Jump to content

Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Allow open editing

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

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

Edit Request on May 7 2013

Can we get some recent records added to the bio. Suche as Manning being only 1 of 3 to take 2 teams to a Super Bowl, throwing the most TDs in a year and over 2 years. Basically just make this current to include PMs career with the Denver Broncos. Gracias

Career achievements page needs love.

I've gone and moved some of the things in there, but it's still very bare. Swordman97 talk to me

There should be a blood line topic

There should be a blood line topic on how he is related to Archie, Eli, and Cooper, and how he was helped by them.MattW18 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

Peyton was also mentioned in rapper Nelly's 2004 hit "Heart of a Champion"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Champion_%28song%29</ref> Jcbragg13 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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. JustBerry (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 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 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Updated records

Drew Brees passed for 7 touchdowns today. Can this get edited under peyton's records to reflect that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.204.22 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Assualt Allegations (sp.)

I noticed a new section has been included in relation to allegations about Manning. A provisional glance suggests that these are properly sourced, but someone more familiar with the incidents should probably check these very carefully. I am sure I don't need to repeat the various policy statements from WP:BLP. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed various spelling mistakes in that section, but just to be clear - I am fixing spelling, no endorsing or checking those allegations. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2015

Change the picture ParkerHawks1825 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Manning benched

Manning was benched on 11/15/2015 for poor play. First time he was yanked from a game as starting QB for poor play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.49.5 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexual allegations

If the section titled sexual allegations, is inherently that, the language should reflect that. Thus, terms such as 'allegedly' should be placed in front of non court-proven incidents. Gooddecisionbasedonknowledge (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

References

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

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)

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,

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)

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,

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As per [3], the incident was reported to the Knoxville Sexual Assault Crisis Center. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
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)

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

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

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

Alan K McCarter [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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

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

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

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

"re-settle"

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

Several issues

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

Don't try to congest everything into one big sections. Especially the legal and medical explanations of certain products. It needs to be said, that it's banned by the NFL and possibly from when. Anything else, especially to whom it can be prescribed to doesn't have anything to do with Manning and it makes for unnecessary filler in an already oversized page. Also, making an oversized controversy section gives negativism on the page WP:UNDUE weight, (as it has already been mentioned by several others). WillsonSS3 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The three specific ailments in which GH can be legally prescribed to an adult under federal law is a fact explicitly from the original report and is an oft repeated fact in subsequent reports concerning the allegations against manning. It is unclear as to whether either Manning or his wife was suffering from any of the three ailments. I'd say most (before the Super Bowl) and about half (after the SB) of the articles written about manning have been about his HGH scandal and there has been an upturn in articles about his sex scandal recently. The GH scandal is being talked about by numerous sources on a fairly regular basis and he is being investigated by two major pro leagues and by the highest anti-doping body in the USA. Also, without the sentence on the employee verification, it appears that this article is endorsing the falsehood that Sly had not been working at the clinic during the fall of 2011. Also, the word "claimed" should be avoided, "said" is a much better alternative. It should specifically be stated when GH was banned by the NFL, when the testing regime was agreed to and when testing began, as to not confuse the reader as to the timeline involved. A specific desprciption of the sex allegations against manning should also be present as "he sat on her face" is not accurate as to what the trainer accused and is possibly misleading. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as the sexual assault allegations, there'd be more freedom to go into more detail perhaps in a standalone article on the overall hostile sexual environment charges against UT, which include the Manning incident.[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)

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

Manning Bowl

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

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

Controversy section

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

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

Edit warring over this

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

I am here to make sure that all notable information being reported about Peyton Manning by reliable sources is being included in this article and that controversial sections are not be censored out to preserve Manning's public image. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You didn't mention NPOV, again. A blog or discussion board might be more suitable for your interest. Or consider Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not making things up. Every single bit of content I have added is back up by multiple reliable sources. It is POV to not include information which is being widely reported by reliable sources just to protect manning's public image. I get that many people want to suppress manning's sex scandal and want to pretend it never happened, but regardless, it DID happen; and it is being widely reported upon by numerous reliable sources. I suggested that, as this article is maybe getting too big, that an article dedicated to Manning's scandals be created. There is more than enough content to justify such an article and is definitely notable considering the amount of coverage this topic is getting by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"I get that many people want to suppress manning's sex scandal and want to pretend it never happened" Care to provide diffs to identify these alleged editors? If not, please cease with the exaggeration. There is no consensus so far to add more gratuitous detail to this article. You're on your own if you choose to create a standalone.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I never stated that the hypothetical people which I was referring to were Wikipedia editors. I was simply stating that there appears to be a relatively strong hegemony which is seeking to downplay or ignore the sexual assault. There was no mention of the assault until recently on this article, even though it occurred over two decades ago. Not discussing Manning's sex scandal on his Wikipedia page would be like not mentioning Barry Bond's drug use on his or not talking about President Clinton's sex scandal on his page. It is POV to not discuss the sex scandal, especially as almost every article written about manning recently has been concerning his sex scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Davis, the media has been aware of this incident for years but never really publicized it that much, likely because that court document only tells one side, the accuser's, and the Mannings are forbidden from commenting on it. For obvious reasons, the media is hesitant to make accusations when only side is available. Shaun King, apparent isn't, and from what I understand he is now getting intense backlash against his editorial for presenting such a one-sided and apparently agenda-driven viewpoint. Cla68 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The court document was not made public until a couple days ago. The court document tells the facts of the case, it is not one-sided. This is not a manning fan-page and you cannot censor out information which you personally don't like if it is being widely reported on be reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research. Manning violated the court's gag order twice and Dr. Naughright successfully sued him twice for defamation. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP dictates that we take special consideration when considering adding pejorative information to a covered article. We treat sources with negative information with extreme prejudice. If you want to see a good example, check the talk page archives for the Shaun King (activist) article. You'll see what I mean. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires that all information be backed up by reliable sources. It is censorship to delete information from a page simply because you personally view as "pejorative". ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I originally did not name her, but recently (within the last week) another editor added her name. I support removing her name. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
In this case it's ok to name her because she has publicly identified herself and she has been named in mainstream news media. Cla68 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

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

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

Article getting too big

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

@ParkH.Davis: Your removing the bulk of a semi-decent overview in the lead is not the best place to cut if you are going to cite WP:LENGTH in your edit summary. Per MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." On the other hand, WP:NPOV on your part is becoming a concern when you are fine with re-inserting minutiae like testicles and anal areas. I'm not saying Manning is God, but we needed to apply due weight, and avoid righting great wrongs. Unless the assault allegations dominate the press a la Bill Cosby, it's too soon to tear down his generally positive reputation to date.—Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
We need to only include information which is being reported on by reliable source. During the last 24 hours it has been widely reported that Manning put his anal area (or rectum), his testicles, and his penis on the trainers head and face. I realize that sounds horrible, but it is what is being reported. Manning's sex scandal is being widely reported on my numerous reliable sources. It would POV to censor out content just to preserve Manning's so called "generally positive reputation". This is not a Manning fan page and should not be censoring out content which may seem to portray him in a negative light just because some people like him. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
We need to only include information which is being reported on by reliable source. You're going to run in trouble if you truly believe that text only needs to be reported. WP:NPOV is a policy as well that requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Therefore, we don't add content merely because it can be cited, we must maintain give proper WP:WEIGHT to sources. Moreover, you haven't addressed your paring down notable career accomplishments in the lead because of WP:LENGTH, but are willing to bloat the article with excessive detail over charges that have been given sporadic and generally light coverage. It's not censorship, its giving due weight and avoiding WP:RECENTISM.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It says "all of the significant views", meaning that other views than pro-manning views are to be represented. Virtually all of the news coverage about Manning these days is about his HGH scandal and his sex scandal. It would be POV to suppress these in favor of making Manning look like an infallible god or something. It does not violate BLP to report what reliable sources are saying. It is censorship to suppress any information about Manning's scandals and it is POV to pretend like they don't exist. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

NPOV

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

Technically, that's not the correct use of the POV tag. Since the issue in question is an interpretation of WP:BLP, that issue supersedes all other rules, including POV. Cla68 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP is not the issue here. The main objection the controversy section was that is was POV pushing. The content in question clearly does not violate WP:BLP as it is well sourced by numerous reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
BLP is the issue here, because this article IS a BLP! You need to understand that BLP trumps all other policies, including sourcing guidelines. So, POV is a secondary consideration with this article, and that's why your tag isn't appropriate for the situation. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The content in question clearly does not violate BLP though. The objections raised against the content is that is was POV pushing, not that it violated BLP. I am disputing the neutrality of this article now that all mentions of manning's scandals have been purged from this article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It violates BLP because it is undue. Please familiarize yourself with those policies before slapping tags on well written, established articles. You seem to be the only one that believes this article has POV issues, so please remove the tag and discuss your thoughts on this talk page.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
He is not the only one. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag. Lets discuss. As Cla68 noted, your concern is a BLP issue. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Zetrock was clear about our concern as he wrote below. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I am confused

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

There wasn't consensus to move the content, as evidenced by the section on this talk page, "Inclusion of 'Controversy' section." As I've stated all along, if accusations don't violate BLP, then they must be allowed for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, which was not the case for either one, despite the fact that there were reliable sources. I was told that there must be consensus to add controversial content altogether, otherwise its inclusion violates BLP. I'm only applying the standard here that was set forth for other pages, and as of this moment, there hasn't been any consensus whatsoever that the content should even be included. Dsaun100 (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored and that deliberately removing content to further a personal agenda is against wikipedia policy. I don't think that's what is going on here, but it something to keep in mind. There clearly was a consensus to move the content into an "off the field" section based on the thread above. The content in question clearly does not violate WP:BLP, as if it did, it would have been removed several months ago when it was first added. The content in question is well cited by numerous reliable sources. manning's scandals are vital to understanding his life and omitting them would violate WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you post the information you are attempting to add here on the talk page first so we all can discuss and reach somewhat of a consensus on what should be restored. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You can access past versions on wikipedia. I have made it clear several times about what content I want to be preserved. Either all of it is re-added or there should be no mention of any of manning's scandals. A half-hearted mention of his scandals would be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I am fine with the whole section being blanked, but only if a POV tag is added to this page and its good article status is removed. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Dsaun100, you are acting illogically. You are trying to ice Wikipedia editions based in two isolated examples. According to your own logic, all the controversies in Wikipages from every people mentioned in National Football League player conduct controversy page specially Ben Roethlisberger should be deleted. Wikipedia is important database and media source, so if more information we can provide better conclusions users make. But in your defense, there are other cases apart from Peyton Manning's Wikipage and those you mentioned to be solved like the Florida State Seminoles football page or if a Deflategate section should be added apart in Tom Brady's page, but that's going out to the point. This kind of issues should be solved being seen from major points and not from minor points. Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
How am I acting illogically? You continue to miss the point here, which shows you're actually the one acting illogically. I didn't contest the inclusion of controversial content in the first place. How many times do I need to say that? I'm merely applying the same standard that was used, according to the logic of other editors on player pages who've had similar allegations, as part of their consensus. Also, it's not as if the players in question are "nobodies," so to speak. They're high profile as well, so the way in which their controversial information is handled compared to Peyton Manning is valid, in my opinion. You can't have it both ways. Either you include sourced accusations, or you don't. Your issue should be with them, not me. Dsaun100 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
So finally we agree. On the bottom there's someone who expresses my point better than I. Leo Bonilla (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said above, "how were scandals handled elsewhere?" is not a useful question to ask. How we cover scandals (like anything else) is decided on a case-by-case basis according to the weight they are due based on their coverage in reliable sources. None of the other examples you've been trying to compare this page to, as far as I can tell, had anywhere near the level or duration of coverage that the Peyton Manning scandals did; so clearly, the controversy section belongs on this page (although possibly under a different title.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Controversy" section

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

I do not support the controversy section on Manning's page. The section, as it currently appears, is WP:UNDUE but I know if I were to condense it, I'd be immediately reverted. This might be worth opening an RfC. Thoughts? Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
An RfC is an overblown solution. See #Controversy section, where I just tried to take the content into the 'Personal life" section, with the rest of the content intact. AFAIC, the only one who keeps restoring the polarizing section name has been user ParkH.Davis. I would encourage others to make bold edits, and report others to WP:AN3 for edit warring as needed (that user has already been blocked for their edits on this page in the past).—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is necessary. It appears that there are 3-4 of us who want to make a drastic change to the controversy section, and only one editor who wants to keep it as is. So, we have consensus. Make the controversy section how you want it, or delete it entirely, up to you, then post what you did here. If it has majority support, it will stay and it doesn't matter if one editor tries to revert war about it, he/she will be going against consensus which is against the rules. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that this controversy section is too big and undue. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that this controversy section is too big and undue. Recent press coverage of a certain issue does not mean that it should be reported in an encyclopedia. I would agree there is consensus to remove this section and fold it into the personal life area. User ParkH.Davis, please try to gain consensus for the changes you would like in the future. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Calling it "his sex scandal" and "his illegal drug scandal" is skirting dangerously close to the line. This is exactly why we have and follow WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP is not being violated here as the the word "scandal" is being used by numerous reliable sources. BLP is only being violated when content which is not being cited by reliable sources is being used. Just because you personally disagree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal preference. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
If that's the case, then why was I not allowed to add similar accusations for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman? Those allegations were cited by reliable sources. I was told that, in the case of controversial content, there must be consensus when adding it, particularly as a primary section of a page. Maybe an administrator can elaborate, or somebody who is well-versed in BLP. Dsaun100 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot speak for any other page. Manning's scandals are being widely reported on by numerous reliable sources. I do not know why some are seeking to censor this article, but it is clear that there is a number of editors that are seeking to remove any content which they personally don't agree with. Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The controversies involving Ray Lewis, Adam 'Pacman' Jones or Jameis Winston for example are part of their own wikipages, so this should be exact the same with Manning. Leo Bonilla (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Then, as I pointed out, accusations should be allowed on the pages of Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, but they weren't, due to consensus and supposed BLP violations. So, the same logic should be applied here. Dsaun100 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that doesn't follow. Consensus on those pages is local (and would relate to the degree of coverage and focus those scandals had relative to the subject's overall history); it doesn't establish precedent. I would argue that Peyton Manning's scandals are an entire order of magnitude more high-profile in terms of the length, depth, and duration of coverage; they definitely need to be covered in considerable depth on this article (I would argue, based on my perception of coverage, that they could make up a significant portion of the entire article without violating WP:NPOV or WP:POV.) The question is not "does this hurt the article's subject?" or "do we cover scandals elsewhere?" The question is "is the way we cover this proportionate to the way it has been covered in other publications about the article's subject?" I think that in that respect, the deleted Controversies section absolutely belongs in the article -- it is typical of any discussion or coverage of Manning you're likely to see in the mainstream media. --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that view is incorrect. Please read WP:NOTNEWS. We do not let the media write the content of an encyclopedia. We do not write encyclopedic articles based on the mainstream media news cycle. We can draw from such articles, but if we wrote wikipedia using the current news cycle stories, I'm afraid we would have a very poor body of content. The University of Tennessee has asked that the lawsuit drop Peyton Manning as it appears to be just a publicity stunt to generate a buzz (http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/ut-asks-for-peyton-manning-claims-to-be-removed-from-federal-lawsuit-2c79f911-0695-1eed-e053-0100007-369895141.html). It looks like it worked exactly like the filers intended in the news universe, but thankfully our encyclopedia is more discerning. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think the the best consensus is moving the 'Controversies' section to the 'Off the field' section to show a better NPOV in this article. I cited a lot of examples with Kobe Bryant's page as my main example. So this specific issue should be discussed by the collective of Wikieditors. Also it's worth to add the new information published by The Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/02/19/the-mysterious-1994-incident-between-peyton-manning-and-a-tennessee-trainer/ Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting info in that WaPo report that Manning's lawyers wanted to suppress that incident, but the main witness located by the Post took Manning's side. Anyway, a smaller section with a neutral heading seems fine to me or incorporate it into the personal history section. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
There hasn't been consensus for the inclusion of the "Controversy" section yet. If it is allowed, then again, you must allow it for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman. That's why I asked if an administrator can elaborate on the matter, or those who are well-versed in BLP. Dsaun100 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Current consensus on this talk page appears to be fairly clear against having that "controversies" section. Cla68 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
We need to talk with an administrator: Wikipedia:ACE2015. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Do you want to initiate the complaint or should I? I also think there is an NPOV noticeboard as well. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you are the indicated to start this process. I hope other people may give different opinions because we are a small group discussing rhetorically and as I said, we are going nowhere. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Reading this section, it seems clear that there's a broad consensus to include the material from the Controversy section in some form (which I agree with; I think everything that was there clearly belongs in the article) but that it should be restored under a different section heading. Do we have proposals for a heading? --Aquillion (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If the section is to be restored and re-titled, it needs to be condensed significantly to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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

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

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

My complaint has nothing to do with BLP policy though. My complaint is that the lack of even a mention of Manning's scandals is violating WP:NPOV, as without said content, the article portrays Manning in an arbitrary positive light without discussing his flaws whatsoever. If someone is concerned with how Manning's "legacy" is being affected, they should take that up with the reliable sources being cited, not with me. I am not trying to destroy anyone's "legacy", I am simply trying to add information from reliable sources which is relevant to the subject. Wikipedia is not for fan pages, it for unbiased summaries of encyclopedic subjects. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The regulars at the BLP noticeboard usually have a very good sense on how to proportionally present negative information in a BLP so their input can be very helpful. That is, if there are any of them left anymore because WP has been bleeding established editors like crazy lately. Cla68 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of mention of HGH or sexual assault allegations is troubling

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

You seem to have a misunderstanding of this situation and the law in general (or you just have a very biased opinion). One main problem is that it's not at all a "FACT" that he violated the confidentiality agreement, as the 2003 lawsuit was not concerning that at all, but rather, it was a lawsuit claiming defamation in his/his dad's book regarding Manning's comment that she had a "filthy mouth"; the court documents prove that this was a defamation lawsuit, and nearly every news outlet covering this has made that clear. The fact that you are ignoring this or have misunderstood the situation shows that you do not have much authority to speak on what should be written about concerning these subjects, since a failure to recognize such crucial facts shows a clear bias or a lack of knowledge. Another big problem is that none of these things are facts, just allegations from both sides and third parties. Again, this shows a clear lack of legal knowledge on your part, since what is factual is determined by the jury should it go to trial. It did not, as it was settled, and none of the statements by either side can therefore be definitively determined as factual.
You do realize that this whole saga involves multiple lawsuits, right? There was the initial settlement from UT followed by a confidentiality agreement signed by UT, Naughtright, and Manning. In 2002, there was a defamation suit filed in response to the book. That suit was settled, and a subsequent confidentiality agreement was signed by both parties. In 2003, there was another lawsuit, this time regarding Manning's alleged breech of the confidentiality agreement from the 2002 lawsuit. That lawsuit was also settled.
Yes, there are multiple sides to these stories. However, how is it a solution to that issue to simply ignore the story altogether? Report the undisputed facts, that being the fact that these lawsuits were filed and settled. Then present the conflicting reports. Manning, in a 2001 affidavit, called the incident the "mooning incident," and says he pulled his pants down for a brief moment in order to moon Malcom Saxon, as a joke. He says his pants were never all the way down and that he did not make contact with Naughtright, who was examining his ankle. On the other hand, Naughtright says that Manning placed his unclothed testicles, rectum, and taint, on her face, and that she had to push him off.
So there, we can present the undisputed facts. The lawsuits happened. They were settled. That is not an issue. Then we can present both versions of events. P.S. sign your comments. Zetrock (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25488074/peyton-mannings-2003-affidavit-surfaces-to-tell-other-side-of-the-story
https://mgtvwate.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/peytonmanningaffidavit.pdf
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2712091/Factsofthecase.pdfZetrock (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, why anybody took the job of rewrite the section and just got it blanked? Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The section absolutely needs to be restored. Looking back over it, I can't see any real WP:BLP issues, but in any case people need to be more specific about their objection -- deleting the whole thing was a massive and serious WP:NPOV violation (since it removes a core part of the article's subject, something that based on coverage ought to make up a significant portion of its text.) I strongly support restoring the entire section as soon as possible; the people who object can then suggest narrower changes based on the parts they disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with you. I would argue that the contentious section was removed (WP:BRD) as a method of eventually reaching consensus on what should be restored, especially because this is a BLP. The scandals Manning was involved in are far from being the core part of the article and just mentioning it would be adequate. I don't see any need for this to consume a significant portion of the article's body. These scandals are not why Manning is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Not a significant portion but they have to be mentioned. Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Zetrock, but you are either very biased or you know very little about the facts of this situation, and about the law in general. You argue several things which are completely false and are misinterpreting

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

"The Manning Bowl"

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

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

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

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

List of career achievements by Peyton Manning

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

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

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

NPOV Discussion Closed?

Why was the NPOV Discussion closed? Am I understanding that this article can't even mention the scandals anymore? The sexual assault allegation[1][2] occurred in 1996, how is that "recent"? Both of the defamation lawsuits occurred more than a decade ago. I am a loss as to why this article has been systematically censored of any and all mentions of the subject's scandals. This is NOT a Peyton Manning fan page and the point of this article is not to make him seem like a god on earth. These scandals actually happened in his life, as is well documented in numerous reliable sources. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!!!!!! The reasoning given by the admin who closed the NPOV discussion was extremely racist and offensive. The admin blamed black people for "manufactur[ing]" the allegations against Peyton Manning. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't say what I redacted. You can say it was alleged. It is absolutely a violation of BLP and if you repeat it I will be forced to bring it to an administrator's attention. Please re-read what many editors have told you regarding BLP claims. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You can't remove other editor's comments. The sections in question both explicitly contained the word "allegations". This is clearly not a BLP violation as all of the content in question is well sourced by multiple reliable sources. Censoring this article of any and all mentions of the scandals is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I have an obligation to remove false claims against living people. Please provide proof that he was convicted of what you claim, or else please add alleged. I will continue to remove this claim until you back it up. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I never said that Manning was ever convicted of anything. I will report you if you continue to remove my comments. Please review WP:TPO. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you linked that policy because it's clear you didn't read it. I will quote: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies" is an example of acceptable editing. I will say this one more time, and then we're off to the admin board. It is a violation of BLP to say "The sexual assault happened." FULL STOP. You can say "the alleged sexual assault happened." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
My comment is not libel, a personal detail, or a violation of copyright, living persons, banning or anti-promotional policies. You removed my comment with the intent of changing its meaning which is a violation of WP:TPO. I will say again, the titles of the content in question explicitly, EXPLICTLY, included the word "allegations". Please stop removing my comments. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Calling something an allegation is not libel. It can be proven that he allegedly did the claims people are making because the numerous of well respected sources reporting it, but where libel comes into play here is by saying he did do it. Honestly, if this really is that serious of an issue worrying about legalities I'm sure Wikipedia has a legal department that can contacted to insure nothing included is libelous. However, with the research I just did on libel, it is pretty easy to call any claims of sexual assault libel. Does Peyton Manning and lawyers care about what's on his Wikipedia? Probably not. Should Wikipedia take this risk? No.--Rockchalk717 21:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ http://espn.go.com/espnw/voices/article/14778120/sarah-spain-said-peyton-manning-sexual-assault-allegations
  2. ^ http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/02/the_sexual_assault_allegations_against_peyton_manning_explained.html

Comparison to other sexual allegation sections

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

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF, go ahead and add back in the material you think should be in. Make sure to refer to allegations as allegations. Make the sections as long as appropriate according to WP:UNDUE. I will help you. I can't add the sections myself at current, but by next weekend I'll have time. Maybe some helpful other editors will get to it first. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I supporting restoring all of the content, however, I will not put it back up if it is going to just get removed again. I would prefer that we go sentence by sentence and determine exactly which info should be included and which should not. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly what I suggested two weeks ago before you took the issue to two different noticeboards. Meatsgains (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
You never suggested that. I have repeatedly asked those who disagree with me to lay out exactly which parts of the content in question they disagree with and why, but that is in the past now. Would you like to start now and move on? ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did here and here. Again, I suggest you and anyone else looking to restore the material back to the page, post on the talk what you think should be added back so we can discuss. Meatsgains (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think all of the content should be restored, as I have stated repeatedly before. If there is no objection to this, I will go ahead and re-add it and remove the POV tag. If there is objection to this, I would like to know specifically which parts you want to be cut and which you are okay with keeping. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in any of this and don't really care what happens other than it being handled correctly, but anyone can see this is obviously an extremely contentious issue and there's been a lot of edit warring over it. This is a serious issue because it's a BLP. Therefore, I don't think anything should be added back until there is a clear consensus among a significant number of editors about exactly what to do. And those involved in resolving this issue should include very experienced editors with a lot of knowledge about BLP policy. Without a clear and meaningful consensus, there will be chaos that will seriously harm this article's credibility. Therefore, I suggest starting a proper, formal discussion and posting a notice on other relevant pages to encourage participation from as many editors as possible. Don't look for a quick solution, but rather the correct solution that most editors can live with. Tracescoops (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been stated numerous times that what we should do is include the allegations against Manning, his responses, and move on. Anyone should feel free to do this. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The scandals are both major events in the subject's life and arbitrarily downplaying their significance is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Be Roethlisberger's sexual assault allegation has over 1200 words and Kobe Bryant's sexual assault allegation has its own page. Which specific words/sentences do you in opposition to me believe should not be included. Obviously including all of it is not an option and obviously not including it all is a violation of WP:NPOV. I am not a mind reader and cannot anticipate which parts will be accepted and will be removed again. Please tell what exactly which parts of the content you do not want to be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Get a true consensus. The same few editors have been debating this issue for a month. Open a formal discussion and post proper notices on other pages to get wider community involvement so that a lasting solution can be found. I would also recommend editors stop comparing this article to other articles. Wikipedia has over five million articles and many of them do things incorrectly and/or have different circumstances. Each article needs to stand on its own merits and adhere to all the relevant policies and guidelines, especially with a living person's biography. Tracescoops (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I posted this on the NPOV noticeboard and started a dispute resolution, both of which have since been closed. I have made it clear that I believe that all of the content should be restored unconditionally. There is no reason not to compare this situation to other situation with exactly the same topic, which is sexual assault allegations. It appears that there is precedent for including information on sexual assault allegations, if not for there to be the creation of an article devoted to the sexual assault allegation against Peyton Manning, which I have also previously suggested. Completely omitting any and all information of Manning's scandals is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. I will happily restore all of the content and remove the POV tag, but only if it will not be removed again in the future. In lieu of this, I would like to hear specifics on what other editors think the final product should look like. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I respect your passion for trying to resolve this matter. If you really want to hear what other editors think and are committed to finding a lasting solution, then start a formal discussion here and advertise it on other pages to get wider community participation. My hunch is that restoring the content without a meaningful discussion and consensus will only lead to an ugly battle. I know it may be hard, but be patient. The world won't fall apart if the content isn't in the article for a few weeks or a month. Getting it right is much more important than getting it fast. Tracescoops (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
My reluctance to unilaterally restore the content is to avoid the same confrontation which occurred three days ago. I would like to participate in a discussion in which those who want to remove content describe specifically which parts they object to and why. I have explained that I would like the entirety of the content in question to be restored unconditionally, but I realize that this unlikely to happen. I have exhausted my recourse and am now to the point where I am simply pleading for specifics. Arbitrarily cutting the content in the first place is the event which never should have occurred, The editors with objections should have removed only the portions which they believe should not have been included instead of removing all mentions of the scandals without discussion. Do you have any specific suggestions as to which content should and should not be included? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is this information?

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

I'm not sure if you're joking, but if you read above you'll see this talk page is full of discussions about this topic that go back a month. Also, the editing history of the article makes it clear what's been going on. Tracescoops (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
His question is more than valid. The sexual assault allegations were included in this article for over a decade and then were suddenly removed recently. I am still questioning as to why the article was censored of all mentions to the scandal. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I see that Joseph has been editing for nine years. It's practically impossible for someone with that amount of experience to miss the dozen or so threads above, not to mention all the recent edit warring in the article about it. So when he says "I can't find anything," I would be very surprised if he truly doesn't know why. Tracescoops (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
His question is valid regardless. No explanation has been given for removing any and all mentions of the scandals in this article, which had been included in this article for over a decade. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you really saying no explanation was given? You've been told here, on numerous noticeboards, and your own talk page exactly why the information was problematic. I won't bother reiterating it because you clearly aren't trying to understand why the content and your comments violated several of our core policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Thankfully we don't let the news write our encyclopedia. If you're interested in reading about Manning wrt current events, well then I think your best bet will be to continue to read the news articles about him. The content that existed previously was in violation of several of Wikipedia's policies. You can read a few sections up about the consensus that was reached to err on the side of caution, blank the violations, and work to improve the article. This collaboration was halted by edit warring and the insertions of more core policy violations to the article and this talk page. If you would like, please take a moment to help us improve the article by re-adding the appropriate content. Your help as an experienced Wikipedian is much appreciated. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The previous sections were not in violation of any wikipedia policy which I am aware of. The content in question was randomly blanked recently without consensus or explanation after it had been part of the article for over a decade. The article, without the content, however, is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV as it completely ignores the existence of the scandals and thus pushing a POV which is sympathetic toward the subject. There is absolutely no reason for the scandals not to be included in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't support this proposal due to WP:UNDUE. Please try to trim it down. Peyton Manning is notable as a football player. The article and the corresponding contents should reflect that. Ask yourself this: would these issues be encyclopedic if Peyton Manning were not a world famous professional athlete? Additionally your final section "lack of media coverage..." is mostly original research. Please do not use deadspin as a credible source. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you please point to exactly which portions you feel cause the sections to violate WP:UNDUE, I don't know which parts you want to be omitted and which you would potentially be okay with including as I am not a mind reader. As I support the full inclusion of my proposal, I do not feel comfortable randomly cutting it to meet an undefinable standard. All of my content together would make up approximately 5% of the article and come at the very end. Also, my proposal would still be far shorter than other sexual assault allegations sections on other professional athlete's articles. The vast bulk of the article would still be dedicated to his football career. The last section explicitly quotes The Nation, which is the oldest and one of the most well respected weekly news magazines in the USA. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the stats [6], all the content which I have ever added to this article is 6.4% of the article, much of which is not part of the content which we are here discussing. Given the high estimate of 6.4%, the non-controversy sections of the article still make up 93.6% of the article. I don't understand how having a small section at the bottom discussing Manning's controversies can be "undue".ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking large amounts of content without seeking consensus

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

I'm assuming you're referring to me. The alleged media favoritism doesn't belong in controversy section because manning is not an active participant in it. if it's an issue it's the media issue, not Manning's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillsonSS3 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What a whitewash! I came to Wikipedia to get some perspective on the recent sexual harassment scandal linked to Peyton Manning, and instead I find NOTHING!! Completely discredits Wikipedia, because obviously someone is intent on keeping anything out of the article that might make Manning look bad. I though Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral!!! Instead it's obvious someone is controlling content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.29.25 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peyton_Manning/Archive_4&oldid=1137082568"