Talk:Darren Sharper

suspicious edit

this edit looks suspicious. Can someone check it up? NerdyNSK 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Life after football

In this section, Sharper's recent charges are mentioned. After reading through a number of different articles from different news sources, I noticed they either used the word "". Sharper had two counts of "rape" or Sharper was charged with "sexual assault" twice. I'm not sure which phrase we should include as they obviously both have a negative connotation but are notable enough to be included on his page. I also found an article [1] which briefly describes the difference between sexual assault and rape in each state. However, California is not included. I've provided three different references to back up these claims on Shaper's page, each of which have a slightly different description of his charges. Which phrase do you think we should include: "rape" or "sexual assault"? Let me know your thoughts. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed this to have the title "Sexual assault convictions" as there was very little information about anything other than those convictions. - Yet to get Wikipedia acct

Opening paragraph

Should not the opening line read "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a former American football safety and rapist. He played in the National Football League (NFL) for fourteen seasons" The allegations against him is that of a sexual predator which makes him a criminal of the worst kind. This page seems to down-play his crimes against women. An other very interesting piece that explains how he was able to get away with his crime spree for so long is http://www.propublica.org/article/police-fail-stop-nfl-darren-sharper-rape-spree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandersonza (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

My edit showed up in the mobile version but not in the desktop one. What gives?

Very recently, I added a news source. That news source is only present in the mobile version of the article. It is present in both when I am logged in and only then.

Furthermore, the edit is not listed on "View History" UNLESS I am logged in.

I understand that sourcing is a sensitive subject, so please either remove this source completely or add it to both versions, mobile and desktop, so there is no inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrokeOfMidnight (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There aren't two different versions of the article. Are you talking about this edit? If you are it is available. -- GB fan 00:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

GB Fan, yes, I'm talking about the most recent edit. When I click on the link you posted, then yes, I do see it -- a citation after "Las Vegas". But, I swear, I tried using a different browser and my cell phone, as well. The citation is missing from the desktop version, period. And no trace of the edit in "View History", like the edit never happened. I tried emptying up the cache. Didn't help.

Maybe try using a clean browser session, with no cookies and the cache emptied up. Do you still see the citation?

--StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at it on three different devices. In the mobile version, the Wikipedia app, and the desktop version and in three different browsers. I see the reference everywhere. -- GB fan 01:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit does appear in the edit history and the page reflects your changes. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I cannot explain this then. Looking at the HTTP headers for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Sharper (the desktop version), I get

Last-Modified: Sun, 05 Jun 2016 16:35:38 GMT

which is the time stamp of my PREVIOUS edit, as you can see on the history page. But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Sharper (the mobile one) gives

Last-Modified: Sun, 05 Jun 2016 18:40:28 GMT

which is correct. I'm going to wait 24 hours or so and then try to talk to someone technical at WP, if the quirk persists. --StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at it again this morning on a completely different network and machine, two different browsers, one logged in and one logged out. It shows up on both, I don't understand why you would not see it everywhere. -- GB fan 11:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything is fine for me too, as of this morning! Thanks everyone. I do have a suspicion what went wrong. WP uses server-side caching. I wonder if it's possible that different caches serve different regions. E.g., WP readers in NY are served by one cache, the readers in LA by another. If so, that would explain it: some caches were left stale for too long. Anyway, this is all water under the bridge now. --StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Serial Rapist

The consensus is against including "serial rapist" in the opening sentence. Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The term is an accurate and well sourced description of Sharper. It is also one of the most important parts of his biography. It belongs in the lead. Recent, and unexplained efforts to remove it need to desist. If you have objections they should be stated here and consensus sought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The rape convictions have been in the lead forever. No objections to having them there at all. But shouldn't the opening sentence be used solely to establish notability? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He is at least as notable for his rape conviction as for his NFL career, though I suspect that this is in part due to his athletic history. The legal cases have gotten incredible coverage. I honestly don't think you can mention the one without acknowledging the other. Someone objected to the term being placed before the reference to his NFL job. I'm not inclined to quibble over that. But yeah, it needs to be in the opening sentence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He's not notable for being a rapist. If not for his NFL career, we wouldn't know who he is. He's an NFL player first and foremost. His rapes are a significant part of his bio, and should (and are) be discussed in the lead. But to put "serial rapist" in front of NFL player is a serious attempt to smear him. That's not what we do. We should let the facts speak for themselves in a more straightforward way. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: "is a former American football safety and serial rapist who played in the National Football League (NFL) for fourteen seasons"... the serial rapist part being in between his NFL position and NFL career length is odd. I won't remove it now, but I ask that you do, or at least make "it is a former American football safety who played in the National Football League (NFL) for fourteen seasons and serial rapist". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The term is accurate here, but I have always thought that sticking "serial rapist" into the first sentence makes this read awkwardly, in a tabloidish manner. I think it would be clearer to add something at the end of the paragraph, or even better in a separate second paragraph, along the lines of "After Sharper's retirement, he faced charges in multiple jurisdictions that he had engaged in a pattern of serial rape over a number of years. He is now serving a 20 year prison sentence on multiple rape and drug-related charges." --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggested rewording which covers the salient points and I think reads more smoothly than the current version.

Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a former American football safety and serial rapist. He played in the National Football League (NFL) for fourteen seasons before which Sharper played college football for the College of William & Mary. He was drafted by the Green Bay Packers in the second round of the 1997 NFL Draft, also playing for the Minnesota Vikings and New Orleans Saints. Sharper was a five-time Pro Bowl selection, and was named to the NFL's 2000s All-Decade Team. He finished his career with 63 interceptions, 6th on the NFL's all-time leader list at the time of his retirement. In August 2016, Sharper was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to multiple rape and drug-related charges.

References

-Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Alternate version above as it is concise, neutral, and accurately summarizes the body. Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Muboshgu does this look OK to you? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's better. I don't think I object to that. We'll see :) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Instead of "serial rapist", it should probably be "serial rapist and illicit drug distributor" because he was convicted of both. Why mention rape, while leaving drugs out? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't think the drug charges are on the same level as the serial rapes. If he just got busted for drugs it would have gotten five minutes of coverage on ESPN and been promptly forgotten. Serial rape is a big deal. That has garnered as much attention as his NFL career. But if there is consensus for it, we can add that to the lead sentence. But I don't think it's warranted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • He got 18 years for drugs in a federal court and 20 for rape in a state court of Louisiana. So, yeah, there is a two-year difference. But is this such a big difference, you think? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm looking at it from the perspective of the RS coverage and where the emphasis was. Legally the differences were slight as reflected in the jail time. But the coverage was pretty much all about the rape charges. To the extent the drug charges were covered it was very much an "and also" sort of thing. We need to recall that the lead sentence is for what the subject is best known for. Like I said, if there is consensus we can add it to the lead sentence. But I think it's covered adequately. Another issue is we don't want to make the lead sentence sound clunky or word it in such a way as might provoke questions about WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Precisely! I hope you now see why I suggested to keep all the hideous stuff out of the opening sentence. PS: Federal charges are generally regarded as more serious. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Leaving the rape convictions out of the opening sentence would have raised DUE issues of their own given his sexual proclivities have garnered at least as much coverage as his NFL job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Well, if that's the case, why not call him, say, "convicted felon" or "convicted criminal"? That should take care of WP:DUE, while keeping the sentence short. Agreed? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
              • That's too vague. And the wording sounds like how we might describe someone convicted of check forgery or embezzlement. Honestly if I read something like that in a BLP I would immediately wonder what the authors of the article didn't want to have to talk about alongside the guy's great football career. He is a convicted serial rapist. That may not be pleasant, but it's a fact and we can't downplay it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
                • Vague or open-ended? From WP:BEGIN, "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". From MOS:INTRO, "Editors should avoid [...] over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Finally, who could accuse us of an agenda when we give all the g[l]ory details, pleasant or not, away almost immediately? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • There is a big difference between being overly specific and stating plain fact. And naming in a very short sentence the two things for which the subject is best known is hardly overloading it. If we were actually limited to naming just one thing for which the subject was best known, I'd have to argue for his status as a serial sex offender. Honestly, I think he is more well known today for that than his NFL career. In the end I think we have gone back and forth enough that it's time to acknowledge that we just have a respectful disagreement here. If a consensus forms supporting the addition of his drug conviction to the opening sentence (which I think would go against the guidelines you just cited) I will bow to it. But I really don't see much likelihood of removing from the opening sentence all reference to his criminal behavior or watering it down. In any case there comes a time when common sense should tell us it's time to end a debate with no prospect of changing one another's mind. I'll leave the last word to you. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • Thank you, Ad Orientem. Some people in this thread are still on the fence, so why not wait, say, 24h. Incidentally, you absolutely did change my mind to some degree (see above). Sincerely, StrokeOfMidnight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to including "serial rapist" in the opening sentence. It's preposterous to say he's equally well known for his rape conviction than his NFL career, which to me is clearly a case of recentism bias. His rape conviction is getting this much press because of his NFL career. A section at the end of the lead is sufficient. Lizard (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support rewrite to "Sharper is a former American football safety, broadcaster, and convicted felon". This way is more neutral, doesn't omit his drug charges, and similar in tone to O. J. Simpson, another former NFL player who is a convicted felon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support rewrite proposed by Dissident93 above. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• I could support either Dissident93's or Ad Orientem's rewrites. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Rewrite Referring to him as a convicted felon is vague (intentionally?) to the point of rendering the reference meaningless. The same could be said of someone who passed bad checks. He is a serial rapist and should be named as such. Let's stop with the attempts to water this down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. There is no consensus at this time in favor of rewriting the lead in this manner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • He was also indicted of felony drug charges, so I'm not sure why you oppose this. WP:LEAD says we need to summarize the article, and this is the best way to do it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Because he is currently more famous for his career as a serial rapist than anything else. The fact that this fame rests in good part on his previous NFL career in no way alters the fact this is what he is best known for. His drug convictions would have garnered him less than five minutes coverage on ESPN on their own. Most people don't even know about them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I'm still floored that you actually believe he's more famous as a rapist than as a football player. Maybe you aren't very familiar with football, but if not for the convictions (and maybe still) Sharper would be a shoo-in for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the highest honor in the sport. And he had success with three different teams, garnering fame in three different markets. We're not dealing with O. J. Simpson here, whose trial was the biggest media circus of the 20th century. There's a legit argument that Simpson is more well-known for his convictions than his career. Sharper, however, is unequivocally known more for his football career. Lizard (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly support the 'convicted felon' version. Also, support not mentioning crimes in the opening sentence at all - see previous discussion. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I vehemently disagree. But if it came down to it, I'd rather have all references removed from the lead than the ridiculously vague "convicted felon" put in there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Dissident93 language and reasoning for first sentence. Oppose stand-alone "serial rapist" reference in the first sentence. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC

Question Should the opening sentence of the lead reference Sharper's status as a serial rapist? Please review the above discussion prior to commenting. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

• Oppose per above and apparent consensus re Dissident93's language and reasoning. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the 'convicted felon' start is legally correct language, and more in keeping with WP:BLPSTYLE guide to be conservative and avoid WP:TABLOID. I also agree with the point Lizard made that he's notable because of the NFL career, the rapes were not numerous or notorious enough to otherwise gain headlines. Mention of drugs and rape at the end of the lead as now shown seems right. (Though later article isn't fully clear on the overall charges/sentences.) Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will strike through my comments in the discussion above after reading through other users' arguments. Sharper is known for his football career in the NFL, not being a convicted felon and while "serial rapist" may be more descriptive, it reads like a tabloid as Markbassett noted. Meatsgains (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Called by a bot. I found no cite supporting the single allegation in the article that he was a serial rapist. In fact I couldn't even find any convictions for rape. There are plenty of allegations and indictments, which is a formal accusation, but no convictions. Yet there is a section called "Convictions of rape..." without any convictions. Who wrote this article, a lynch mob? --Light show (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my arguments on the talk page. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Seems like imminent WP:SNOW close. Only one editor by my count is advocating for this languge (I take no issue with the RFC which does serve to generate external visibility and feedback). Possibly revisit when the article's severe citation issues are resolved, as the lede must be supported by the body. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While he is notable primarily as a football player, the rape allegations have made him notable to people who had never heard of him before and never would have, for reasons that have nothing to do with football. Thus, the combined fact that there are multiple allegations of and indictments for yet just one conviction for rape belongs in the lead. All the rest of it is plea agreements. I think we're all aware that people will accept plea bargains for things they didn't do in order to escape likely convictions and longer prison terms. [That said, I'm not suggesting he didn't do it; rather, WP is not in a position to act as judge.] Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP policies, not to mention MOS:WTW, we cannot in Wikipedia's voice call him a serial rapist. We can't even quote one or a handful of sources doing so without balancing that with less accusatory views, per WP:UNDUE. If there were multiple convictions for it, then we could, since it would fit the objective definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SMcCandlish. Serial rapist is not appropriate language under these circumstances in the lede. Looks like a snow close to me too. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"former American football safety and broadcaster and a convicted felon"

Now that it's obvious what the opening sentence won't be, let's make sure we agree on what it will be. Personally, I'm still of the same opinion that the opening sentence need not mention his criminal status. A few sentences about it at the end of the lead should suffice.Lizard (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Rolf Harris is a good example of what the lede should look like. Omit "felon" from opening sentence and leave the first paragraph for his athletic career. A separate paragraph should summarize his brief broadcasting career, arrests, convictions and sentences.LM2000 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Strongly support omitting the "convicted felon" part, via recentism. In my opinion, things are already tilted, the way they are now. Light show hilariously pointed out that the article reads like it was written by a lynch mob. :) Not sure I agree, but the point is that there is probably no need to amplify this inadvertent (and rather inevitable) imbalance. The drug-rape case wouldn't have received as much (or any) attention, had the offender's name been John Doe. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic Actually, I'd imagine the irony of someone's name actually being John Doe would get a bit of media attention. But I digress. Lizard (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Now that I look, the "convicted felon" was added to Simpson's page only recently, and seemingly without any discussion. So even our page for a polarizing individual such as Simpson, widely known for his criminal activity (although admittedly more so for the crime he wasn't convicted of) normally wouldn't mention his criminal status in the opening sentence. Does this change your proposal at all, since you suggested the wording partly based on Simpson's lead? Lizard (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. If "convicted felon" has to be moved outside the first sentence, it should just belong elsewhere in the lead. At any case, him being listed as a serial rapist (in the lead) should be omitted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Small error in the sentence with the 19th footnoot.

Hello,

Long time reader, first time edit. There is an inaccuracy in the paragraph with the 19th footnote. The drugs he used (Xanax and Valium) are benzodiazapines and Ambian is a sedative. None are opioids, which is what they are called in that line. Just thought I'd mention it.

"Prescription opioids mixed with alcohol made the victims unconscious and unable to remember, undermining their credibility with the police.[19]"

Edit request: wrong date

"On January 25, 1997, Sharper appeared in Super Bowl XXXII as the Packers lost to the Denver Broncos 31–24 and failed to repeat as Super Bowl Champions"

This should say 1998. Sharper was not on the team in January 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.3.181 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite first sentence to include the fact that Sharper is a convicted rapist

There was discussion in 2016 to change the introductory sentence to include Sharper's rape convictions. Since that discussion, Sharper has pleaded guilty to numerous additional rape charges in California and Arizona. The gravity of these crimes, as well as the fact that Sharper remains incarcerated for them, is sufficiently important to include in the first sentence. As currently written, this page implies that Sharper's accomplishments in the NFL are very important, while his multiple rape convictions are a mere footnote.

Suggested wording of the first sentence: "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a convicted rapist and former American football safety." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:CC80:CEB0:3898:D2FA:6252:D014 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Rookie season statictics incorrect.

Article reads 16 touchdowns, should read 16 tackles.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

In the section "Convictions of rape and drug distribution" under the subheading "Allegations" ...

Beneath the bulleted list, there is a one-sentence paragraph that is redundant, merely repeating information already provided in the last 2 bullets. Because it merely repeats what has just been documented, adds no additional information, and references the same footnotes, I am requesting that it be deleted to tighten up the text. Eclecticist32 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

He's on the list of most prolific rapists.

This guy is on the wiki list of most prolific rapists, yet this article doesn't bother to mention the fact that he's a twice convicted serial rapist anywhere in the opening paragraph? This is ridiculous. 2601:1C0:6F80:2480:38D7:C02C:F1B0:239B (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ray Lewis

Why are we equating a situation where someone was convicted of a crime to one where they were not? I don’t have anything to say about Ray Lewis’ actions in this context other than it seems erroneous to shoehorn him into the discussion about electing Darren Sharper, who is serving a very long prison sentence for raping multiple women. The page is locked so I can’t edit out this small bit of user based analysis that comes after the end of the source. It takes away from the article itself as well, but I think the major issue at hand is that Ray Lewis doesn’t deserve to be associated with a monster. If someone wants to read about his off the field problems they can find it in his own wikipedia article. Genghisbongsmongolianbbq (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed that line, it was added last month. Unless there's a compelling reason to compare specific players to Sharper, with sourcing to back it up, we should not be doing so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

Under section "Convictions of rape and drug distribution", sub-section "Allegations", last bullet list item, within sentence "[...] before taking the women his hotel room and [...]" the word "to" is missing. The corrected segment: "[...] before taking the women to his hotel room and [...]" Nicksil (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RE: Serial rapist

It has been 7 years since the discussion which resulted in info about him being a convicted serial rapist being removed from the lede. His crimes have become even more widely known since then. I think it's time to mention that he is a convicted serial rapist in the opening sentence. As it stands, the wiki for this article appears in Google results with no mention of his awful crimes at all; is this by design? And if so, why? The man is notable for being a rapist and a football player; if this is actually a neutral encyclopedia, both facts deserve top billing. Pdxrosss (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen it there before so evidently people have put it back and removed it. Maybe it’s a WP:WEIGHT thing as it’s not as widely known as, say, the Aaron Hernandez k*llings. Eg224 (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)