Talk:Manti Te'o

Conflicting information

I took these sentences from the Professional Career, 2013 NFL Draft Section:

"Notre Dame has not seen one of their linebackers selected in the first round since Bob Crable in 1982." "He was selected in the second round, 38th overall by the San Diego Chargers,[49] as the second inside linebacker in the draft behind Alec Ogletree…. He is the highest selected Notre Dame linebacker since Demetrius DuBose in 1993."

They contradict, am I right? Does anyone know which (if any) is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.37.49 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Manti Teʻo → Manti Te'o – Despite being from Hawaii, his last name does not actually have an ʻokina in it. It is a normal old apostrophe. http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20081001_from_the_point -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Girlfriend death hoax

I'm not going to touch the article yet as this revelation is a bit on the "fresh" side, but prepare yourselves: A Deadspin hoax revelantation is starting to make a few headlines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I put it in the article. It's definitely interesting how the facts will pan out with this. --Gloriamarie (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The story has indeed made its way into other sources in the main media. I am confused, though. He never (physically) met this girl? Yet, he claimed that she was his girlfriend with whom he was in love? Is that the story? Is that what happened? I am totally confused. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like he made claims to have contacted the girl online and, somehow without realizing it was fake, over the phone. However, it does mention that he (somehow) met her in Hawaii around 2010 and 2011. Taking the article at face value, I think that we might here a confession from Te'o within the next few days or weeks, granted this sentence is speculation. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as Te'o making a confession ... the main story was subsequently updated, with a statement from Te'o. His statement reads: This is incredibly embarrassing to talk about, but over an extended period of time, I developed an emotional relationship with a woman I met online. We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her. To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone's sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating. It further pains me that the grief I felt and the sympathies expressed to me at the time of my grandmother's death in September were in any way deepened by what I believed to be another significant loss in my life. I am enormously grateful for the support of my family, friends and Notre Dame fans throughout this year. To think that I shared with them my happiness about my relationship and details that I thought to be true about her just makes me sick. I hope that people can understand how trying and confusing this whole experience has been. In retrospect, I obviously should have been much more cautious. If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that others will be far more guarded when they engage with people online than I was. Fortunately, I have many wonderful things in my life, and I'm looking forward to putting this painful experience behind me as I focus on preparing for the NFL Draft. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of discrepancies in the "hoax" claim -- earlier stories reported that Manti Te'o and Lennay "exchanged glances" three seasons ago (2009) at Stanford. How does that comport with the hoax theory and that he had been tricked by an online persona? Strangely, that in-person meeting account has been removed from the South Bend Tribune site. The cached version can be seen here: [1]. There's a lot that needs to be reconciled, and be ready for more to come. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I corrected a spelling of Kekua's name in that section. I checked the source just to make sure it had no alternate spelling and I could not find any, so I went ahead and fixed it. If anyone is aware of any legit different spellings, let it be known. AlaGuy (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the hoax rate its own section rather than being under his senior season? The article is basically chronological ... it seems odd to have the hoax all the way at the end after the section on the NFL draft. Also, if the hoax winds up hurting his draft stock, it's going to be odd to say, "his draft stock was hurt by the girlfriend hoax, but stay tuned - we're not going to tell you about it until after we tell you about his NFL career." --B (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

*Assuming this all is true (and the hoax suggested by DeadSpin doesnt pan out to be just a PR stunt from his reps for damage control)* - While the "Girlfriend hoax" section is informative, it seems to have taken over the article!? I agree that though maybe the controversy should have a page its own - whether or not that happens, the edit of that section here needs trimmed down to a summary. Any additional information could be referred to in the cited links.

For example (as of this comment), the top introduction section of Mr. Te'o's page is at 164 words. But the "Girlfriend hoax" section is at 530 words. Even with a 'current event' news story, that seems biased/slanted. --Trep26 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

--- this all sounds like bullshit -- joeycoolguy69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.50.69 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

sources on hoax

Currently, there is only one reference in this Wikipedia article to the Deadspin article, the article which contains all the original investigative details of uncovering the hoax. Please utilize this article from Deadspin to do a lot of the writing on the Hoax section. Third and fourth party sources can get a lot of the Deadspin details wrong. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

New article on controversy?

It might be getting to the point where this whole controversy merits an article of its own. I don't think it's quite there yet, but I see it coming on the horizon. This is getting complex and twisty. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd just warn anyone who creates the article that someone, rightly or wrongly, will quickly put it up for deletion review and there will then be a long argument over whether to keep it or not. If it's deleted, the time and effort that goes into creating the article will of course be lost, and if kept, the deletion review may still take up as much or more time as writing the article, depending on the lengths to which one is prepared to go to try and defend it. This is not to necessarily warn against doing it, but just to warn as to what one would be getting into.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And i'll also add that what Bdell555 said is true. I sometimes think they get a kick out of deleting someone's afternoon of hard work just to prove they are more deeply rooted in Wikipedia than newly experienced editors. There is no recourse either once your work is deleted. All you can do is move it to your talk page where nobody will ever find it. Tomato expert1 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's fine in this article. -Koppapa (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's fine in this article at this time. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a pretty discussion about the fact that this is a Samoan hoax, something Samoans do frequently enough to each other, over at Culture Digitally. Maybe we should add it to the reference? Benamos (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Catfish

He got catfish'd, didn't he? I don't see the word in this article. [2] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I added it into a "see also". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently whatever was added has been removed. This CNN article says ...but his stock took a dramatic tumble after the infamous "Catfish" scandal... I was wondering "Catfish? Did I miss something?" and so searched the WP article for the word "Catfish" as I did not know what it meant. I see Spadaro's addition which linked to wikt:catfishing. Four days later another editor removed it with the comment rm dictionary "see also". I've added a link to wikt:catfishing in the body of the article. --Marc Kupper|talk

Y2Kcrazyjoker4 reverted the addition with the comment "not part of the original quote" I don't know what the "original quote" part means. A Google News search for "Manti+Te'o"+catfishing "Manti Te'o" catfishing gets about 1,750 results. It appears the term "catfishing" is being widely used. I came to this article to find out what the term meant. When I found it was not mentioned I saw this talk thread and realized some people had been using the term "catfishing" in January when the story broke and that it's still being used today. I'm surprised that Catfishing does not redirect to this article yet. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your addition of the term "catfish" altered a direct quote from a source. If you want to add the term elsewhere where it is relevant or expand upon the catfish phenomenon, that's fine, but don't add information to direct quotations. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if one believes that he didn't participate in the hoax. Walterego (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the girlfriend hoax section have its own lede?

Just a suggestion (and this would probably apply to many wikipedia articles), but shouldn't the "style" of the girlfriend hoax section have a summary first paragraph, a leading lede, and then the paragraphs detailing chronological order? this would be similar to the way a separate article is written, because the way it is now, we each have to be taken down the garden path in order to get the facts. I just wanted to know basically what was going on. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Even if that mini "lead" is only a sentence or two, it can be helpful to bring readers up to speed on the basic facts (in a nutshell). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced content

I disagreed that entire sourced paragraphs should be removed. I tried twice to get Y2kcrazyjoker4 to use the talk page but he refuses, even though he seems to have now added the text back again. There may be some ownership issues given the edit summary where the editor appears to think that they can remove it because they wrote it. Ownership may also be an issue given the insistence on using phrases like "newsflash" in edit summaries to address other users attempting to start a discussion with them. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've invited Y2kcrazyjoker4 here for a third time after edit warring again but this time with another user. The reference and sentence being remove helps to establish that multiple secondary sources share an opinion being presented in the article. I also see zero reason to be removing reference names. I have no idea what that accomplishes other than possible confusing others in the future in the name of saving a few bytes of data. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence in question adds absolutely no value to the article: "An ESPN reporter also felt that the voice sounds feminine." First of all, by not saying who this reporter is, we are assigning value to their opinion when there is nothing to demonstrate why their opinion is important. You might as well say "An anonymous Wikipedia editor also felt that the voice sounds feminine". Also, this is just another case of "piling onto someone's side of the story". This isn't a court case, this article doesn't need to go down the line and get everyone's opinion on the matter and see if they agree with every new piece of information revealed about this hoax. Mentioning Te'o's and Couric's thoughts is sufficient (or you could simply say "the consensus among the media was the voice sounded feminine"). Lastly, adding ref names to references that are only used once serves to lengthen the article unnecessarily. If someone is savvy enough to know to reuse a reference like that (and knew to look over the reference for a name), they can add a reference name in at such time that it is needed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Y2K. If Te'o and Couric say the voice sounds feminine, that's sufficient. Saying that an unnamed ESPN reporter agrees adds nothing but length to a section that needs to be concise as possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out that I feel that Y2kcrazyjoker4 seems to be taking this personally. I add cursing in an edit summary to the list above of reasons why I feel this. Y2k, relax. There's really no reason for there to be an edit war about this.

Second, there's no reason to remove reference names. At all. Increasing the length of the article? Is that really a reason to remove content that's not visible? I argue that removing them and waiting for someone who's "savvy enough" to recreate a reference name if needed is asinine and a complete waste of several editor's time.

As for the third opinion that the voice sounded feminine, it's not completely useless and certainly not like a Wikipedia editor giving their opinion in the article (one is a reliable source and the other is OR) but I'm willing to compromise and agree that it should be removed for the sake of brevity. I also don't feel that it's piling on because I haven't heard or see of another source that feels that it doesn't sound like a female voice meaning that there apparently is no "other side". Again, I'm willing to look past that for the sake of brevity.

Muboshgu, thank you for commenting here and not edit warring. I didn't see that you had replied before I reverted your edit and asked you to comment here. I'll revert myself while reapplying the reference names. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The third opinion is valuable in that Te'o has a bias as to thinking it is female, and Couric was asked directly by Te'o and has the issue of politeness. The ESPN reporter has no reason to not state their exact feeling. And as the voice does sound feminine, it is relevant to have an uninvolved third party refute the lawyer's claim that it was from a male - his client. The fact that the ESPN article doesn't give the author's name is not important as we know it wasn't written by Te'o or Couric, so is a valuable unbiased referenced opinion. Wickorama (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Schaap wrote the article and the opinion is his. I'm not sure that it no longer being anonymous makes it a warranted bit of information in the article but this should at least clear a roadblock argument being made. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it was Jeremy Schaap doesn't change it for me. Granted he's more respectable than some of the other writers ESPN employs, but I still don't see the need for a third party opinion on it. It sounds like the argument for adding this third party confirmation is that Couric is that felt pressure to say the voice sounded feminine because of "the issue of politeness", and to me that's a ridiculous argument. Ask Sarah Palin if Couric will pull her punches. The idea that Couric isn't reliable enough to judge the gender of the voice, and that therefore we need to include someone else saying essentially "ditto" is silly to me. Let's work to keep this section complete with necessary detail and free of excessive content that will make it difficult to read. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Three seems unneeded in a section that could use some pruning. I also don't feel that Couric's opinion is in any way bias. I don't particularly care which two opinions are used but I've always felt that, on the whole, ESPN has issues with bias as they obviously intend to entertain more than anything (I note that fact that they chose to talk about a player that played two games this season more than any other topic in 2012). The opinion doesn't seem to be contentious at all so I don't think it will matter which references are chosen. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely there is a more concise way to say the voice sounds feminine without having to attribute everyone's opinions. Wouldn't the message/tone be identical if the sentence just read "Te'o thought that the voice played on three voicemails from Kekua 'sounds like a girl', a sentiment with which many agreed"? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'd say that wording is better than what we presently have. I don't think the other parties need to be explicitly named. Interested readers can click on the source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Despite the revelation that Kekua did not exist..."

This sentence in the last paragraph of the section on "girlfriend hoax" implies that Reagan Maui'a lied. This is not known to be true and it is certainly plausible that the hoaxer Tuiasosopo introduced him to a girl, possibly even the female cousin implicated in the recordings. As per basic BLP, we should remove the editorializing prose right up to the first comma in its entirety.76.239.25.95 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the concern. There are two statements made. One is that Lennay doesn't exist which is a fact unless you want to argue semantics and change the sentence to mention that Lennay was really a guy pretending to be a girl. The other is that Maui'a claimed to have met Lennay which, as far as he knew, was Lennay. I think that you're reading into the sentence and, on your own, assuming that it means that he lied. I don't believe that violated WP:BLP.

What you can do, however, is come up with a sentence that gets the point across and post that here. That would be the best way to solve the problem you see in the text. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with OlYeller21. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Update tense?

He is no longer at school, correct? So the tenses should be changed is->was --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't he be graduating in spring? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Last name pronunciation

Both the pronunciations (/ˈmæn.taɪ ˈteɪ.oʊ/, MAN-ty-TAY-oh) suggest that there is an extra vowel in his last name after the 'e'. His last name is "Te'o" which is a "Te" and an "o" sounding like "Teh-oh". There is no other vowel in the name and no extra 'Y' or 'I' sound. I know there is a trend in Wikipedia to promote the popular pronunciation rather than the correct pronunciation, but I would think that this just perpetuates the incorrect pronunciation rather than help people learn the real one. When people look to find the correct way to say his last name in Google, this article is the first link to pop up. Shouldn't it show the way he and his parents say it rather than Dr. Phil?!? If there is a source to show that he or his parents are putting an extra Y sound in the last name then please list it, if not, maybe it should more reflect the way it is spelled, like any other Polynesian name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyNair (talk • contribs) 06:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Security

It definitely surprises me that anyone can just come in here and edit this article. I saw plenty of things of just someone trolling the article saying how Te'o is homosexual when he has never said that and etc. Is there any way someone can come make this a protected article? I'm not too sure if this is the right way for me to suggest it, but this should be looked into. Just because he's not relevant like he was in 2013 doesn't mean these things don't happen. Adostaler (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Weight

Is this even necessary? His weight probably changes all the time. I'm sure after a trip to Burger King, he'll gain a few pounds.The height can stay though. Unless if he has late growth spurt, his height will always remain static.On the other hand, his weight will always change. Unless if they weigh him every three hours, it will never be accurate. It's not even notable either. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manti Te'o. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219011540/http://cfn.scout.com/2/927274.html to http://cfn.scout.com/2/927274.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Former footballer?

This players most recent contract expired January 2021, a long time ago for a professional athlete to be unattached.

When is it correct or them to be referred to as a 'former' American football linebacker? 90.242.79.211 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

An NBC News Asian America article, published yesterday, says, “The linebacker … most recently played for the Chicago Bears in 2021 and is currently a free agent”. Meanwhile, Pro Football Reference shows no play after his 2020/1 season in Chicago, where, if I read it right, he sadly played no games.[3] — SpikeToronto 16:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Girlfriend hoax" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Girlfriend hoax has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 1 § Girlfriend hoax until a consensus is reached. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)