Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive 6

The word "sometimes" failed verification
"Because of the success of the three of them, the Mannings have sometimes been referred to as football's royal family." The source does not say sometimes. If you think the word sometimes passed V then provide verification or stop wasting my time. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for literally every word that appears in an article to be present in the sources the article uses. If you want to have a dispute over something this minor, you are the one wasting your own time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have refused to provide verification for the claim. Please stop supporting original research. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. The OR was removed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FreeKnowledgeCreator is correct; using the word "sometimes" was not at all original research. Frankly, that's nonsense. And if you don't understand why, then it would pointless to try and explain it to you. But let's be clear about something. I didn't change the content because of your objection, because I wasn't even aware of your edit warring over it until afterwards. I changed the content solely because the only source for the "royal family" moniker was an author's opinion stated in her own book about the Mannings. Originally, the content was completely inappropriate because it said that the Mannings were "Football's Royal Family" in Wikipedia's voice. I must say, that took guts to insert that content as if it were fact, and I'm not sure why it wasn't caught a lot sooner. In any case, your assessment that "the OR was removed" is completely inaccurate. There was no OR. Tracescoops (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You agree it is OR when you are unable to provide verification. See WP:WEASEL. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, you should be very careful about going around arguing with numerous editors over petty issues, especially when you don't even understand what you're talking about. Your history indicates that you enjoy picking fights, but your block log is not your friend. Tracescoops (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEASEL. You failed to provide verification for the claim "sometimes". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, are you editing under any other usernames or IP addresses? You sound very familiar. Tracescoops (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That was not verification. I assume you agree it was OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess we can take that as a yes that you are editing with other accounts. Tracescoops (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That comment did not provide verification for "sometimes", right? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So how many other accounts are you using to edit? Tracescoops (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You still have not provided V. Are you trying to create a distraction? The most obvious answer is yes? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your inability to understand OR and V as they relate to the use of the word "sometimes" is humorous, as has been pointed out to you by multiple editors. If you're going to continue picking fights with other editors and injecting various guidelines and policies to support your allegations, then please at least understand what they mean. Now, let's get on to the real distraction. If you're not using any other accounts to edit, then why would you be so afraid to simply say so? Tracescoops (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source never said "sometimes" or many or most of the time. You were putting words in the author's mouth. You violated Wikipedia's WP:WEASEL and you have no excuses. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop WikiLawyering, you are pushing a POV over a word. Consensus is against you. Also please stop using edit summaries as a forum, it isn't appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlatanGourou (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am maintaining a neutral position for excluding a word not found in the source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation from my watchlist over the past couple days, and if I may chime in, I actually would have to agree with QuackGuru, for the most part. In the source provided for the Mannings being referred to as "football's royal family," it only refers to one instance of them being called that. The word "sometimes" implies more than just one instance, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure if it would really qualify as "original research" to word it as "The Mannings are sometimes referred to as football's royal family," but I think it would at least go against the verifiability policy. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This "sometimes" debate is a nonsense, irrelevant issue because the word isn't even in the content of this article. So it's a debate about a problem that doesn't even exist. In fact, the word "sometimes" was only included for a few minutes while the original text was being changed and developed. The original text said, "Because of Peyton and his brother Eli's success, as well as the success of their father, the Manning family is seen as Football's Royal Family." Obviously, that was totally inappropriate because it made the claim in Wikipedia's voice, as if it was fact, and, most importantly, there was no attribution to make clear who said it, as required by MOS and, in particular, WP:PEACOCK. Therefore, it was appropriately changed to "The Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family. Obviously, by the book title itself, the author is opining that the Mannings are football's royal family! So the entire book, by it's title, has Nagle calling them the royal family of the sport. In the book content, she details the successes of the three Manning men and concludes, "Today, the Mannings have become the country's royal family of football." Is that a fact? Of course not. It's this woman's fan-like opinion. Clearly, this weasely description of the family must include the required attribution to make it clear that Nagle was the one who said, in her book (the source). Tracescoops (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore the unverifiable word "sometimes". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, stop your nonsense behavior before you earn your 15th or so block. As you well know, the word "sometimes" is not even in the current text and had only been there for a matter of minutes while the original text was being changed and developed. So why are you continuing to cause chaos over an issue that doesn't even exist? The only issue now is about this "royal family" claim, which obviously must be attributed to who said it. Now stop what you're doing. If you continue on this path with your very disruptive behavior, then it will need to be addressed by administrators. Tracescoops (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument to include unnecessary attribution. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

PEACKCOCK is not applicable
The allegation that it is an opinion is false and no evidence to the contrary has been presented. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Really, so an author saying "Today, the Mannings have become the country's royal family of football" in her book titled Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family is not an opinion?! Are you actually going to try and convince editors that it's a fact that the Mannings are football's royal family? I don't know what you're trying to prove here with your argument that defies logic, but you need to stop. Tracescoops (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have not shown how PEACKCOCK is applicable. Therefore, you agree you made a mistake.
 * It was originally "Because of Peyton and his brother Eli's success, as well as the success of their father, the Manning family is seen as Football's Royal Family."
 * Previous text "The Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family".
 * Current text "Because of their success, the Mannings have been described as football's royal family.[297]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it specifically say that Nagle was the one who referred to them as football royal's family? That's more specific and accurate than just saying that they have been described that way without specifying who said it about them. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that say the same thing. I'm not going to add more sources because only one editor thinks it is untrue. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, you're completely illogical insistence that the Mannings being "football's royal family" is a fact, rather than an opinion, is an indication that you are either trolling or don't have a clue about one of the most basic issues of editing. I'm not sure which it is, but administrator intervention may be needed to deal with what you're doing here. Tracescoops (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the way to handle this is to state that one particular writer has used the term. If there are reliable sources showing that other writers have used the term then please show us the sources here so that we can evaluate them. Meters (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If we're not going to attribute the phrase to a single person, we should have more than one citation for it. clpo13(talk) 00:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anytime someone says "there are other sources for this, but I'm just not going to add them," I'm not inclined to believe that there actually are other sources for it without seeing them. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you insist I can add more sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please add them here rather than in the article so that we can reach consensus on how the line should be changed. Meters (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please revert your edit to the previous version before all the changes per consensus. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for the current line including the attribution. The stable version prior to all this discussion seems to have had made no mention at all of "Royalty". Is that what you want? I see no need to revert to that version, but I won't object if someone else feels it is appropriate to restore to that version. Meters (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no consensus for the current wording with over-attribution. If you check the recent edit history it started with this disputed change to replace sourced text with OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, please get the facts straight and present them with full context. The edit you just linked to was very temporary (a matter of minutes) and one of multiple edits as the new text was being developed. The original text called them the royal family in Wikipedia's voice, as if it were fact. It had said, "Because of Peyton and his brother Eli's success, as well as the success of their father, the Manning family is seen as Football's Royal Family." To correct the problem, it was then changed to "Because of their success, the Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family" to provide total accuracy and make clear to readers who said it, including of course the completely unambiguous book title. By continually insisting that calling them the royal family is not an opinion and not a peacock description makes it very difficult for editors to listen to anything you have to say on the matter. Denying the obvious is very disruptive. Tracescoops (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors, please note this this discussion at AN/I regarding QuackGuru's behavior and edit warring. Tracescoops (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

More sources

 * Sources:


 * The NFL's Royal Family
 * the NFL's royal family of quarterbacks
 * It’s pretty safe to say that the Mannings are like football royalty.
 * They’ve been referred to as “Football’s Royal Family”
 * Football's royal family will star in a series of ads this fall for DirecTV
 * football's royal family--173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These look like good sources and a good indicator that the phrasing "royal family of football" (or similar) is fairly common. clpo13(talk) 03:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Great job finding those sources, IP. No one has ever had any objection to adding reliable sources with regard to the "royal family" description. The problem is that there's only ever been one source (the woman's book) and therefore the moniker needed to be attributed to the person who said it (the book's author). If multiple sources are going to be used, then the text can simply be changed from "The Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family'" to very simply, "Some have described the Mannings as football's 'royal family'" or something similar. In no case, though, can the opinion that they are the royal family be presented as fact (in Wikipedia's voice). Tracescoops (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The NY Times ref is dated 2004 and Time is 2005, so they were referred to as the "royal family" long before Nagle's book published in 2010. I'm not really a die-hard football fan, but this is a pretty common and well-known description of these guys, at least I thought so.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when it was first said is beside the point. The only issue has been that the "royal family" description relied solely on one source, the woman's book. This dispute has never been about whether they've been called the "royal family" over the years. I think few would dispute that. It's about the need to attach sources that verify the content being presented, giving proper attribution, and of course not presenting it as fact. Tracescoops (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal and straw poll
IP 173 has presented six additional sources: TIMELA Times, Highland Echo, The Six Thirty, USA Today, and NY Times. I propose that we add at least the four highest quality sources (TIME, LA Times, NY Times, and USA Today) and change the text from "The Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family" to "Some have described the Mannings as football's "royal family"." Please indicate whether you support this proposal with a Yes or No'. Tracescoops (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide verification for the word "some" or withdraw your proposal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, QuackGuru, it would be self-explanatory that "some" refer to the Manning family as football royalty if there are multiple sources that say so. Some = multiple. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Obviously, numerous sources equates to "some". Tracescoops (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Some" seems completely appropriate with the additional cites provided (thanks, user:173.216.248.174. Meters (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I propose an alternate wording if it will appease QG: "The Mannings have been described as football's "royal family". There isn't really a problem with "some" so long as there are sources showing who said it, but the alternate wording works just as well. clpo13(talk) 05:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since we can't say "all" of the sources states this, we're left with "some". (and QuackGuru, let it go already... you're being silly about this) - the WOLF  child  05:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and FULL DISCLOSURE - I am IP editor 173.216.248.174 (was at work editing while logged out, now at home logged in). When you have multiple sources using a single descriptive term, then it's perfectly fine to use "some have described" or an alternative like "they are often described as".-- Isaidnoway (talk)  05:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the sources! Tracescoops (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Per the above, I've made the changes. Thanks to everyone for your input. Tracescoops (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You violated SYN. Please try to come up with wording that is supported by each individual source. Combining different source together is a SYN violation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I read WP:SYN, and I don't see how that applies here. It's logical to conclude that "some" have described the Mannings as "football's royal family" if there are multiple sources which refer to them that way. "Some" would only fail verification if only one source could be found with that information. SYN refers to combining info from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the sources, but that's not even what's being done here. Because each individual source says the exact same thing about the Mannings, it's self-explanatory to say that some describe them that way. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion is a SYN violation. "Some" failed verification because each individual source must make the claim. Editors should not conduct their own review of sources on Wikipedia to come to a new conclusion. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, different sources being combined is not what's being done here. Sure, the sources don't reference other cases of the Mannings being described that way, but each individual source makes that claim on its own. The word "some" simply points out that multiple sources say the same thing, which is true. How exactly does that violate SYN? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You claim "each individual source makes that claim on its own." If you think the word "some" passes V than please provide verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said that each individual source makes the claim on its own that the Mannings are "football's royal family." Saying "some have described the Mannings as football's royal family" is simply referring to the fact that multiple sources make that claim about them. I still don't understand why you have an issue with the word "some" being used in this case, nor do I understand how it violates SYN. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When multiple sources make the claim the Mannings are "football's royal family" it does not verify the word "some". Each source must make the claim. It is irrelevant how many sources make the first claim. To come to a new claim that it was "some" a specific source must make the claim otherwise it is a SYN violation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting very confused. What exactly are you asking each source to verify? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The part "some". Do you think V is not relevant? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

- My Gawd... are you still going on about this? What part of WP:CONSENSUS don't you understand? If you can preach policy, you can damn well follow it. No one is claiming that any source said "some", just stating that some sources said it. Therefore, no verification is required. The issue has been resolved, let it go already. - the WOLF  child  19:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @QuackGuru: I believe that WP:V has been satisfied. WP:V says that - "All content must be verifiable...The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." I would aruge that the "content/material" under discussion here is not the word "some", but rather the whole sentence - Some have described the Mannings as football's "royal family". That's the content/material that needs to be verifiable. Therefore, the cited sources clearly support and verify the content/material as we are presenting it. I don't think WP:SYN is applicable here either, as we are not combining sources to reach/imply a conclusion, because the sentence accurately represents the opinions and conclusions of the multiple sources cited.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think "Some" have described the Mannings as football's "royal family". then you would have no problem verifying the part "some". Please verify it. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Chrissake, why is this still being discussed. The wording doesn't use the word "some" anymore. Let's all just drop it. clpo13(talk) 21:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OH good, reinstated it. Now we have to go through the WHOLE DAMN THING again. Is compromise so hard for you people? clpo13(talk) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus is abundantly clear for the wording. The only reason the word "some" was removed was because clpo13 inexplicably and unilaterally removed it. You were correctly reverted one minute later but you chose to edit war over it, in violation of the consensus. Tracescoops (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Inexplicably? Have you been paying attention to QG's bizarre fixation on the word "some"? I was trying to short circuit this pointless debate by using a wording that means the same exact thing without using QG's trigger word. Whatever. I tried, but you lot and QG can butt heads for all I care. clpo13(talk) 21:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - I appreciate you were looking for a compromise here, but I agree with Tracescoop's revert. We have established a consensus and shouldn't have to now bend on that because of the persistent and petulant battleground mentality that refuses to accept it. Giving in, just to pacify this user, will only encourage further behaviour like this. Cheers - the WOLF  child  22:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I applaud your efforts to short circuit this debate, and I don't see anything wrong with your compromise wording. I noted your alternative wording in the straw poll and I offered an alternative as well. I would support this alternative wording if a compromise can be hammered out.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, clpo13, inexplicably. You made that change on your own, and in violation of the consensus. While I sincerely appreciate your intent in terms of trying to calm QuackGuru, we cannot allow one editor to essentially hold an article or a discussion hostage. I fully agree with Wolf; if we give in and disregard a clear consensus solely to appease a very disruptive editor, it will only serve to encourage that behavior to continue. Tracescoops (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at ANI regarding potential sanctions against QuackGuru regarding his behavior in this matter. Tracescoops (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your not getting it. You don't seem to understand that the word you restored failed V. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, once again, you are the one who is not getting that this is purely a wording issue and not a verification of information issue. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, QuackGuru, the one who doesn't get it is you. The issue at this point is not at all about the wording of a single sentence (the consensus is clear), but rather about your ongoing disruptive behavior. We'll let the editors at ANI sort it out. Tracescoops (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add context and straw poll
I propose the following: Because of their success, the Mannings have been described by some as football's "royal family". The current text does explain why they are perceived as the royal family. Including Because of their success will explain to the reader why they are perceived as the royal family.

One of the sources says "Combine that with a strong work ethic and a love of the game that Archie had instilled in his boys and it's no wonder that Peyton and Eli have been so successful. The result is a legacy that's rarely matched in professional sports. Today, the Mannings have become the country's royal family of football."  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Votes
Oppose - Just. Leave. It. Alone. Already. I can't believe you're still going on about this. (And, you want to use the word "some"...?) -  the WOLF  child  17:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a different proposal to add context. I am not going on about the word "some". This is only about adding Because of their success. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't just oppose your suggestion, I oppose this entire "poll/RfC". The community just went through an exhausting process debating with you over pointless minutiae, but we came to a consensus, only yesterday. The matter carried to both ANI and 3RR, neither of which have even been closed yet. Several people are calling for you to be blocked, or worse. And now you decide to try an re-open this can of worms? Just because you didn't like the outcome, you now expect people to go through all this again? Why don't you show some respect and maturity and withdraw this right now, and leave this issue be. Seriously... enough already. - the WOLF  child  18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be very clear, you opposed the proposal before there was a RfC. I started the RfC after you opposed since you did not provide a specific reason for opposing the text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The addition of "Because of their success" is an assumption unless the writers specifically state that that (and only that) is why the term is used. Meters (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per Meters.--JayJasper (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per Meters. The sources don't specifically say "because of their success." --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a quote from the source to verify the claim for the proposal. If others want to add another proposal or improve the original proposal I fine with that. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Stop this nonsense, QuackGuru. The overwhelming consensus above included the precise wording. Editors, please note that QG reigniting this already-settled dispute has been brought up at ANI. Last night, QG claimed repeatedly that s/he finally accepted the consensus and didn't care about the issue any more. I guess not. Tracescoops (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Sock comments stricken. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Ultimately, we don't really know why people do what they do. We only know what they do and what they say. We cannot get inside their heads. Different people have different motivations, and sometimes what people say is their motivation is not really their true motivation (and sometimes they may not themselves even be aware of the true motivation for their actions – human psychology is complicated). We should, at least ordinarily, just report what has been said, without attempting to give an explicit reason for why we think someone said it. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess my comment above was partly just a knee-jerk reaction. Often we do provide an explanation of why someone has been given a nickname – at least when the rationale seems uncontroversially true. Perhaps my opposition was really just based on the tone of this discussion and my perception that the prefixing phrase is not really needed, although it's probably actually harmless. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - While I agree that this addition is generally harmless, that's still one source of a group in which the others do not mention. If we are going to include a sentence on the general usage of the term, we should not describe it by how it is used by only one source. This leaves us back at the oppose by Meters. If you can find documentation on the original coinage of the term (ie a source proving that the original use was to describe their success), then perhaps this would be a different story, but I still would not support it as is. It would still need different wording. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Proposal to add context and straw poll
Pinging Tracescoops, FreeKnowledgeCreator, A guy saved by Jesus, Tracescoops, Meters, clpo13, User: Thewolfchild, and User:Isaidnoway who participated in the previous discussion above. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note Grammatically, the "their" could apply to the "some" and not to the "Mannings" - I find this suggestion a tad awkward at best, especially since the term "royal family" for noted families in various pursuits is not rare  (see "Barrymores") Collect (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
 * I changed it to: Because of their success, the Mannings have been described by some as football's "royal family". User:Collect, do you have any alternative proposals using the quote from the source? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The community has spoken, WP:CONSENSUS has been established, it's time to move to other things. - the WOLF  child  15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose that QuackGuru drop this once and for all.

A bit of a blast from the past
I suspect http://www.si.com/vault/2012/04/02/106177090/peyton-mannings-long-game is too detailed to be of much use for content in this article but I enjoyed reading it knowing how Manning's career as an NFL player ended. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOT. This page is for discussing how to improve this page, not for talking about how much you like Peyton Manning.  147.153.168.220 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aw lay off the guy. This talk page has become enough of a battlefield, and there's certainly lower-hanging fruit. Lizard  (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Retired vs. Former
I seem to remember reading somewhere that living but no-long active players should be referred to as "retired" rather than "former" since former suggests that the player has died. I can't find the reference. Does anyone know where it is? Meters (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very possible this was not a football specific (and possibly not even sports BLP essay) but I think the idea is correct and should be applied here. Meters (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For pages of dead players, we just state "was an American football player." "Was a former American football player" implies that he was most famous during his lifetime as a former player. Lizard  (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a sampling of how it's worded for 10 other prominent, living, retired quarterbacks. I just picked the names off the top of my head.


 * Dan Marino is a former American football player
 * Joe Montana is a retired American football quarterback
 * John Elway is a former American football quarterback
 * Jim Kelly is a retired American football quarterback
 * Brett Favre is a former American football quarterback
 * Fran Tarkenton is a former NFL quarterback
 * Terry Bradshaw is a former American football quarterback
 * Boomer Esiason is a retired American football quarterback
 * Roger Staubach is a former American football quarterback
 * Joe Namath is a former American football quarterback


 * So, clearly, there's no standard way of saying it. Dirroli (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That could easily be because no one has gotten around to changing them yet. I'll admit I don't know how concrete the "former > retired" stance is, but what I do know is pages of former NFL players are severely neglected, so you'd be better off trying to find a standard using former NBA or MLB players. Lizard  (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There has to be thousands of retired player bios for each pro sport, not just the NFL. And I'm sure the retired/former inconsistency among them is just as glaring as the very brief sampling above. Dirroli (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning's other Super Bowl appearances
Message to ParkH.Davis & Lizard the Wizard:

Stop removing those crucial important facts about Peyton Manning. They describe more of his time with the Broncos and deserve to be highlighted at the very top of the page. A typical Wikipedian viewer would want to know more about what he did after the 2012 season, and not read some acknowledgement about how SI voted him the greatest player whatever. Below is the missing information that should not be removed under any circumstance regardless of sources:

''He would lead the Broncos to Super Bowl XLVIII, losing to the Seattle Seahawks 43-8 in a tough game. However, Manning would take his team to Super Bowl 50 in 2015 and, learning from their mistake just two seasons ago, would defeat the Carolina Panthers with a score of 24-10 due to an unbeatable defense. After the game, Manning would retire one month later in March 2016.''

I bet people wanna know how he handled the loss of Super Bowl 48 and learned from his mistake to take the Golden title of Super Bowl 50. You deleting that information is undermining the learning of many individuals who the very first top sentences of his page. Marino13 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure where to start.
 * First of all, what I removed was unsourced editorializing and puffery. Do you have any proof from reliable sources that he learned from his mistakes? What exactly is an "unbeatable" defense? To whom was the game "tough"?
 * Secondly, the edit broke references as can be seen with the copy-and-pasted footnotes (he was named the best player in the NFL,[5][6]).
 * Thirdly, the grammar. "Would" should not be used to describe past situations unless those situations repeated, e.g. "When I lived there I would go to that store often."
 * Fourthly, to separate scores and other series of numbers you should use a dash (–), not a hyphen (-).
 * Fifthly, if people want to know how he handled the loss of Super Bowl 48 (assuming there is a reliable, published source that tells us), they can go down the article to that section. Something like that wouldn't belong in the lead. Lizard  (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Marino13, I doubt ParkH.Davis will be removing anything else from the article since his account says he's indefinitely blocked for persistent vandalism. And Lizard, instead of your firstlys thorough fifthlys, numbering 1 to 5 would be much easier. ;) Dirroli (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I may or may not have worded it that way for comedic effect. And I thought about pointing out the fact that ParkH.Davis was perma-blocked but I only realized after, and figured it wasn't worth it. Lizard  (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request For Comment
Should information regarding Peyton Manning's alleged sexual assaults and/or alleged performance enhancing drug use be included in this article? And if so, how can this be achieved without an edit dispute? DJLayton4 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I came here after reading the Monday Morning Quarterback piece, then the ESPN piece questioning part of that account, and I am amazed there's nothing here about it. I cannot say anything about the HGH allegations, but ... the continuing fallout from the locker-room incident should be covered. It has been reported on by reliable sources, it was the subject of a lawsuit after Manning and his father briefly mentioned it in a book, so there are court documents discussing it. However, maybe it should have a separate article at this point ... it's too long and convoluted to really fit comfortable in this article at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully support the creation of an article dedicated to the sexual assault allegations (similar to Kobe Bryant's article on the same topic). This, it appears, would be the only solution which would make both me and Mr. Ernie happy.  My proposal is above.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. – These topics should be addressed in this article. I also was amazed to see nothing mentioned at all.  I posted a few comments above, to that effect.  I am quite sure there are plenty of reliable sources.  Attempts to remove the info amount to NPOV violations and white-washing of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there should be a link to a page discussing the allegations. The HGH performance enhancing allegations may merit inclusion when there is sufficient, objective evidence. Whiteguru (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we should be careful to avoid undue weight to that section. Peyton Manning is notable as as football player. See above for my suggestion for how to include the locker room incident. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my proposal:

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.

Someone else can come up with the performance enhancer section. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Ernie - I would suggest you go ahead and add your suggested paragraph to the article. For the time being this article needs at least some mention of this. WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Needless to say there at A LOT of prominent, reliable sources that discuss these allegations. Whether they are true or not is not for us to judge, so we just have to go by the sources available to us. Anyway Ernie, for now your paragraph is better than no paragraph, so please go ahead and put it in if you would. Thanks. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not think any of the content should be re-added without a consensus on what exactly is re-added. An arbitrarily small mention of the scandals still violates WP:NPOV and there would still be no mention of Naughright's lawsuits against Manning or the drug scandal.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No The HGH claims are of the pure "second hand rumour store" (WP:TABLOID) level, and unless and until something concrete is shown, there is no way such "claims" belong in the biography of a living person.  The  involve, as far as I can tell, a single case of exposure in a locker room, and warrant a single sentence only, and anything more hits UNDUE levels very quickly. By the way, folks who bandy "whitewash" as their argument do not impress me - the policy WP:BLP requires us to write articles in a conservative manner, and not to write then in the online "clickbait" style.  "While in college, a female athletic trainer accused Manning of deliberately exposing himself,  which Manning said was actually him simply  a fellow player."   covers the allegation and denial succinctly, and without bringing in the names of the trainer, etc. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Beware of partaking in peacockery. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page and the point here is not to glorify the good parts of his life while completely ignoring the negative aspects of his life.  He is clearly a very polarizing and controversial figure and it would make no sense to only push an arbitrarily pro-manning POV.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Redacting" a normal Wikilink is silly. And the issue is one of weight - Manning is not generally noted for being a horrid multiple "sexual assaults" offender by a mile, and to give excess weight in this BLP is an affront to the policy. Nor are the HGH accusations past the "pure rumour" stage at this point. By the way, your clear implication that I am simply a "fan" of anyone is absurd and contrary to any rational behaviour here.  Nor am I "pushing an arbitrarily pro-Manning POV" - I am doing what we are all supposed to be doing - writing an actual encyclopedia in as neutral a manner as possible and in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that a "mooning" ever occurred and therefore saying one did, violates BLP policy. Wikipedia is based on facts and reliable sources, not on conjecture and speculation. Also, as was made clear to me, BLP policy is still in effect on talk pages.  Censoring this page of all mentions to the scandals is by definition, POV pushing.  You cannot have a neutral article here without mentioning the scandals.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Manning used the term, and the sources say he used the term, so "redacting" it is silly at best - and the claim is that Manning called it mooning so it is not a BLP violation.  And I state there is no whitewashing when rumours and innuendoes not sourced as fact in reliable sources are removed.   And, (FITB), deliberately adding rumours and innuendoes in the guise of "making an article neutral" is the worst possible sort of abuse of policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Manning did not use the term "mooning", Mike Rollo is the one that created the "mooning" story. The only witness affirms that a "mooning" never occurred.  It is a BLP violation to say that a "mooning" occurred, when there is no evidence to back this up.  There is no reason, which I can see, to completely censor this page of all mentions of the scandals, except to push a POV which benefits from the scandals not being mentioned.  Please stop trying to whitewash this article, Wikipedia is not censored.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful -- you redact my quoting the word mooning and then use it yourself! Neat-o!  As for your interesting assertion that sources do not attribute the use of the word to Manning - see  inter alia: "The Broncos quarterback said in an affidavit that he was trying to “moon” a University of Tennessee teammate",  "Manning said he initially “did not believe that she saw my mooning of” the teammate for making a joke" (note this is a direct quote attributed to Manning), "After hearing this comment, I pulled down my shorts for about one second to expose my buttocks to him, or is as colloquially know, to ‘moon’ him,’’’ Manning testified."  Again - direct quote from the testimony.  Your claim that Manning did not use the term is false.  Your claim that Rollo "created" the story is false.  Your denial that the reliable sources specifically attribute the use of the word "mooning" to Manning in his testimony is false.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am only quoting your use of the word, you did not have quotes around the word or attribute its usage to anyone. There is a ton of evidence that Mike Rollo fabricated the "mooning" story as per .  The "mooning" hypothesis has been widely discredited and it is false to say that it happened.  Saxon was not a "teammate" of Manning's and never played on the football team at Tennessee, so it would also be false to say that any "teammate" of Manning's was involved whatsoever.  It is obviously consensus that the content in question should have never been removed and should be promptly re-added.  There is no reason whatsoever to whitewash this article of any and all mentions of he scandals.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bickering aside, the HGH claims are mentioned by ESPN, among others. ESPN is not a WP:TABLOID. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The scandals are both being extensively covered by numerous reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis we are trying to work together here which means we need you to help us reach a compromise. Up above you stated that you will continue to fight this until your preferred views are added (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Please try to work with us and understand the things that people are telling you. Collect is an experienced editor, especially in BLP topics. Arguing with him is not productive and does not help us improve the article. Again I would ask that we take the piece that I started and work to get agreement on the wording so we can add it to the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Compromise is a two way street. I have suggested that a separate article devoted to Manning's sexual assault allegations be created as a compromise, so that coverage would be minimal on this article, but the topic would not be neglected.  I will continue to advocate in favor of this article having a NPOV, that is all.  Those who seek to remove all mentions of the scandals are preventing this article from having a NPOV.  This can end right now: I will support your proposed wording if you agree that a separate article may be created.  How is that for a compromise?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this separate article would just cover the sexual assault allegations and not any other controversy, ala Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't need any agreement from anyone to create that article (WP:BOLD). If you think it's notable enough then go ahead and start the article. I'm not sure it would pass the notability criteria and in my opinion that article wouldn't last very long. I do appreciate your willingness to work together to get the right content into the Manning article. If no one else takes the lead, I'll insert my proposed wording into the article once a little more discussion has occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to receive consensus before I create the article, as I do not want to go through an unnecessary AFD process. I think you should hold off putting in any of the controversial content.  Lot's of people are going to come out the woodwork to edit this article in the next few days with Manning's retirement and I don't want to inflame the situation any further.  The POV tag will lead them here so that they can participate in the discussion if they please, which I think is fine for the time being.  My objection is to the complete lack of any content in any article which discuss the scandals.  A sentence or two on this article and a link to a separate article would fulfill WP:NPOV and represent all sides without violating any BLP.  There is precedent for a sexual assault allegation against a prominent professional athlete having its own article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the stats, 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)

Getting back to the alleged incident—it deserves more than a sentence or two in this article. Had it been limited to that one day itself, we might not need to mention it. But ... Manning and his father mentioned it enough in their book for Naughright to sue them for defamation, and claim that someone privy to her identity (not given in the book) used that information to make like so difficult for her at Florida Southern that she had to resign and basically end her career as a college athletic trainer. And ... it gets continuing coverage. It was cited in the Title IX complaint recently filed against UT. There have been the two articles I linked above in the last week. The sports media continue to explore the question of whether Manning has been truthful about that incident and (see the MMQB piece) whether Naughright is a reliable witness herself (she also continues to try to make an issue of it with the media). The media have, for better or worse, decided this is notable. We cannot substitute our judgement for theirs. We must write a separate article, and we must do it in scrupulous adherence to BLP (Yes, I realize I'm sort of (ahem) volunteering myself to at least help). Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it needs to be in here, but I don't see--as yet--why this would have to be a separate article. It only gets to be long and convoluted if it's poorly written, with no eye on what's encyclopedic and what's not. It can be covered in three paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for having a separate article devoted to sexual assault allegations against a prominent professional athlete in Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. The sexual assault allegations have been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources for the last 2 decades, which would easily fill an entire article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am baffled there's nothing whatsoever in the article, and I am going to insert 's paragraph, from above, which I believe is fairly written though short. I stand by my above comment, that a balanced and well-sourced overview can be done in a few paragraphs. And, your edits make no sense. First you reinsert the POV tag saying the article has nothing on the alleged matter, and then you remove my insertion of a paragraph on that matter. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And one more thing, ParkH. Davis: I saw the attempt you made above, but really, that's two thousand paragraphs--that's exactly why we have NOTNEWS. In addition, how many allegations and "according to"s do you want in an article? Drmies (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My proposal is hardly "two thousand paragraphs"; your is nothing but hyperbole. The sexual assault allegations have been reported on by numerous reliable sources for 2 decades; this is not a recent event.  There is no reason to not include content on the scandals in this article.  Reliable sources have determined that the scandals are notable, therefore they should be included in this article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole or not--why on earth did you revert my addition of it? Because you're creating a bit of a mess now, since that other editor just reverted me. In other words, as a result of your thoughtless action, there is now nothing in it, since I don't want to get accused of edit warring, even though that other editor also has three or four reverts today. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a complex dispute and there is no easy fix. Mr. Ernie has made it clear to me and all other editors that the content (in whichever form) should only be restored after consensus is reached on how to re-add it.  Mr. Ernie did not object to a separate article, and the creation of this separate article will likely be the long term solution to this dispute.  I want the content to be re-added, but only after consensus has been reached on how to re-add it.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies, ParkH.Davis is absolutely correct on that particular point. You had no right to insert that content into the article while this RfC is going on. So Park was right to revert you on that, yet you chose to edit war with him and re-add the content. Therefore, I removed your additions. Please do not restore them again. Tracescoops (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis it's starting to be clear to me that you won't accept any version of this article that does not contain undue weight on the allegations. Numerous editors and administrators have tried to work with you and at this point I'm not sure how we can proceed. You didn't accept the version I proposed, even to stand in as a placeholder, while we continue to work on it. I will re-add my proposal so the article contains at least a mention of these issues. Please do not revert, but work to improve. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A short 500 word section at the bottom of the article is hardly "undue". I will accept your proposal if you agree that a separate article may be created.  Only having two sentences discussing the scandals still violates WP:NPOV.  Nothing should be re-added until we can come to a consensus on what to re-add.  I will continue to dispute the neutrality of this article until the scandals are given their proper weight.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works. Editors can not make backroom deals like "if you add that then I get to do this." It has been directly explained to you, multiple times, on multiple fora, by multiple people about why you are wrong about WP:NPOV. You need to drop the WP:STICK and let us improve the article. You are free to create whatever article you want. There is no trade off. But I would wager a new article on the allegations will be a candidate for speedy deletion a few seconds after you click the "create" button. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a "backroom" anything. Anyone can read all of this discussion.  I am simply seeking consensus to make a change.  I have created Peyton Manning sexual assault case.  This article still lacks an NPOV as it still makes no mention of the drug scandal or the defamation lawsuits.  pretending like the scandals never happened or downplaying their significance is a serious violation of WP:NPOV.  We can't just pretend that these scandals never occurred.  This is not a Peyton Manning fan page and the point of this article is not gush over how great of a golly gee wiz kinda guy he is.  I am tired of people trying to whitewash this article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You whitewashed it yourself,, with this ridiculous edit. I don't know who restored it, but that was the right thing to do. And why create a separate article? This makes no sense whatsoever, no sense--it's the separate article that may well be a BLP violation. At the very least it's a pretty backdoorish kind of way to get a lot of material on a living person. And look at the lead for that article--are you writing a short story? Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was banned once before for acting without consensus. I very much do not want to get banned again.  There is absolutely no BLP violation whatsoever as all of the content which I have suggested is well cited by reliable sources.  You can't remove content because you personally disagree with it, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources.  I created the article, you are welcome to improve upon it where you see fit. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You were actually blocked, not banned. And twice. Once for edit warring and once for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Why not sit back and reflect on why your behavior is problematic instead of continuing on the same path? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fully 100% allowed to edit Wikidedia. Wikipedia is NOT censored.  This page is being whitewashed and I am here to reverse the damage and give this page a NPOV like it deserves.  Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on personal opinions.  Regardless of what anyone thinks about the scandals themselves, there is no reason why they should ever be censored.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis, it seems abundantly clear from your heavy participation in this dispute over the past month that you are unable to work cooperatively with other editors to find a resolution. In my view, your very biased and obstructionist attitude, and refusal to either accept or understand clear explanations and sound logic, has been very disruptive. You've only been editing for less than five months, yet have already been blocked three times for edit warring and disruptive editing. If you continue on this path, I think there's a good chance that you'll end up being indefinitely blocked. If I were you, I'd back out of this discussion completely and let the others decide on the best course of action. Tracescoops (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not give in to those who seek to whitewash this article. There is no reason not to discuss the scandals in this article, as they are well documented major events in Peyton Manning's life.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you really working toward consensus ParkH.Davis? You mention that word numerous times throughout this talk page, but don't seem to understand what it means as you seem unwilling to accept any version of content on the allegations that is not overly long and giving them undue weight, despite multiple editors having pointed that out to you. Consensus building is not an exercise in exhausting everyone from arguing with you until they give in to your position. It is trying to understand each other's arguments and point of view and finding what parts everyone can agree on. It requires some give and take. Reading this talk page, it appears to me that there is overwhelming consensus the allegations need to be mentioned in the article and that, save for one editor, the section should be fairly succinct. Ncjon (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus goes both ways. Consensus does not mean that those who want to whitewash the article get their way and those of us who want to keep Wikipedia neutral have to cede to the others.  I do not understand that why if there is such an overwhelming consensus for inclusion, why the content was deleted.  There is still not mention of the defamation lawsuits or the illegal drug scandal.  This page still lacks a NPOV.  Wikipedia is based on Reliable Sources, not personal opinions.  This is not a Peyton Manning fan site, this is supposed to be a summarization of his life's events.  Both of the scandals are major events in his life and have both been widely covered by numerous reliable sources.  There is no reason why they can't be discussed in this article.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose mention of the HGH controversy and for the sexual assault allegation, I suggest a one or two sentences explaining the accusation and that it was settled out of court. I  understand that of the two witnesses in the room that day, one has supported the accuser's side and the other Manning's side, so a sentence saying that should be included. Cla68 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was only one witness though, Malcolm Saxon, as is well documented. There is no reason not to discuss the scandals except to whitewash this article to make Petyon Manning look like an infallible deity.  We can't pretend like the scandals never happened or artificially downplay their significance.  The sexual assault scandal was a Major event in Manning's life.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. Davis there was not only one witness and the other witness contradicts the other. You see, this is why WP treats BLPs with kid gloves, because editors who aren't informed may come in and cause someone real life damage.  Mr. Davis, are you sure you should be editing this article?  Seriously.  I take it back, I now oppose any inclusion of mention of the sexual assault allegation, because Wikipedia editors are just too ignorant to be permitted to handle a controversy like this. Cla68 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that anyone other than Malcolm Saxon, Peyton Manning and Dr. Jamie Naguhright were present. There is heavy doubt that this new person was a witness:, .  I am fully allowed to edit on Wikipedia, as are all other editors.  #facepalm  I see this article becoming so sanitized that there will never be a mention of the sexual assault scandal ever again.  Peyton Manning is a actually a good guy and has never done anything wrong in his entire life and Wikipedia should shower praise upon him and treat as an infalliable superbeing incapable of doing wrong.  This is pathetic folks.  There is no reason to not discuss the scandals except to push a biased POV.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis you show a Major lack of understanding regarding core Wikipedia policies. I'm starting to wonder if you have the WP:COMPETENCE to continue editing BLP issues. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So which part of: "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." am I not understanding? Is there a reason why the allegations against Peyton Manning are not being mentioned?  It is a BLP violation not to mention the allegations.  Why are you trying so hard to whitewash this article?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose HGH content, support sexual assault content - No content about the tabloidish investigation and allegations of illegal drug use should be added. The inclusion of a brief paragraph about the sexual assault allegation, merged into the college career section, is appropriate as long as it does not violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The paragraph that is currently in the article is fine. A separate article about the sexual assault allegation would be an egregious violation of WP:POVFORK. Tracescoops (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 05:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The HGH controversy should absolutely not be added however, the sexual assault allegations could be incorporated with a couple of sentences. We have to be sure to provide both sides of the argument and avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of details of both controversies. The detail needn't be exhaustive, but having reviewed numerous of the above sources, it's pretty clear these matters are covered in numerous media outlets/reliable sources in both the sport and popular press and that the allegations are widely known enough to be of interest to our readers, who will note the absence here.  Indeed the surprise of numerous of our own editors at the lack of this information speaks to the fact that these stories have permeated into broad discussion surrounding this athlete.  We gain nothing in terms of neutrality, accuracy or a fair BLP treatment by hiding the details of these issues (which would include both the claims of his accusers and his own side to the stories, such as he has presented them to the media).  I can't see any argument which comports with our policies for sanitizing the article of this information.  I do think the salient details available can probably be represented within a paragraph or two at most, though.  S n o w  let's rap 04:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - There is more than enough coverage of both scandals by reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Reliable sources have clearly established both as notable.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis has been indefinitely blocked after posting this on his user page and then blanking this article 11 times. Tracescoops (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ParkH.Davis voted twice in this RfC, offering different opinions but it could be construed as two separate votes. One of the votes should be stricken through. Meatsgains (talk)


 * Do not make a separate article. That would be a WP:POV fork. I would not even support a separate section in this article (I cannot stand the Controversy sections and as this is currently a good article it should not be added here. I will support a small well referenced mention at the relevant time scale. AIR corn (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support brief inclusion Summoned by bot There appears to be enough coverage of sexual scandal to warrant brief inclusion of the kind suggested above. There isn't much evidence offered here of 'drug' scandal. In principle my response would be the same, if it is extensively covered, it should be briefly written up. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the sources and the depth of the allegations, please?
BLP notwithstanding, clearly the answer as to how much content should be added regarding either the alleged sexual assaults or the alleged use of performance enhancing drugs is going to hinge on the weight of the sources. For those of us responding to the RfC who may not be super familiar with American football and the prominent scandals relating to its larger personalities, can both sides to this issue provide a bit more details about just how extensive the sourcing is, how far back these allegations go, and the nature of the coverage.

I'm inclined to say that if RS cover this topic to an even tangential degree, some mention is warranted here, as these are not insignificant charges, especially where sexual assault is concerned, and (per WP:NOTCENSORED) we don't refuse to report unseemly allegations on this project, even in BLP articles, and even if we doubt whether the alleged events took place. Scandals are a real part of the story of many public figures and can constitute a big part of the notability for an individual, even if they are ultimately proven innocent. In cases where we don't know exactly what happened, we don't bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no controversy. Instead we faithfully report what secondary sources say on the matter, being careful to attribute and present those facts/claims/charges/theories/stances/speculation faithfully.

All of that said, I'd like to know what the sourcing looks like in this instance before I provide my own impression of just how much we should be discussing these allegations here. Please and thanks.  S n o w  let's rap 05:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Woops, there's egg on my face, I see there is actually a quite extensive listing of sources in a thread above. I'll review them before providing my own impression shortly.  I'll leave this post/section up to represent my initial feelings on the matter all the same (and of course, anyone wishing to provide additional context here should feel welcome to do so).  S n o w  let's rap 06:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Inquisitr.com
The use of a source which fails RS for a BLP is not a great idea. The column is an opinion column, and is not usable for claims of fact. The "news" organization (which is a news aggregator only) also fails WP:RS from the start, alas. It specialises in "celebrity news" and "rumours" and is thus not remotely usable, and this was noted at the RfC. We can cover the "mooning" in a succinct manner without making it into a cause célèbre. Collect (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop using the word "mooning"
I find it disturbing that this page promotes a fringe theory which states that Manning "mooned" Dr. Naughright even though there is no evidence that this ever occurred. This page should be promoting fringe theories. 65.128.3.208 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources cited use the term, so does Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources that a mooning ever occurred? Wikipedia should not promote fringe theories.  65.128.4.12 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The source listed ( http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/08/20/oth_213271.shtml#.V00opR8zrVO ) acknowledges that he mooned her. Not sure why you're being purposely ignorant when you can get this information yourself. Also please don't use a phone or whatever you're using to get a different IP when posting.

The use of the term 'mooning' is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.142.70 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/roster/Peyton-Manning/5e49338e-cd44-4226-9451-f111c0eb767d
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colts.com/team/roster/peyton-manning/e0a02c1e-c1ec-4c1a-a934-f827fe8fc619

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

NFL "records"
A lot of the records in the NFL records section are sourced with Pro Football Reference's custom search tool. Which means they're basically original research. "Most touchdown passes on Thursday games" isn't inherently notable. Each of these records should be cited to a source that explicitly describes them as a record, otherwise it's original research, and shouldn't be listed here. Especially on a GA. Considering its numerous other issues, if this article were GA reviewed right now I couldn't see it holding up. Lizard (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled edit request
Good day. I was wondering if you could add 4x AFC Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.107.197 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The conference championships have been removed from the infoboxes. If you think they should be there, feel free to bring it up at WT:NFL. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.peytonmanning.com with https://web.archive.org/web/20060907174222/http://www.peytonmanning.com:80/ on http://www.peytonmanning.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016
Excel Sports Management is Peyton Manning's Marketing and Representation Agencying the following changes. We are request a change of profile picture to be out of uniform (since retired). •	Peyton Manning has won 9 ESPY Awards, including the 2016 Icon Award given to athletes “for the indelible mark they have made on the world of sports”. •	Peyton was inducted into the University of Tennessee’s athletic Hall of Fame and was awarded the 2016 Tennessean of the Year by the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame. Peyton Manning joins the College Football Hall of Fame as part of the Class of 2017 inductees. •	In 1999, Peyton established the Peyback Foundation to “promote the future success of disadvantaged youth by assisting programs that provide leadership and growth opportunities for children at risk.” ExcelSportsManagement (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * All the changes have been made except for the picture. If you have a public domain image, feel free to upload it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree about changing the infobox picture. He's primarily known as a football player and unless or until his post career accomplishments outstrip his football career, the prime picture real estate should be occupied by a picture of him as a football player. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=26314&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2002&week=PRO22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523023358/http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/feed/2010-09/smart-athletes/story/sporting-news-names-the-20-smartest-athletes-in-sports to http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/feed/2010-09/smart-athletes/story/sporting-news-names-the-20-smartest-athletes-in-sports
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/playeroftheyear/state.php?formname=search&lvl=N&sprt=FB&yr=&st=LA&search.x=29&search.y=11&search=search
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311182605/http://www.touchdownclubofcolumbus.com/PastHonorees.htm to http://www.touchdownclubofcolumbus.com/PastHonorees.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513031657/http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/passing to http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/passing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513031657/http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/passing to http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/indiv/passing

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219214133/http://images.cnnsi.com/football/nfl/news/2000/01/08/allpro_chart_ap/ to http://images.cnnsi.com/football/nfl/news/2000/01/08/allpro_chart_ap/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017
i want to change a few things in the article about peyton manning Hc0315 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Lizard  (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310081139/http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25506696/former-gm-peyton-manning-promised-colts-title-if-they-drafted-him-ass-kicking-if-they-didnt to http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25506696/former-gm-peyton-manning-promised-colts-title-if-they-drafted-him-ass-kicking-if-they-didnt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160222114248/http://www.si.com/nfl/game/2015/09/13/ravens-broncos-sunday-september-13th-2015 to http://www.si.com/nfl/game/2015/09/13/ravens-broncos-sunday-september-13th-2015

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peyton Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170331211759/http://sportschatter.com/sports-talk/slideshow/oldest-super-bowl-quarterbacks/ to http://sportschatter.com/sports-talk/slideshow/oldest-super-bowl-quarterbacks/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Collegiate rushing statistics incomplete
Manning had 12 rushing touchdowns at the University of Tennessee which are not reflected in this article.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/peyton-manning-1.html

e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSNFfgg_4w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.7.2 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sells his Papa John's stores
Why is this not a section in the main article? He owns / owned 31 stores in Denver - it is a big part of his life.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/peyton-manning-sells-his-papa-johns-stores/ar-BBJXC4K?OCID=ansmsnnews11

98.194.39.86 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a very poor article. Why is it locked???
The quality of this article is terrible. In real terms - not WP terms. It is badly in need of revision by experts; meaning people who are not WP "editors". As it currently stands, this article is nothing more than a marketing fluff piece. Just awful. I guess when you have enough money, you can buy your own article on WP. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)