Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

No mention of controversial history?

Why is there no mention of Manning’s history of sexual assault and his illegal hgh use? This article reads like a Peyton Manning fansite and not a Wikipedia page. 102.149.150.152 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There is Peyton Manning#Sexual harassment allegation, and Peyton Manning#Personal life mentions the lawsuit from his book's talk about the incident.—Bagumba (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero mention of the lawsuits against manning for lying about the sexual assault allegations? Also, why does it use the politically correct term “harassment” instead of the actually correct term “assault”? 102.145.74.63 (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: HGH, there was no consensus to mention it the last time it was discussed in 2016.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It recently came out that Manning’s lawyers confirmed the HGH story, yet not a single mention of it in the article. I guess if you’re white enough, rich enough and trump supporter enough you can have your Wikipedia page say whatever you want it to say. This is an absolute shame that all the negative aspects of Manning’s life have been censored out of this article. 102.145.74.63 (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that his lawyers say the shipment was for his wife.[2]. Do you have a source that says differently?—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No mention of sexual assault or illegal drug use?

This article reads like a Manning fan club page and not an objective exposition of this man’s life. You can’t just ignore the negative aspects of a person’s life. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and this page is clearly promoting a false narrative. 71.218.106.174 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a section for the sexual assault under college since that is the time frame the main action happened. Someone did remove a bit against the last rfc on this so I added that back. The HGH was not added as last time it did not get enough votes for support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peyton_Manning/Archive_6#Request_For_Comment ContentEditman (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fan club page or wikipedia article?

This article reads like fan club page. It does nothing but talk about how great Manning supposedly is and makes no mention of his illegal drug or sexual assault scandals. This article is a complete joke. 71.218.112.47 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Why nothing about HGH scandal?

Here's multiple articles from reliable sources discussing Manning's high use, but there is no mention of it at all in this article. MSN even calls it "a bombshell" story. How can something so widely reported in the press go completely unmentioned in this article? It seems to me that this is a clear case of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, yet there is no mention of it whatsoever.

· · · · PaulSampson79 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It does seem odd, but then I don't know the topic. I wonder if, as a minimum, the page header notices could include something saying "If you are thinking of adding the HGH story please see this archived material" or whatever? I know the headers are already overlong but it might help, and I have seen similar done elsewhere. At the moment the Talk page seems to not really be getting anywhere, but just repeating more or less the same allegations. DBaK (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2018

Add to the "NFL Records" list in his profile table (right of the article intro) "Most AP NFL MVP Awards" or "Most Career Regular-Season MVP awards" or some variant of. (maybe even list it above "5,477 passing yards, season", seeing as how Most MVP Awards in NFL history would seem more impressive to include at the beginning of an article) Fionnbarr1992 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

Citation that P. Manning has highest career passing TDs/game is factually incorrect. Aaron Rodgers does (2.06 for all games played and 2.16 TDs/games started. Citation that P. Manning has most seasons with 10+ wins as a starter (14) is factually incorrect - T. Brady has 16 years.

See Pro Football Reference... Gtp4life (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Assault allegations

Why is there nothing about manning's sexual assault on here? This page reads like a fan page. 71.218.230.212 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The community felt it shouldn't be included. See Archive 6 of this talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That’s makes no sense, especially how widely covered it was by reliable sources. Is it possible that Manning fans hijacked this page? 71.218.98.55 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The community felt the HGH allegations should be left out. The sexual harassment allegation is in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why call it sexual “harassment” and not Sexual Assualt as has multiple reliable sources have called it? This whole article is nothing but a huge whitewashing. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

HGH Scandal

I am going to add information on Manning's illegal drug scandal unless there are any objections. PaulSampson79 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive 6#Request For Comment and the comments above. You probably need to get consensus to add it, not just a lack of objections. Meters (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How is there no mention of Manning’s illegal drug scandal?

Not even once on here does it mention the well publicized illegal drug scandal this person was involved in. I smell POV pushing. 71.218.245.50 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This page reads as ignorant it written by a PR firm working for manning. It doesn’t mention his illegal drug use a single time. What the fuck?! The trolls have taken over this page. 71.218.237.53 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Read again. It mentions that he was on a list of people alleged to have received drugs and that the NFL cleared him after finding no evidence. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet no mention of him or his wife having been proven to have been the source of the Al Jazeera report in court and having hired thugs to intimidate reporters who sought to bring the story to light. It is an absolute shame that this page is governed by pro-manning trolls such as yourself. 97.118.226.101 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested edit

Can someone with edit privileges on this page add a sentence (maybe in the "Personal Life" section) about the origin of Peyton's name? According to the family (source), he's named after one of Archie's uncles. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is this notable at all? No one cares. 170.140.104.10 (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

His postseason record

The trolling about his "lack of success in the post season" is pure POV. An alternate POV would be that he played on mostly poor/mediocre teams, that would have probably only won 4-5 games if he wasn't the Quarterback. He wasn't in Brady's position of being on teams that would have made the post season every season, no matter who was the quarterback.

And this situation of trolls taking over pages, and then using their knowledge of the system to get them locked down (so everyday people can't change their edits) is really what is killing Wikipedia. I went from being a longtime editor, to not at all trusting the site as a source of accurate information, once I saw what went on behind the scense.

Ceej19799 (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but this isn’t a “manning” fan page. It’s an objective encyclopedia page. If you want to gush over how much you lie this person, then go somewhere else. It’s already shameful that this page has a whole large section bragging about this person’s so called charity, but doesn’t mention his illegal drug scandal a single time and only briefly mentions his sexual assault and the times when he was caught lying in court. There are too many pro-manning trolls on this page. 71.218.245.50 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is already a mention of the alleged HGH use under Peyton_Manning#2015 season: final season and second Super Bowl championship and an entire section devoted to his sexual misconduct allegations. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversial Figure

Stop trying to pretend like manning isn't an extremely controversial and polarizing figure. Not only in his professional sports career, but off the field he has been the constant source of scandal and crime. This page literally reads like a love letter to manning instead of reading as a biography. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page Templates

Looking at the history of Peyton Manning, I don't see much, if any disruptive editing on the article this year. As such, I removed a number of talk page templates (diff that were no longer relevant or were excessive considering the lack of controversial or disruptive editing. An IP has reverted this change a number of times without explanation, and then finally they left an edit summary that said All of these tags are necessary to prevent disruptive editing on this page with a history of disruptive editing, which, as I mentioned, isn't true as there has been no disruptive editing for quite some time. C.Fred has also reverted the IP noting the same reasons I brought up. The relevant templates we are talkling about are:

• {{not censored}} - not sure what part of the article needs clarification that Wikipedia isn't censored?

-- There has been a systematic removal of anything that makes manning seem less than perfect on this page. There is no mention of his far right poltics, his illegal drug scandal and it whitewashes his sexual assault scandal. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• {{Calm}} - only like 20 edits a year on the talk page, and everyone seems to be pretty calm

-- This page has been locked up so tight that only pro-manning activists can even change anything on it. Every change I have suggested gets shot down. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• {{Controversial}} - Peyton Manning may have had some controversies in his life, but he isn't a very controversial figure in general. Again, this is shown by the light edit history of the article and this talk page.

-- He is an extremely controversial figure. Whitewashing the facts of his life will not change this very basic fact. There is a long history of edits being removed from this page for being too negative towards manning. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• {{Not a forum}} - this template I left, and I actually think is pretty relevant to some of the comments currently on this talk page...

-- Why do you get to choose which remain and which don't without the input of anyone else? 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• {{COI editnotice}} - don't see any recent COI issues?

-- There have been multiple accusations made that manning's PR people are managing this page. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• {{Warning RS and OR}} - not seeing many, if any, edit requests?

-- I literally made one a few days ago. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Any further input would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This page is a textbook example of censorship, just to protect a rich white man from anything bad being said about him. This page reads like a fan's love letter at best and a propaganda page at worst. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Far Right Political Beliefs

Why is there no mention of manning's ties with far right leaders? Manning has been seen in public with far right leader Donald Trump. Why is there no mention of manning's extremist political beliefs on here? 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest specific changes while citing reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Manning's far right political affiliations are all over the mainstream press. This page is being censored by Manning's PR representatives. There is almost nothing negative said about him whatsoever in this article, despite having sexually assaulted someone, having got caught smuggling illegal drugs into the US, having got caught taking PEDs as a professional athlete, and associating with various far right politicians. This article is an absolute joke. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

First sentence: "Primarily with the Indianapolis Colts"

I feel the first sentence should be edited to say:

"Peyton Williams Manning (born March 24, 1976) is a former American football quarterback who played 18 seasons in the National Football League (NFL) with the Indianapolis Colts and the Denver Broncos."

His tenure with the Broncos seems downplayed with the current wording, even though he achieved some of his greatest career success in his seasons with the Broncos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanSkolchal (talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If anyone needed more evidence that this was a manning fan page and not an objective Wikipedia page, this is it. It’s not Wikipedia’s job to play up or downplay anything. It is an absolute crime that this page continues to censor manning’s crimes. 170.140.104.10 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPBALANCE. If you are referring to the sexual misconduct allegations against Manning, there is already a section devoted to that topic. I am sorry you do not feel this page is neutral, are there specific changes that you think would improve the article? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that is says "misconduct" and not "assault" is what's wrong. Saying "misconduct" misrepresented that facts of what actually happen and further the pro-manning agenda that this page clearly has. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Manning spent far more time with the Colts than the Broncos. The new wording in the first sentence gives equal weight to his Colts and Broncos tenure when the former ultimately outweighs the latter. Yes, he achieved some of his greatest career success in his seasons with the Broncos, but he achieved far more in Indianapolis. I feel the first sentence should be restored to say "primarily with the Indianapolis Colts" because it is accurate and reflects the fact that he spent the majority of his career playing for the Colts. I could understand the issue if the lead buried his Broncos tenure, but his time in Denver is first mentioned in the following sentence under this wording and there is an entire paragraph dedicated to his Broncos tenure. Compare this to Brett Favre's article, which says he spent "the majority of his career with the Green Bay Packers" and references the teams outside of Green Bay that he played for in the following sentence. Bluerules (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Favre didn't win a Super Bowl with any other team though, Manning won with both teams. Same thing with the MVP award, Manning won with both teams and Favre only won with Packers. I don't think we can use Favre as a comparison here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No quarterback other than Manning has won a Super Bowl with any other team (as a starter), so there wouldn't be a comparison there, but Favre had accomplishments outside of the Packers. The justification for changing the first sentence is Manning "achieved some of his greatest career success in his seasons with the Broncos" and Favre had one of his greatest seasons in Minnesota. Yes, Manning won a Super Bowl and an MVP with both teams, but he also won Super Bowl MVP and five MVPs with the Colts, not the Broncos. The comparison between Manning and Favre is that both had success outside of the teams they primarily played for, but the majority of their successes came with their primary teams, and that should be reflected in the lead. I agree that Manning achieved more with the Broncos than Favre did with the Falcons, Jets, and Vikings, but his Colts achievements - Pro Bowls, All-Pros, MVPs, Super Bowl MVP, career statistics, etc. - far overshadow his Broncos achievements. The current lead creates the impression that his time with the Colts and Broncos were equal when they were not. Bluerules (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Manning's Broncos career achievements: two Super Bowl starts, one Super Bowl win, three Pro Bowl selections, two first-team All-Pro selections, an NFL MVP, Offensive Player of the Year, number retired by team. Favre's post-Packers career achievements: two Pro Bowl selections. I believe Manning's career with the Broncos is significant enough to put it on par with his Colts career despite being 14 years shorter, and the fact that he's the only QB in NFL history to win Super Bowls with multiple teams justifies that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree that Manning achieved more with the Broncos than Favre did outside of the Packers. But Manning's Broncos career achievements pale in comparison to his Colts career achievements. Manning's Colts career achievements: two Super Bowl starts, one Super Bowl win, one Super Bowl MVP, 11 Pro Bowl selections, five first-team All Pro selections, four NFL MVPs, Offensive Player of the Year, number retired by team. Three of these achievements are equal to his Denver achievements; four weigh heavily on the Indianapolis side of his career. His number was also not retired by the Broncos in his honor - it was already retired in honor of Frank Tripucka and Manning is merely referenced as having the number after Tripucka, something he would have been unlikely to obtain if not for his Colts achievements. And Manning has a statue in his honor in Indianapolis, not Denver. That's why I believe his career with the Broncos is significant, but not significant enough to put it on par with his Colts career. Yes, he's the only QB in NFL history to win Super Bowls with multiple teams. That's referenced in the lead. The Denver Broncos are referenced early on in the prior revision, by the second sentence. But everything he did in Denver doesn't compare to the core of his accomplishments in Indianapolis. Like Ray Lewis in Baltimore, Tom Brady in New England, and Joe Montana in San Francisco, Manning was the face of the Indianapolis Colts for over a decade. He is arguably the greatest and most iconic player in the history of the Indianapolis Colts - and by that, I'm referring to their days in Indianapolis. In that regard, he's arguably the biggest icon in Indiana football history. It wasn't the Colts' first Lombardi Trophy he brought home, but it was Indiana's first Lombardi Trophy. That's where his Broncos career can't be compared to his Colts career. There's no statue of him in Denver. Bluerules (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

While there is not a statute of Manning in Denver and his time with that team is shorter, his contributions to the team was significant enough for the Broncos to add his name to their retired number 18. Manning himself, made the decision to retire as a Denver Bronco rather than signing a one-day contract to retire as an Indianapolis Colt. He views himself equally as a Colt and a Bronco. The mere fact that we are having this discussion speaks volumes of his contributions to both teams. Neovu79 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The Broncos added his name to their retired number to recognize that it was given to him before he played a single snap with Denver. We'll never know if the Broncos would have retired his number if he didn't have one already retired, but his name being added - as a reference underneath Tripucka, who is still the primary figure honored with that number in Denver - was not because of his contributions to the team. His name was added by the Broncos because he is recognized as a legend - a recognition he received from his contributions to the Colts. The Broncos and Tripucka were willing to let him use the number because of his contributions to the Colts. It was going to happen regardless of what he did in Denver, which further reinforces that his Broncos contributions are not significant enough to be placed on the same level as his Colts contributions. His one honor given to him by the Denver Broncos is because of his Indianapolis Colts tenure. He is not in the Broncos' Ring of Fame. He is in the Colts' Ring of Honor. He has a retired number to himself, not as a sidenote, in Indianapolis. And he has a statue in his honor in Indianapolis. What relevance does Manning himself making the decision to retire as a Denver Bronco rather than signing a one-day contract to retire as an Indianapolis Colt have? How does that demonstrate he views himself equally as a Colt and a Bronco? Martin Brodeur retired with the Blues. Does he view himself equally as a Devil and a Blue? Unlikely. Brodeur's article - a featured article, mind you - buries his Blues tenure into the second-to-last sentence of the third paragraph. I actually had to just edit the article to include a link to the Blues' article, which was missing from the lead. I do not see how the mere fact that we are having this discussion speaks volumes of his contributions to both teams. We could be having the same discussion over whether Brodeur's article should first reference his Devils and Blues tenure in the same sentence. That doesn't stop the former from outweighing the latter. The fact that Manning has a statue in an Indianapolis Colts uniform, at the Indianapolis Colts' stadium, in Indianapolis demonstrates that his contributions to the Colts far outweigh his contributions to the Broncos. It is more accurate to first recognize that he primarily played for the Colts and then he played for the Broncos in his final seasons. Bluerules (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Consider delaying mention of the teams until the second sentence. Changes would be as follows: "Peyton Williams Manning (born March 24, 1976) is an American former professional football quarterback who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 18 seasons with the Indianapolis Colts and Denver Broncos. Considered to be one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, he spent 14 seasons with the Indianapolis Colts and was a member of the Denver Broncos in his last four seasons."—Bagumba (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in something that is as controversial as this, we should maintain a neutral point of view. Neovu79 (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that's a reasonable compromise for the time being. Bluerules (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

Change "Sexual misconduct allegations" to "Sexual assault incident" to better reflect the sources cited in the article. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we change Bill Cosby's page too to say "sexual misconduct allegations" too? Just so that it doesn't offend his supporters? This is absolute nonsense and things like this is why there is so much violence against women, because rich white men like manning know that they do whatever they want with impunity and nothing will ever happen to them. This is easily the most whitewashed page on Wikipedia. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that Cosby was convicted of indecent assault. I don't see any mention of a trial, criminal or civil, involving Manning, much less a verdict against him. (Yes, there was a settlement, but that was to prevent a case from going to trial and cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt or fault.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Manning's sex assault scandal

I know that Manning sexually assaulted a trainer while he was in college, but this page barely mentions the incident. It also appears to celebrate Manning, despite his status as a sex offender. 71.114.156.203 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a fairly detailed description of the incident. Celebration is not part of the function of an encyclopedia, so of course we can remove or tone down language that does that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

spelling correction and other fixes

since you've locked the article down...........

"he played college football at Tennesse, " <-- no such school

"making him the first starting quarterback to win the Super Bowl for more than one franchise." he might be the first to do it but others have done it now --> Tom Brady before some other fan boi cries about the same thing , might want to add a clarifying statement "while other starting quarterbacks have won SuperBowls for more than 1 franchise <cite list of qb's>, he was the first.

"Manning is the first and only starting quarterback to make multiple Super Bowl appearances with more than one franchise. " uhhhh, no

24.28.72.167 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. I changed that he's first QB to make mult starts for mult teams each. Anyone else can feel free to add others who came after his first.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing references

Hi, I just saw that the references and external links in this article are missing. Is there something wrong? 2001:569:78BA:4A00:8CEE:361F:11D2:6C29 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

American former football quarterback or former American football quarterback?

Is there a preference towards whether we identify Manning as an "American former football quarterback" or "former American football quarterback"? The former specifies his nationality, the latter specifies the type of football he played. Both are workable in my opinion because the information not specified can be gleamed from the rest of the sentence (quarterback being an American/gridiron football position, American football players traditionally being American). Bluerules (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Conversely, most Americans who play football play American football. (Exceptions, like Warren Moon, are identified as American former gridiron football quarterbacks or, like Tracy Ham, don't have their nationality specified but do have their league stated.) If we're stating his nationality, he's still American, so "American former football quarterback". If it's the sport, let's go league-specific, and "former National Football League quarterback". —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the lede of the Warren Moon article and the reason I identified him as an "American former gridiron football quarterback" is because he also played Canadian football, which isn't the same as American football. That obviously doesn't apply here because Manning exclusively played American football. Going league-specific is not advisable because it removes direct reference to the sport he played (which is still hyperlinked in the other version) and we shouldn't assume that readers know what American football is. Most articles I've seen use "former American football [player]", but I'm curious if other editors support the alternative option. Bluerules (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"former National Football League quarterback" is not accessible to those unfamiliar with the NFL that don't know what specific sport it is. We shoud ease the reader in with the (linked) sport first.—Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, bios generally state a person's nationality in the lead. He's still American, so "former American" is misleading. Also per MOS:TIES, the sport is plain "football" in American English.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Which are fair points. But I find the counter arguments to also be fair:

* MOS:CONTEXTBIO lists examples where the nationality is not stated (Cleopatra VII Philopator and Francesco Petrarca), but can be gathered by the opening sentence. In the case of American football players, the context that they played American football indicates their nationality.

* He isn't being called a "former American", he's being called a "former American football quarterback", which is also true. I don't believe that the full context will lead to misinterpretations.

* I'm not entirely certain that MOS:TIES applies here, as that policy deals more with vocabulary. "American football" is to differentiate the sport from the other versions of football, particularly for readers only familiar with the other versions.

Like I said, neither version is flawless, but I think both are effective introductions. If we have a consensus over which version to use, we'll have a better understanding of how to write other football player articles. Bluerules (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding other versions of football, soccer players/footballers like David Beckham say "English former professional footballer", not "English former professional association footballer". Seems American and Canadian football bios are the outliers. It's just called plain "football" in North America.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that the distinction derives from "association" football being more popular on an international scale and coming first. There are more individuals who consider Beckham's sport to be plain "football" and Manning's sport to be "American football". Bluerules (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It is called fútbol in Spanish, but this is English Wikipedia, so irrelevant. At any rate, association football is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for football, so MOS:TIES appears to be the guiding principle for plain "footballer" without "association".—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, but it is not used exclusively by native English speakers, let alone American English readers. From an international / worldwide perspective, Manning's sport is considered "American football" and Beckham's is plain "football". Even in Spanish, the latter is plain "fútbol" and the former is "fútbol Americano".

I'm still not entirely certain MOS:TIES applies here because that deals more with vocabulary - this is about helping readers understand the subject. Most readers (those outside the United States) understand "football" as association football, which is why the "American football" identifier is used on most NFL-related articles. Note that the example MOS:TIES cites for American English is the American Civil War, but articles related to the American Civil War don't call it the "Civil War". While the subject clearly has strong national ties to the United States, where it's simply known as the "Civil War", calling it that would confuse non-American readers. We call it the "American Civil War" to distinguish it from the many other civil wars; we say "American football" to distinguish it from how most of the world perceives football.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to using "American former football quarterback", but I'm also not opposed to "former American football quarterback". Active players are referred to as an "American football [player]", regardless of if "American" refers to their nationality or the sport, so I think that's where this issue derives from. There isn't a consensus on the "American" reference, creating a conflict when the player's career ends. Bluerules (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW re: "former", David Beckham reads is an English former professional footballer ...—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hi, I just saw the new infobox image, and it looks pretty awkward. I was wondering if there is a better quality or version of the photo that can be replaced with? 2001:569:55E1:8900:115E:3110:E0F4:ECD6 (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This, from 2017, was the previous image. Feel free to offer suggestions, bearing in mind it must be a free license image.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, should we restore it back to the previous image, or just keep the new one? 2001:569:55E1:8900:115E:3110:E0F4:ECD6 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Manning cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Authority control template

Hi, I just realized that the authority control template on this article is currently messed up. Can someone please find a solution to fix this problem? 2001:569:7F96:EE00:E973:B306:F17A:F1BA (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that we found the source of the issue. It is a size overflow that is causing templates to not load properly. The issue has been noted and we are hoping it can be addressed with a long-term fix. Red Director (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

2022 SEC Legends Class 47.13.73.51 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are Manning's controversies and scandals so whitewashed in this article?

This article reads like a fan page or like it was written by Manning's PR people. I've noticed that multiple people have brought this issue up in the past and it is always shot down by a cadre of Manning lovers (or PR people?). Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

His controversy from his college days are mentioned and sourced in that section. The HGH issue from his final NFL season is mentioned and sourced in that section as well. There is no current agenda to censor this article as far as I am aware. Red Director (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It reads like it was written by a PR firm though. Manning is literally a sex offender. Manning’s illegal drug trafficking scandal is also extremely sanitized. It’s extremely bizarre that this article is written the way it is when other criminals’ Wikipedia pages include information about their crimes. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Illegal drug trafficking and sexual assault

Why are both of these so santized in the article. I see that there has been an effort to include more about these in this article in the past but that those who have tried to get it included are always faced with an opposition of Manning fan boys. Very bizarre. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest new text with supporting citations.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose this:

====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."

References

173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stat

He is no longer the only QB to win a Super Bowl with two franchises 47.223.111.93 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

this still isn't changed. 2601:408:C102:5170:A85E:E74D:4E9:BF20 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article is it? It looks like it was changed to me. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)