Jump to content

Talk:Peyton Manning

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cla68 (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 23 February 2016 (→‎NPOV: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articlePeyton Manning has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:LOCErequest

Allegation of multiple witnesses

The source provided does not make any mention of multiple witnesses like this claims. That is inflammatory to include — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.57.153 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I changed the claim that three witnesses contradicted his account to saying there was at least one that contradicted it. One was explicitly mentioned in the Inquisitr article. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prescription of GH to adults

Why does the information concerning the three legitimate ailments in which an adult can be prescribed growth hormone keep getting removed? This information is directly discussed in the AJ report as well as by Davies is several subsequent interviews and is vital for understanding the allegations made by Sly against Manning and his wife. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The primary allegation levied against Manning and his wife is that they recieved off label growth hormone from an anti-aging clinic. It is illegal under federal law to prescribe growth hormone unless it is for one of three specific ailments, which have been explicitly laid out in both the original AJ report and by Davies in multiple subsequent interviews. It does not seem to be common knowledge that it is illegal to prescribe GH off label and virtually no one seems to know which three specific ailments there are in which GH can be legally and safely prescribed to an adult. It is important to lay out the three specific ailments as it is vital information for a reader who is attempting to understand the allegations against manning and his wife. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously stated, it is more than notable to mention the three specific cases in which an adult can be legally and safely prescribed growth hormone. The allegations against Manning and his wife are that they illegally obtained growth hormone from the Guyer Institute, as it is not clear whether either of them ever suffered from one of the three specific ailments in which GH can be legally prescribed to an adult. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source explicitly mentioning the three specific reasons for which HGH can be legally and safely prescribed to an adult in connection to the allegations made against Manning and his wife. [1] ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/29/peyton-manning-hgh-allegations-10-things-to-know/

Allow open editing

I believe that people should be allowed to openly edit Peyton Manning's wiki page.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

198.162.72.25 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC) The following Sentence needs to be edited: From 1998 to 2010, he led the Colts to eight (seven AFC South and one AFC East) division championships, three AFC championships,[reply]

Peyton Manning did win three AFC Championships but only two of them were with the Colts. The other was with the Broncos.

Note: duplicate of edit request below Mz7 (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

198.162.72.25 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC) please change the following statement: From 1998 to 2010, he led the Colts to eight (seven AFC South and one AFC East) division championships, three AFC championships, and change it to: From 1998 to 2010, he led the Colts to eight (seven AFC South and one AFC East) division championships, two AFC championships,[reply]

Peyton Manning won three AFC Championships, two with the Colts and one with the Broncos

Done I did a quick fact-check, and according to AFC Championship Game#List of AFC Championship Games, it looks like you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit stats

Please update Peyton Manning's stats at the box under his picture at the top of his page.

Peyton is not the MVP for SB50. Miller is. Why did someone post false fact? Howery04 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Jameis Winston team request

Jameis Winston is listed as being on the Tennessee Titans in the "Controversy" / "Lack of media coverage on scandals" section. He is on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.buccaneers.com/team-and-stats/roster/Jameis-Winston/ebadd6a8-cc30-4cd8-a0be-fb410cc45d40

Manning's Postseason Record

Manning's postseason record as of the end of Super Bowl 50 is 14-13 all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D3C0:9D00:8143:A7F:59C1:3C71 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

Alan K McCarter [1]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Colquitt
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)[reply]

NPOV in controversy section

Please stop changing the titles of the controversy section. "Retaliation" is weasel word and there is no proof that any "mooning" ever occurred. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your titles give the impression of Manning being tried and found quilt. He wasn't. Until this is the case, do not add clickbaity, accusatory titles to bio that can hurt the man's rep. WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first title explicitly includes the word "allegation". The second title refers to several documented instances of the bullying of accusers. "Retaliation" is a weasel word and there is no evidence that a mooning ever occurred. All of the content in question is backed up by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a he haid she said incident. And your title format gives the impression that manning is guilty. That is problematic in the case of controversial topics. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She alleged that he sexually assaulted her, hence why the word "allegation" is included in the title. She reported the incident to a sexual assault center. She has also successful sued Manning twice for his actions concerning the event in question, as is shown in the reliable sources. "Retaliation" is a weasel word and there is no evidence that a mooning ever happened. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying of accusers and misogynistic comments; That's NPOV issue and sounds like you are attempting character assassination. The man has the right to hire investigators to investigate his accusers, and still can't find the comment where he allegedly hates women. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The several reliable sources given document several instances of Manning bullying his accusers. Manning made several misogynistic comments in his book and out loud to the trainer, including calling her a "bitch" and a statement speaking out against gender equality in football locker rooms. I am only repeating what reliable sources are stating. Also there is absolutely zero evidence that a mooning ever occurred. More than one witness cooperated the trainer's allegations according to the sources and the judge during the first lawsuit stated that if there was not a settlement, that Manning would have likely been found guilty of defamation as is also shown in the sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Freeman is a columnist, a blogger and not an investigative journalist. His opinion piece is not a reliable source for Peyton's Bullying. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOTCENSORED wikipedia must include all relevant perspectives. The section is question is a controversy section and Williams was simply commenting on the controversy surrounding Manning, neither I nor the text of the page endorses Mr. William's perspective, it simply states what it is. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that may be the case when it comes to government institutions or religions, but this is a case of a WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is stressed. You cannot skewer a person, jsut becasue you don't like him, especially not with sources that doesn't hold up as reliable a sources. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The titles do NOT violate WP:BLP as they are backed up by numerous reliable sources. Deleting a opinion which you disagree with is in violation of WP:NPOV as wikipedia is not censored. I am not skewering anyone, I am simply reporting on what reliable sources have stated. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then provide the source where Manning makes anti women comments and a reference that is not too close to source, that states manning is bullying his investigators. Hiring investigators itself is not bullying. has he threatened Sly or his family? WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Manning's misogynistic comments are reported on here [1] and [2], both of which are already cited in the article. Sly's parents called 911 after Manning's investigators falsely identified themselves as law enforcement, this most certainly falls under "bullying". ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ran through both articles. neither mentions manning being misogynistic. That's you own personal addition on the title which give to much negative weight. Which is also against wiki policy. Also, hiring investigators is not bullying. Or do you have proof manning told them to masquerade as officials to intimidate Sly? if that's the case, point m,e to your source, if not, remove your POV edits. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Manning comments in question are undeniably misogynistic. The descriptor "misogynistic" is used to describe the content of the following section which includes examples of Manning making misogynistic comments. The PIs were masquerading as law enforcement, this is a fact backed up by numerous reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that's at best your POV, at worst, your knee jerk reaction. Manning saying he doesn't want women in the men's locker room(when they're naked) isn't anti female. The journalists in cited articles didn't describe manning as a misogynist either, only hostile to the accuser. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing. The sources i read refer to the incident as sexual harassment not sexual assault(aka attempted rape). you show clear indication of malicious intent on this page. please refrain from such actions in the future. WillsonSS3 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per [3], the incident was reported to the Knoxville Sexual Assault Crisis Center. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Center's name is sexual assault crisis center, but the crime is mentioned as sexual harassment. wouldn't surprise me if the center admits sexual harassment victims as well. either way, you should write what the article says, not your own conclusions. WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you are now in violation of the 3 revert rule. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Facts about Manning's 2015 season

In addition to needing to update Manning's postseason statistics, this collection of sentences should be changed from "On February 7, 2016, the Broncos defeated the Carolina Panthers 24-10 in Super Bowl 50 and Manning became the oldest starting quarterback to both play in and win a Super Bowl, and the first to start and win two Super Bowls with two different franchises. The victory gave Manning his 200th overall win including regular season and playoffs, making him the starting quarterback with the most wins in NFL history, snapping a tie with Brett Favre." to read "On February 7, 2016, the Broncos defeated the Carolina Panthers 24-10 in Super Bowl 50 and Manning became the oldest starting quarterback to both play in and win a Super Bowl. Manning also became the first ever quarterback to start two Super Bowls with two different franchises and also became the first quarterback to win a Super Bowl with two different franchises. Additionally, the Broncos' Super Bowl victory gave Manning his 200th overall career win, including both regular season and playoff games, making him the starting quarterback with the most combined regular season and postseason wins by a quarterback in NFL history, snapping a tie with Brett Favre.". - Joshua Haralson130.108.221.225 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[4] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Glad we can all agree on this. Looks like our best approach is to remove the entire section, which has already be done [5], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dear Dsaun100, you are acting illogical. 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's 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

One of WP's rules is anonymity by its contributing editors. Cla68 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean 'psuedonymity'? Every editor either has an IP address or an username. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peyton_Manning&oldid=706480493"