their significance is a serious violation of WP:NPOV. We can't just pretend that these scandals never occurred. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page and the point of this article is not gush over how great of a golly gee wiz kinda guy he is. I am tired of people trying to whitewash this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You whitewashed it yourself, ParkH.Davis, with this ridiculous edit. I don't know who restored it, but that was the right thing to do. And why create a separate article? This makes no sense whatsoever, no sense--it's the separate article that may well be a BLP violation. At the very least it's a pretty backdoorish kind of way to get a lot of material on a living person. And look at the lead for that article--are you writing a short story? Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I was banned once before for acting without consensus. I very much do not want to get banned again. There is absolutely no BLP violation whatsoever as all of the content which I have suggested is well cited by reliable sources. You can't remove content because you personally disagree with it, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. I created the article, you are welcome to improve upon it where you see fit. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You were actually blocked, not banned. And twice. Once for edit warring and once for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Why not sit back and reflect on why your behavior is problematic instead of continuing on the same path? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fully 100% allowed to edit Wikidedia. Wikipedia is NOT censored. This page is being whitewashed and I am here to reverse the damage and give this page a NPOV like it deserves. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on personal opinions. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the scandals themselves, there is no reason why they should ever be censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis, it seems abundantly clear from your heavy participation in this dispute over the past month that you are unable to work cooperatively with other editors to find a resolution. In my view, your very biased and obstructionist attitude, and refusal to either accept or understand clear explanations and sound logic, has been very disruptive. You've only been editing for less than five months, yet have already been blocked three times for edit warring and disruptive editing. If you continue on this path, I think there's a good chance that you'll end up being indefinitely blocked. If I were you, I'd back out of this discussion completely and let the others decide on the best course of action. Tracescoops (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I will not give in to those who seek to whitewash this article. There is no reason not to discuss the scandals in this article, as they are well documented major events in Peyton Manning's life. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you really working toward consensus ParkH.Davis? You mention that word numerous times throughout this talk page, but don't seem to understand what it means as you seem unwilling to accept any version of content on the allegations that is not overly long and giving them undue weight, despite multiple editors having pointed that out to you. Consensus building is not an exercise in exhausting everyone from arguing with you until they give in to your position. It is trying to understand each other's arguments and point of view and finding what parts everyone can agree on. It requires some give and take. Reading this talk page, it appears to me that there is overwhelming consensus the allegations need to be mentioned in the article and that, save for one editor, the section should be fairly succinct. Ncjon (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus goes both ways. Consensus does not mean that those who want to whitewash the article get their way and those of us who want to keep Wikipedia neutral have to cede to the others. I do not understand that why if there is such an overwhelming consensus for inclusion, why the content was deleted. There is still not mention of the defamation lawsuits or the illegal drug scandal. This page still lacks a NPOV. Wikipedia is based on Reliable Sources, not personal opinions. This is not a Peyton Manning fan site, this is supposed to be a summarization of his life's events. Both of the scandals are major events in his life and have both been widely covered by numerous reliable sources. There is no reason why they can't be discussed in this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose mention of the HGH controversy and for the sexual assault allegation, I suggest a one or two sentences explaining the accusation and that it was settled out of court. I understand that of the two witnesses in the room that day, one has supported the accuser's side and the other Manning's side, so a sentence saying that should be included. Cla68 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There was only one witness though, Malcolm Saxon, as is well documented. There is no reason not to discuss the scandals except to whitewash this article to make Petyon Manning look like an infallible deity. We can't pretend like the scandals never happened or artificially downplay their significance. The sexual assault scandal was a Major event in Manning's life. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Davis there was not only one witness and the other witness contradicts the other. You see, this is why WP treats BLPs with kid gloves, because editors who aren't informed may come in and cause someone real life damage. Mr. Davis, are you sure you should be editing this article? Seriously. I take it back, I now oppose any inclusion of mention of the sexual assault allegation, because Wikipedia editors are just too ignorant to be permitted to handle a controversy like this. Cla68 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose HGH content, support sexual assault content - No content about the tabloidish investigation and allegations of illegal drug use should be added. The inclusion of a brief paragraph about the sexual assault allegation, merged into the college career section, is appropriate as long as it does not violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The paragraph that is currently in the article is fine. A separate article about the sexual assault allegation would be an egregious violation of WP:POVFORK. Tracescoops (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 05:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The HGH controversy should absolutely not be added however, the sexual assault allegations could be incorporated with a couple of sentences. We have to be sure to provide both sides of the argument and avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of details of both controversies. The detail needn't be exhaustive, but having reviewed numerous of the above sources, it's pretty clear these matters are covered in numerous media outlets/reliable sources in both the sport and popular press and that the allegations are widely known enough to be of interest to our readers, who will note the absence here. Indeed the surprise of numerous of our own editors at the lack of this information speaks to the fact that these stories have permeated into broad discussion surrounding this athlete. We gain nothing in terms of neutrality, accuracy or a fair BLP treatment by hiding the details of these issues (which would include both the claims of his accusers and his own side to the stories, such as he has presented them to the media). I can't see any argument which comports with our policies for sanitizing the article of this information. I do think the salient details available can probably be represented within a paragraph or two at most, though. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - There is more than enough coverage of both scandals by reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Reliable sources have clearly established both as notable. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the sources and the depth of the allegations, please?

BLP notwithstanding, clearly the answer as to how much content should be added regarding either the alleged sexual assaults or the alleged use of performance enhancing drugs is going to hinge on the weight of the sources. For those of us responding to the RfC who may not be super familiar with American football and the prominent scandals relating to its larger personalities, can both sides to this issue provide a bit more details about just how extensive the sourcing is, how far back these allegations go, and the nature of the coverage.

I'm inclined to say that if RS cover this topic to an even tangential degree, some mention is warranted here, as these are not insignificant charges, especially where sexual assault is concerned, and (per WP:NOTCENSORED) we don't refuse to report unseemly allegations on this project, even in BLP articles, and even if we doubt whether the alleged events took place. Scandals are a real part of the story of many public figures and can constitute a big part of the notability for an individual, even if they are ultimately proven innocent. In cases where we don't know exactly what happened, we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no controversy. Instead we faithfully report what secondary sources say on the matter, being careful to attribute and present those facts/claims/charges/theories/stances/speculation faithfully.

All of that said, I'd like to know what the sourcing looks like in this instance before I provide my own impression of just how much we should be discussing these allegations here. Please and thanks. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Woops, there's egg on my face, I see there is actually a quite extensive listing of sources in a thread above. I'll review them before providing my own impression shortly. I'll leave this post/section up to represent my initial feelings on the matter all the same (and of course, anyone wishing to provide additional context here should feel welcome to do so). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources

References

Peyton Manning's first college game

Change "Manning was the third-string quarterback, but injuries to Todd Helton and Jerry Colquitt forced him to take over the Mississippi State game" to

"Manning was the third-string quarterback, but injuries to Todd Helton and Jerry Colquitt forced him to take over the UCLA game"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Colquitt>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzfNC54FiMU>

68.110.127.167 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)FactFool

That sentence is correct and therefore cannot be changed. It's not referring to Manning's first game played at Tennessee. While you are correct that the first college game he played was the season opener against UCLA (as a backup) on September 3, 1994,[9] the sentence you want changed is actually referring to that season's fourth game, against Mississippi State on September 24. In the opener, Colquitt got hurt, then Helton, Stewart, and finally Manning were put in the game. But Stewart and Manning played poorly, so Helton was put back in. So, Helton wasn't injured in the opener; he was injured in the fourth game, when Manning replaced him. Manning was made the starter after that game and was never a backup again. Tracescoops (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I added content in the article about Manning's first appearance and also reworded and clarified when and how he became the permanent starter. Tracescoops (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 23:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect dates

The page states that he was a bronco from 2012-2015, however he was on the roster and played SB50 in 2016, so this should be fixed Tux3000100 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. As with articles for all NFL players and teams, a season is the year that (almost all of) the regular season was played. Super Bowl 50 was the completion of the 2015 NFL season. Therefore, Manning's final NFL year was 2015, just as it was for any player who retired after this past season. Other examples are Jerod Mayo, Logan Mankins, and Heath Miller. Tracescoops (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

I replaced the full article POV tag with a section POV tag since only a very small percentage of the article - the "controversy" content - is in dispute. ParkH.Davis reverted my edit, claiming now that they are disputing the neutrality of the entire article, even though they already admitted a few days ago that 93.6% of the article is not in dispute. The current dispute is limited solely to the "controversy" content previously contained in the personal life section, which is why I placed the POV tag there. The full article POV tag should only be used when there are POV objections to content throughout an article. That is clearly not the case here. Tracescoops (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The article as a whole lacks neutrality without any mentions the scandals. This has nothing to do with the Personal Life section. The controversial content had its own section when it was part of the article and has never been part of the Personal Life section. My comment referring to the size of the controversy section relative to the size of the article was in response to Mr. Ernie's WP:UNDUE concerns and not any POV dispute. The entire article POV is in dispute, not just the Personal Life section. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Tracescoops, the tag stays; there is too much commentary on this comment here about the matter. ParkH. Davis, we should not have separate sections. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I semi-agree with you. As I have previously suggested several times, there should be a sentence or two on this article with a link to a separate article which discusses the sexual assault allegations and events surrounding them in more detail. As of right now, the sexual assault allegations are not mentioned a single time in any article on Wikipedia. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, and because you foolishly reverted me I can't undo Tracescoops's nonsensical revert. Tracescoops, you're new here, but being new probably means you should stay out of the china shop if you're bullish. I warned you for edit warring: go look up the relevant policy please. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I reverted your edit, both because there is an on-going discussion and any change should be done with the force of consensus and also because the controversial content should not be in the sections discussing the subject's football career as it had nothing to do with his football career. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • @Drmies - "the tag stays"? Really? If you wanted to explain why you think the entire article should be tagged, then you should've simply explained your reasons and left out the rude condescension. I see that you are an administrator, but now that you've made edits directly relating to the issues under dispute I would think that makes you an editor of equal status to the rest of us here. And you also made those changes even though a new RfC is underway with no consenus. So I would suggest you stop trying to boss everyone around and acting as if you're the final word on all these issues. By the way, I'll stay in this china shop as long as I want to. I'm not sure if you use that intimidation tactic on all new users who disagree with you, but it won't work with me. Tracescoops (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Relax... Drmies wasn't trying to "boss you around" and "intimidate" you, they were just trying to help you. You're new here and clearly need it. You ever heard that old saying about the flies, the vinegar, the honey, etc., etc? Try the honey approach... - ^theWOLFchild 00:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on your block log, your opinion on this matter is both bold and humorous. Tracescoops (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with ParkH.Davis, that the incident should be briefly mentioned while the main detail should be spun off into a separate article. At the same time, because it is receiving media scrutiny, we can't pretend that nothing happened and omit it. The same applies to Cristiano_Ronaldo#Personal_life who was arrested and released on bail on suspicion of rape while charges were later dropped. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I previously created Peyton Manning sexual assault case, but the article has since been deleted. Whitewashing has won the day and Peyton Manning has never done anything wrong in his entire life. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it was deleted. It was an egregious violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. You should feel very lucky that you weren't blocked or otherwise sanctioned for that blatant WP:POVFORK stunt. Tracescoops (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinion. You can't remove content just because you personally disagree with it. The content in question clearly did not violate BLP as it was well cited by multiple reliable sources and was neutral. The scandal was a Major event in Manning's life, you can't minimize Major life events to satisfy your personal opinion. I am 100% allowed to edit on Wikipedia, please stop trying to bully me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is the sexual assault allegation included in a paragraph about his football career?

The sexual assault allegation has nothing to do with his football career. The incident was an off-the field incident that had literally nothing to do with his football career. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his college football career? Are you kidding? First, you already know the answer to your question since it was explained to you previously, including in this edit summary. Second, it doesn't matter one bit whether it happened off the field or on the field because the incident occurred during his college career - in the locker room, no less - and therefore was of course directly related to his being a football player. So, yes, it most certainly does have something to do with his football career. Tracescoops (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegation had literally nothing whatsoever to do with his football career. There is no evidence that it occurred in a "locker room", it likely occurred in a training facility. It had absolutely nothing to do with him playing football. It occurred off the field. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)