Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive 5

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

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

The Daily Beasts, Mike freeman quote doesn't appear to add anything to the investigation, besides proving he has a negative view off Manning. He doesn't specify any incidents or people relevant to the ongoing issue, he just comes off as being bashfull. Removing unnecessary filler. If you disagree, let me know and specify. WillsonSS3 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think that this "controversy" section is way too big. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


 * Agreed. Also, I would point you to the Lack of media coverage on scandals. Manning has little(who am I kidding) to nothing to do with the media's decision on who to be more lenient or critical off. I feel it just adds WP:UNDUE to the section. WillsonSS3 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually appears as if Manning is very much in control (or at least attempting gain greater control) over his PR, especially as he pre-emptively hired Ari Fleischer to sway the media in his favor prior the original Al Jazeera report and the fact that he has the same agent as Jim Nantz who is the mouth piece through which most people hear about Manning. The Nation (the oldest and one of the most respected news magazines in the entire world) article discusses at depth the "special" relationship which Manning has with the press and how he has spent much time and effort in molding his own image.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Leo Bonilla (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One of WP's rules is anonymity by its contributing editors. Cla68 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean 'psuedonymity'? Every editor either has an IP address or an username.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyway to report this to administrators? We do need to assume good faith, but I share your sentiment. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a way to talk with the administrators. Hope they listen. Link here: ACE2015 Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If you feel this page is being "whitewashed" and would like administrators to get involved, you can take the issue to WP:ANI, however I advise against it because I do believe you are wrong in suspecting there is a PR firm working to protect the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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





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


 * That sentence is correct and therefore cannot be changed. It's not referring to Manning's first game played at Tennessee. While you are correct that the first college game he played was the season opener against UCLA (as a backup) on September 3, 1994, the sentence you want changed is actually referring to that season's fourth game, against Mississippi State on September 24. In the opener, Colquitt got hurt, then Helton, Stewart, and finally Manning were put in the game. But Stewart and Manning played poorly, so Helton was put back in. So, Helton wasn't injured in the opener; he was injured in the fourth game, when Manning replaced him. Manning was made the starter after that game and was never a backup again. Tracescoops (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added content in the article about Manning's first appearance and also reworded and clarified when and how he became the permanent starter. Tracescoops (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 23:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

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

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

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

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


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


 * This seems like a quite reasonable proposal Mr Ernie and thank you for trying to put something forward that can resolve this dispute. I suggest that the section should also contain a sentence or two about the subsequent libel lawsuit and settlement that resulted from Manning's book, but not much more than that. I would not use the Inquisitr article for sourcing. The MMQB article seems to be the most thorough reporting on the situation and I think should be an adequate substitute. Ncjon (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely great idea thank you for the feedback. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Once again, I say start a formal discussion and advertise it to attract wider community participation. A few editors cannot solve this complex matter, particularly when you're dealing with very contentious content about a highly notable person. As I said previously, I don't care which information ends up in the article, as long it's done properly and within the rules for BLPs. Park, I can't help but notice that you seem to have a clear bias in this matter against Manning. Editors need to remain completely neutral when editing articles, especially BLPs. For example, it is completely irrelevant whether Manning's "prank" claim is true of false. The only thing that matters is whether or not he actually made that claim or not. No one is disputing that he did. We are not a court of law; we're editors of an encylopedia. Therefore, we need to be guided by what the reliable sources are saying and then present anything notable in a balanced manner. If you really want to resolve this matter properly, then start an RfC, which I've seen work very well in other articles to resolve complex issues. Don't avoid or be afraid of getting the wider community involved in the discussion and listening to their opinions. Tracescoops (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My only bias is towards this article having an NPOV, which it lacks when every mention of the scandals is removed from the text. The "prank" hypothesis has been widely discredited as it shown in multiple reliable sources, therefore it should not be included in the article; wikipedia must be factual.  I have attempted to start two discussions with the wider community both of which were shut down.  I do not feel comfortable starting another outside discussion.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out the tendency of this article to use flowery language and to engage in peacocky. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page and the point of this article is not to enshrine his perceived accomplishments, while ignoring the less flattering aspects of his life.  Refusing to mention the scandals, while continuing to enlarge the accompaniments sections, would be like HItler's article including a bunch of mentions of how he built the autobahn and turned germany's economy around after the war, but not mention the holocaust a single time.  I realize that this is an extreme example, but the same standard on including a full picture of a subject's life and times should be applied to all BLPs.  There is no reason to censor this article of all mentions of the scandals.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "The 'prank' hypothesis has been widely discredited"? Are you saying that reliable sources do not say that Manning made that claim (that it was a prank)? Or are you perhaps misunderstanding my point, which is that it doesn't matter whether it was a prank or not; all that matters is that Manning said it was a prank? You are actually incorrect when you say "wikipedia must be factual". Actually content in this, or any, encylopedia must be verifiable and not necessarily truthful. The verifiability policy even links to the "verifiability, not truth" essay. You're right, this is not a fan page and any flowery language should be removed. But that also means the opposite applies, as well; the article should not include negative content about him unless it's notable and presented in a very balanced manner. In terms of the comparison to Adolf Hitler, let's not go there. What you haven't done is start an RfC here, which I've suggested multiple times. I can see that you're very resistant to doing so and I don't know why. From what I've read and seen, an RfC cannot be shut down in less than 30 days ("the default duration of an RfC") unless a clear consensus is reached or the participating editors agree to close it. If you're very confident in the way you think this matter should be handled, then you should also be confident that you can achieve a consensus for your side. Tracescoops (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean exactly what I said. The "prank" hypothesis has been widely discredited as false.  There simply was no "prank", nor is Manning ever been quoted as even saying that word.  I will not start a third outside discussion, as my two previous attempts to do what you have suggested have been shut down and I have been banned for do so in the past.  I will continue to fight against the forces that seek to whitewash this page of all info on the scandals.  There is no reason to not mention the scandals in this article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This second proposal gives WP:Undue weight to the allegations. Manning is not primarily known for these incidents. Should consensus develop for something of this level of depth, this proposal would need heavy editing as it does not meet WP:NPOV and there are several statements that do not appear to be supported by their sources or are relying on sources that do not appear reliable, such as the Inquistr article. Ncjon (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which parts of my proposal specifically do you believe violate WP:UNDUE? As I have stated before, all of my content makes up approximately 5% of the article and comes at the very end of the article.  I see no reason to arbitrarily downplay the significance of the scandals.  I have also suggested the creation of an article dedicated to the allegations against Manning as a compromise.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of it. Your proposal is more than 1,800 words when the allegations can be succinctly and sufficiently covered in four to five sentences, i.e., less than 150 words, for each of the two claims. It's not about a percentage of the overall article, which in my opinion is probably too long anyway and could use a serious paring down. This does not warrant a separate article. Ncjon (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sexual assault allegations section which I have proposed is only about 500 words. Ben Roethlisberger's article has a sexual assault allegations section which is over 1200 words.  Two decades of coverage by reliable sources have created more than enough content on the scandal to warrant its own article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is about 400 words too long. My statement about warranting a separate article is not based on a lack of material to write it. There's been plenty of ink spilled on this story. It's a question of whether it's a situation that warrants an entry in an encyclopedia. In my opinion it does not. No criminal charges were ever filed. The lawsuit against Manning was for libel, not sexual assault. There was never a criminal investigation and no arrests were ever made. In my judgment, those are significant differences in what level of attention this situation deserves, as compared to allegations against Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger. Many of the same editors who are trying to assist here were involved in the discussion over how to handle the allegations against Patrick Kane. It might be useful for you to look at that older discussion, as well. Ncjon (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am coming in new to this discussion and have only (very) quickly scanned the Talk Page. If this article has no mention whatsoever of the various allegations and scandals, that certainly violates NPOV. Oftentimes, in the case of a celebrity (such as Manning), the celebrity's page is edited by hard-core fans. Who have a tendency to want to "white wash" negative info. Even if that info is reliably sourced. I imagine there are tons of sources to assert, at the very least, the existence of the scandals and the allegations. That in and of itself should not be controversial. The fact that this article does not even have one sentence about the scandals/allegations does not pass the "smell test". It violates NPOV and gives at least the appearance that something suspicious (in terms of editing) is afoot. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous section contained several policy violations, confirmed by numerous editors and administrators. We decided to err on the side of caution (WP:BLP...) and remove the violations completely until they could be reworked. However, this collaborative effort was halted by edit warring and arguing, as clearly seen above in this section by certain users. Please try to AGF, we aren't here to whitewash the article, but we certainly can't let WP:BLP violations just sit right on the page. Additionally, the prose was bad, it was just a point by point repeat of news articles. Everyone agrees that the incidents need to be mentioned. Many experienced editors and administrators have supported this when it was on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. The consensus there was to describe each incident, include Manning's response, and then move on. This effort is still being opposed because ParkH.Davis would like the section to be much larger. Anyone is welcome to help out and go ahead and write what needs to be there. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me that, collectively, we cannot come up with one single sentence that (neutrally) says: "these incidents have been reported" or "it was alleged that". It simply doesn't pass the smell test.  Sorry.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I formulated an attempt. You can read it up above. What do you think about it? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

POV tag
I replaced the full article POV tag with a section POV tag since only a very small percentage of the article - the "controversy" content - is in dispute. ParkH.Davis reverted my edit, claiming now that they are disputing the neutrality of the entire article, even though they already admitted a few days ago that 93.6% of the article is not in dispute. The current dispute is limited solely to the "controversy" content previously contained in the personal life section, which is why I placed the POV tag there. The full article POV tag should only be used when there are POV objections to content throughout an article. That is clearly not the case here. Tracescoops (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article as a whole lacks neutrality without any mentions the scandals. This has nothing to do with the Personal Life section.  The controversial content had its own section when it was part of the article and has never been part of the Personal Life section.  My comment referring to the size of the controversy section relative to the size of the article was in response to Mr. Ernie's WP:UNDUE concerns and not any POV dispute.  The entire article POV is in dispute, not just the Personal Life section.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Tracescoops, the tag stays; there is too much commentary on this comment here about the matter. ParkH. Davis, we should not have separate sections. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I semi-agree with you. As I have previously suggested several times, there should be a sentence or two on this article with a link to a separate article which discusses the sexual assault allegations and events surrounding them in more detail.  As of right now, the sexual assault allegations are not mentioned a single time in any article on Wikipedia.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and because you foolishly reverted me I can't undo 's nonsensical revert. Tracescoops, you're new here, but being new probably means you should stay out of the china shop if you're bullish. I warned you for edit warring: go look up the relevant policy please. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit, both because there is an on-going discussion and any change should be done with the force of consensus and also because the controversial content should not be in the sections discussing the subject's football career as it had nothing to do with his football career. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Drmies - "the tag stays"? Really? If you wanted to explain why you think the entire article should be tagged, then you should've simply explained your reasons and left out the rude condescension. I see that you are an administrator, but now that you've made edits directly relating to the issues under dispute I would think that makes you an editor of equal status to the rest of us here. And you also made those changes even though a new RfC is underway with no consenus. So I would suggest you stop trying to boss everyone around and acting as if you're the final word on all these issues. By the way, I'll stay in this china shop as long as I want to. I'm not sure if you use that intimidation tactic on all new users who disagree with you, but it won't work with me. Tracescoops (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Relax... Drmies wasn't trying to "boss you around" and "intimidate" you, they were just trying to help you. You're new here and clearly need it. You ever heard that old saying about the flies, the vinegar, the honey, etc., etc? Try the honey approach... - the WOLF  child  00:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on your block log, your opinion on this matter is both bold and humorous. Tracescoops (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with ParkH.Davis, that the incident should be briefly mentioned while the main detail should be spun off into a separate article. At the same time, because it is receiving media scrutiny, we can't pretend that nothing happened and omit it. The same applies to Cristiano_Ronaldo who was arrested and released on bail on suspicion of rape while charges were later dropped. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I previously created Peyton Manning sexual assault case, but the article has since been deleted. Whitewashing has won the day and Peyton Manning has never done anything wrong in his entire life. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it was deleted. It was an egregious violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. You should feel very lucky that you weren't blocked or otherwise sanctioned for that blatant WP:POVFORK stunt. Tracescoops (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinion. You can't remove content just because you personally disagree with it.  The content in question clearly did not violate BLP as it was well cited by multiple reliable sources and was neutral.  The scandal was a Major event in Manning's life, you can't minimize Major life events to satisfy your personal opinion.  I am 100% allowed to edit on Wikipedia, please stop trying to bully me.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So far, in your five months of editing, you actually were 100% not allowed to edit Wikipedia on three different occasions. In fact, you just came off your most recent block a week ago for "Disruptive editing: Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point", which is precisely what you've continued doing ever since. All you do here, and in the discussions on all the other pages, is repeat the exact same rhetoric and talking points. Your endless injection of buzzwords like "censorship", "whitewash", "Major life event", and all your other favorite words and phrases, is nauseating. The only thing any of us "disagree with" is content that clearly violates the rules of BLP, neutral point of view, and undue weight, which you clearly either don't understand or refuse to accept. You shouldn't be sanctioned for having opinions. You should be sanctioned for continually being a disruptive obstructionist. Tracescoops (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy explicitly states, and I quote: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." . There is no reason not to discuss the scandals, except to push a misogynistic POV which covers up a sexual assault against a woman.  The sexual assault incident is a MAJOR event in Peyton Manning's life and has obviously affected him and reputation greatly.  You can't just pretend like it never happened.  It is well within my rights to obstruct systemic bias.  There is clearly a systemic bias here which is preventing the inclusion of any material which is even a little critical of Peyton Manning.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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


 * It has nothing to do with his college football career? Are you kidding? First, you already know the answer to your question since it was explained to you previously, including in this edit summary. Second, it doesn't matter one bit whether it happened off the field or on the field because the incident occurred during his college career - in the locker room, no less - and therefore was of course directly related to his being a football player. So, yes, it most certainly does have something to do with his football career. Tracescoops (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sexual assault allegation had literally nothing whatsoever to do with his football career. There is no evidence that it occurred in a "locker room", it likely occurred in a training facility.  It had absolutely nothing to do with him playing football.  It occurred off the field.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The sexual assault allegation had literally nothing whatsoever to do with his football career." "...it likely occurred in a training facility." WP:OR aside, your second point directly counters your first point. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis, you really need to stop with your nonsense comments like "There is no evidence that it occurred in a "locker room". Uh, the very first sentence in the source used in the article says it happened in the locker room! It says, "Trainer Jamie Whited's sexual harassment claims against the Tennessee men's athletic department didn't begin when quarterback Peyton Manning "mooned" her in the locker room." This is yet another perfect example of your obstructionism and refusal to accept even the most basic facts. And you do understand that "trainer" means a trainer for the University of Tennessee football team, right? Or are you going to argue that point, also? Repeatedly claiming that this incident had "nothing whatsoever to do with his football career" doesn't make it any less ridiculous. If you actually believe that only things that happen on the field qualify as part of one's sports career, then it only reinforces the notion that it's pointless to carry on a discussion with you. Do you actually want all of us to believe that the hundreds of notable incidents that have happened over the years in football lockers rooms, and other places off the field, are not part of their football careers? Seriously? Tracescoops (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. It is clear that your only agenda is to whitewash this article to protect the reputation of .  Why are you trying so hard to whitewash this article?  You can't just pretend like the allegations never happened because THEY DID!  ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have redacted your egregious BLP violation. If you do not stop to think about what you are doing I will be forced to seek administrator intervention. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one trying to whitewash this article, not me. BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."  You can't just pretend like the allegations never happened.  The allegations and incidents are all noteworthy, relevant and well documented.  They should be included regardless of what Manning thinks about them.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis, continuing your very disruptive behavior will likely result in a fourth, and perhaps indefinite, block. Tracescoops (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We now have a smoking gun. Based on ParkH.Davis's addition to his user page today, his motivation for his very aggressive and disruptive behavior for the past month is now very clear. He proclaims, "Wikipedia must not be whitewashed. I will fight for the acknowledgement of victims of sexual violence on Wikipedia wherever and whenever is necessary." Using Wikipedia for his personal crusade needs to be reported to ANI. Tracescoops (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are people not allowed to advocate in favor of the victims of sexual assault anymore? Is being a feminist now a bannable offense on Wikipedia?  When did this become Conservapedia?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may advocate for whatever you'd like, but not on Wikipedia! Take your crusade somewhere else. Editors, please note this discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Tracescoops (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis blanks article
This is the last straw. ParkH.Davis's editing privileges should be removed immediately and indefinitely. Tracescoops (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The editor blanked the article 11 times and has just been indefinitely blocked. Tracescoops (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

All three sources do not verify the claim
"As of 2016, Manning's net worth is reported to be between $165 and $191 million.[307][308][309]"

One source verifies one claim, but another source verifies another claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are three sources and they each give a different figure. One source says $165 million, another says 185, and the third says 191. The original content, which only had one source (GOBankingRates), said 165. I added the other two sources. Obviously, a celebrity's net worth is always a guessing game and will differ among various sources. Therefore, it's necessary to present what the various sources say by providing the low and high range of their estimates, which is what I did. There's never one answer to how much a celebrity is worth; it depends solely on each source's calculations. Even many celebrities and other very rich people have acknowledged that they have no idea exactly how much they're worth. Tracescoops (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Peyton Manning has an estimated net worth of $185 million in 2015." The article claims "As of 2016". When I claim it is OR maybe it is OR. In 2015 is not as of 2016. I think the older ref from 2015 should be deleted. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The figures from all three sources are through 2015 and being reported in 2016. This is March 2016, therefore the content is as of 2016. What is your obsession with OR (which you apparently don't understand)? You just finished edit warring with FreeKnowledgeCreator over the word "sometimes", insisting it too was somehow OR, and now you're going to start another battle over this? Tracescoops (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the sources is from 2015 and it states $185 million . It fails WP:V twice. "Peyton Manning has an estimated net worth of $185 million in 2015." 185 is not what the article states and the source stated in 2015. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those earnings are through 2015, as with the other sources, and we are therefore reporting them as of 2016. But just for fun, show us the date of the story from TheRichest? Tracescoops (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The text does not mention 185 million. I expect you to delete the source and stop arguing to use a source that does not verify the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAICT, "therichest.com" is not a "reliable source." WP:RS/N discussion, another RS/N discussion. Collect (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Nor are the other two remotely close - "gobankingrates" is a blatant commercial site, and "moneynation" is absolutely pure simple speculation as to "net worth." Collect (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I accidentally reverted you when I was trying to add a new source. Now it says "As of 2016, Manning's net worth is estimated to exceed $150 million.[307]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the new source is "less bad" but it is clearly an "opinion source" as such, and shows no sign of being an authoritative source for any amounts at all - it only says some (unnamed) source says something. I suggest the source is insufficient for such speculation.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think The Denver Post is good enough for the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - if it were in a news article. The cite is, alas, not a "news article" but an "opinion piece" which is usable for opinions stated as such.  The author does only says that some sources give such estimates, and does not assert that the estimates = "fact". Collect (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source did not say "some sources give such estimates". See WP:OR. See "Manning's net worth is estimated to be in excess of $150 million." Other sources speculated on the specific amount while this source simply stated it was above 150 million. This is non-controversial. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And is the source an opinion article or a piece of straight fact journalism?  Clue:  the article ends with "Owning a team is not as much fun as playing quarterback for a team. But it's close."   Collect (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Collect, the part "is estimated to exceed $150 million" is not the exact quote from the source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The exact and precise quote from the Denver Post sports column is
 * There is an NFL team in Manning's beloved state of Tennessee that has been in a state of flux since the death of franchise owner Bud Adams in 2013. Manning's net worth is estimated to be in excess of $150 million. That's not enough money to buy an NFL franchise by himself, although an ownership group that included Manning as president with a financial stake in the team would be led by a brilliant football mind.
 * The part you assert is not an exact quote -- absolutely is an exceedingly close quote.  You appear to think "be in excess of" is too far from "exceed" which is your right. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag
when you removed the POV tag from the article using a consensus-based justification, did you take a moment to read the instructions linked on the tag itself explaining the conditions under which the tag can be removed? I ask because "consensus to remove the tag" isn't mentioned among them. Instead, it clearly states, despite your claim to the contrary in the edit summary, that as long as the dispute is alive and well, the tag should appropriately stay. If there were consensus that the dispute it resolved, it could be removed, but I challenge anyone to call this dispute "resolved" in good faith. This sort of tag is, pretty much by definition, an indication that a dispute is in progress which even the seemingly minority side can insist to keep until the dispute is resolved. If your "consensus", which is really just a majority in the dispute, were enough to remove this sort of tag, then this sort of tag would have lost its main reason to exist, which is mainly to warn "some editors take objection with this article and it's still under discussion!".

Please reinstate the tag and consider not removing legitimate unresolved maintenance tags in the future. LjL (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:BLP dispute, not a WP:NPOV dispute, so the tag isn't appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the tag every should've been added because the issue under discussion is a very small fraction of the article's content. I feel that spotlighting a tag like that at the top of the page unfairly taints the entire article. However, this is clearly both an NPOV and BLP issue. By the way, the straw poll at the BLP noticeboard should perhaps be incorporated into the RfC above. Tracescoops (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A WP:NPOV concern can be raised about a WP:BLP, including whether or not mentioning certain things is due or WP:UNDUE. LjL (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LjL, I'm fine if you want to revert my edit. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the removal of the tag. It was grudgingly added in bad faith. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)