Talk:Jameis Winston

Jameis Winston / Jersey Number

As per the Buccaneers official website, Jameis Winston will wear #3 for the Buccaneers, not #5 as is currently shown. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.86.66 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jameis Winston / Off the field incident

At the end of the section titled "Off the field incident," please consider adding:

The Florida State Attorney's Office was not apprised of the incident or police report until November 2013, subsequent to published media reports of the event.

Made edits to clarify. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

69.254.167.17 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 —

Jameis Winston / References

Under "References," please consider deleting number (9), for the following reason:

USA Herald, and/or Ted Smith, is not a legitimate media source, nor is the published article factually accurate. Specifically, it is a matter of verifiable public record that Florida State Attorney, Willie Meggs, was initially apprised of the December 7, 2012 Tallahassee Police Department report of sexual assault (which subsequently implicated Mr. Winston) no earlier than November of 2013.

Removed source and replaced with better one. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

69.254.167.17 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

Under the Sexual assault complaint it it currently states:

"On December 5, 2013, state attorney Willie Meggs announced the completion of the investigation and that no charges would be filed against Winston in this case.[14]"

It would be more accurate to state the following:

"On December 5, 2013, according to State Attorney Willie Meggs he stated that "well we went through the process of trying to gather all of the information we could gather and like we do in every case that we prosecute we looked at it we evaluated the evidence and we have a standard we are required to go by of that we should not file a case or charge someone with a crime, any crime, unless we can be assured in our minds that we have a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and in this case we just didn't feel like with all of the facts as they rolled out that we would be able to sustain a conviction or obtain a conviction." [14] "

I feel that gives a more accurate account for the charges not being filed than what is currently displayed.

Craigs gator (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

Please change Jameis Winston's place of birth from Hueytown, Alabama to Bessemer, Alabama because he was not born in Hueytown, he just went to Hueytown High School. On the school website (Seminoles.com) in his biography his birth place is listed as Bessemer, Alabama. 68.59.49.44 (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: @68.59.49.44: Can you point me to where it says this on Seminoles.com? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Found it myself ([1]). Will make edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is "her"?

When he made that obscene remark, was he referring to a specific person, perhaps his accuser in the rape case? Or was he just trying to be obscene in general? Bostoner (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a meme.[2] Why he yelled it on campus I do not know. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement

Right now the article says that he was suspended for making an obscene statement. Shouldn't we say what the statement was? Emperor001 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Wikipedia is not censored. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should. The article that gives the full quote is linked. Is there any reason we should spell it out? Does it have special poetic value? I don't see what it has that makes it necessary to reproduce it in article space. Also, ahem, in the grand scheme of things this is a small event, as gross as it is. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The point of an article is to inform people. There's no reason not to inform them as to what the obscenity was. He didn't just yell "shit!" -- and if we simply say that he uttered an obscenity then the reader is likely to be puzzled that a mere obscenity led to his being suspended from a game. I see no reason why our readers should end up feeling puzzled; yes, they can click through and see what the obscenity was, but why should they have to? I've given a good reason as to why it should be included, and I don't see anyone offering a good reason why it shouldn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We sufficiently inform people by using the term "obscenity" and making Wikipedia into the National Enquirer is less than wise. Sorry -- but we could have FUCK in big red letters in several thousand articles, but we have made the conscious choice in policy and guideline not to travel that path. Collect (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

At best that's a red herring -- I'm not aware of anyone proposing to put "fuck" in red letters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who insist on "fuck" being used as many times as possible on Wikipedia, IMO, demean the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I too would prefer not to have the direct quote, but I don't feel strongly about it. I don't think it violates WP:BLP, so long as there is no doubt about the sourcing that he did, indeed, say it. Subjectively, the direct quote provides a clearer portrait of the subject, and subjectively, it provides no more information than something like "a vulgar Internet meme" would. I can understand why the editors who favor the direct quote feel that way, but the intensity with which some of those editors are defending that quote puzzles me. I just don't see why a mature person would feel so very strongly that we absolutely must provide the quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Does not add value to the encyclopedia article. NE Ent 03:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the first response in this discussion, WP:CENSOR addresses very clearly the question of whether information which appears in WP articles should be censored -- it should not be. Whether or not this particular bit of information has sufficient topical weight to appear in this article is a separate question. If information about this does appear in the article, the question of how it should be presented should be decided by consensus. If the information presented includes the quote, however, the quote should be not be censored. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: The NYT, AP and other US sources do not use the word. The tabloid sites like BuzzFeed, do. Wikipedia can either follow the vast majority of US reportage in major reliable sources, or follow BuzzFeed. I do not think it is "censorship" to follow standard US journalistic practices on Wikipedia, and if we use weight of sources, the vast preponderance thereof do not use "fuck" as several editors wish Wikipedia to do. Collect (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to restrict ourselves to US sources and US journalistic practices. That sounds a bit chauvinistic and narrow. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That you see no reason to use what the massive majority of reliable sources say is interesting. But against rational policy. Unless of course you believe every instance of "fuck" belongs in quotes in an encyclopedia just because you can find a source using that word? I assuredly believe the term in WP:BLP about "conservative writing" actually has some shred of meaning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the statement and its relation to a specific controversy concerning the subject is more important than the fact that what he (supposedly) said makes you uncomfortable.73.2.136.228 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: "supposedly", is there any reason to doubt the sourcing for him having said exactly that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The major reliable sources do not make assertions about the exact wording, and specifically do not use the expression which has been edit-warred into this BLP (NYT, WaPo, etc.). Wikipedia says we should use the strongest sources for any BLP, and, frankly, using BuzzFeed etc. as our sources makes a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the usual time-wasting nonsense from this editor. One might get the impression that the portion of the article in question relies on Buzzfeed as a source. In fact Buzzfeed isn't used as a source in this article at all. Collect, why are you moaning about Buzzfeed? Anyone can see that the quotation is sourced not to Buzzfeed but to the Guardian. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So, again, is there any reason to doubt The Guardian's accuracy in reporting the exact wording of the "supposed" quote? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We go by the weight given in reliable sources - the extreme majority of the most reliable sources do not use the FUCK word which some seem intent on adding to many BLPs. Cheers -- where the vast majority of the most reliable sources do not make a claim, then the weight argument is very strong. The Guardian, one should note, does not make the quote a "matter of fact" but ascribes the claim to anonymous sources ("after several students tweeted" is not a claim that the person, in fact, used the word - but a claim that anonymous or unnamed sources made that claim). Collect (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish: no, there's no reason to doubt the Guardian's accuracy. What might raise doubt is if Winston had been reported to deny having said these words. There's no evidence of this. On the other matter: I suppose I should be grateful that Collect has not persisted in claiming that the article was using Buzzfeed as a source; an apology for having gotten things wrong is probably too much to expect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I, too, regard The Guardian as a reliable source. I also note Collect's edit indicating that the source actually attributes to quote to student tweets rather than directly to their own reporter, and I support having our content be precise about that fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck her right in the pussy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

Under the "Gun Complaint" section, there exists a grammatical error.

"Winston and another FSU player was held by campus police" should read "Winston and another FSU player were held by campus police" AndrewCmcauliffe (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

NFL Draft

On January 7, 2014, Jameis Winston opted to forgo his remaining eligibility at Florida State and enter the 2015 NFL draft. This should be added to his page, perhaps making a new "NFL" section. Mcconnellsc58 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)McConnellsc58

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

Jameis Winston started in 13 of 14 games in 2014, as he was suspended for the Clemson game Efwhitfill (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gparyani (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Updating article

I’d like to update and edit this article in a few ways, mostly relating to the rape allegation, and wanted to start by posting some thoughts here. The main problem I see is, the story in the Sexual Assault Allegation section looks like it’s been added piece by piece, as information has come out over the last few years; it does not flow very well, or present the issue in a very accessible way. Some minor details are covered, while more major points (such as his being expected to sit out the NFL draft, even as he is the projected #1 draft pick) are omitted. In some cases, the text seems less than neutral; for instance, while prosecutor Meggs was certainly critical of the initial investigation, the statement that there were major issues with Kinsman's testimony, outside the context of his specific comments, comes across as negative innuendo. I'm also not sure that having a separate "Controversies" section is a good idea, since this issue intertwines so strongly with Winston’s football career. Any thoughts on these points? -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, and with such a controversial topic, it's a good thing for you to raise it here. Maybe rewrite some of it and share it with us on the talk page before putting it in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Muboshgu. I have a proposed new version below. I intend this as a first step; I’ve tried to do a few things, that will hopefully establish a good foundation for (me or others) to continue to improve the section. Here are the main changes in this version:

• Simplified language, to make it easier to read/follow
• Removed several items that seem imbalanced in the way they are presented; for instance, while the TPD did indeed state that Kinsman stopped cooperating, she contested that claim, so it is misleading to state one position without the other. Also, the statement that Winston continued to play seemed only to serve the purpose of reiterating that he wasn’t charged; the question of whether or not he played during the investigation, which may have seemed very important back in 2013, does not seem to be a point more recent sources have continued to emphasize.
• The NYT article did not use the word "irregularities" - I reworded to more closely match the source.

This version does remove content, and does remove sources that should probably be preserved in the article in the long run. I propose we park them here on the talk page while considering further improvement to the article.

Overall: is this an improvement? OK to change the article? -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this prior to your making the edit in the actual article just now. It looks good to me! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text (has since been added to the article)

Sexual assault allegation In November 2013, State Attorney Willie Meggs of the Second Judicial Circuit opened an investigation into an allegation that Winston had sexually assaulted a classmate the previous year. The initial complaint had been filed with the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) on December 7, 2012.; the TPD had classified the case as open/inactive in February 2013. On December 5, 2013, Meggs announced the completion of the investigation, filing no charges. He stated: "As prosecutors, we only bring charges for cases where the evidence will result in a likely conviction at trial. In this case, the evidence does not show that." The New York Times published the conclusions of its own investigation in April 2014, asserting that neither the TPD nor FSU had genuinely investigated the initial report. Though a medical examination of the victim revealed bruised knees and semen on the woman's body – and the victim would identify Winston by name as her attacker a month later, Tallahassee police reportedly never obtained a DNA sample from Winston, never interviewed him, nor attempted to obtain video of the encounter taken by Seminoles teammate Chris Casher. The investigation was conducted by Officer Scott Angulo, who, the Times' article notes, did private security work for the Seminole Boosters, the primary financier of Florida State athletics. The official FSU hearing, presided over by retired Florida Supreme Court justice Major B. Harding, on December 21, 2014 cleared Winston of violating the student conduct code in the sexual assault allegation. References

Thanks for taking a look at that, Muboshgu. Note: these sources, removed in update, might be useful in other ways -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Schlabach, Mark (November 22, 2013). "Test links Winston's DNA to accuser". ESPN. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved November 23, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Luscombe, Richard (November 21, 2013). "Woman in FSU sexual assault case says local police told her to drop claim". The Guardian. Archived from the original on January 3, 2014. Retrieved January 1, 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Expanding lead section

The lead section is very short, and leaves out key points - like Winston expected to be a top NFL draft pick, and the 4 issues consigned to "controversies" at the end of the article (even though they have been the focus of lots of coverage). How about adding this paragraph to the lead section, right before the sentence about baseball? -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Winston is considered one of the top two quarterbacks in the 2015 NFL draft, and many analysts predict he may be the #1 pick. Off-the-field incidents, which include an alleged rape in 2012, shoplifting, and behavior that drew a full-game suspension, have raised concern among the teams who might draft him.

The part about him being the likely first overall pick and how highly regarded he is as a prospect I agree with, but I don't agree with adding the second part. In the future when the intro likely becomes bigger than I can see adding a small part about his off-field troubles (similar to Ben Roethlisberger's intro) but right now the intro is so small, I don't think that should be highlighted right now.--Yankees10 18:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I added this, with a little additional info -- I agree that the lead section is very short, and should present a fuller picture. So I added a little about his high school career, and the frequently mentioned comparisons to Mariota. Nearly all coverage I have found has mentioned Winston's negatives, sometimes with a euphemism like "his off-field judgment" or similar. Some NFL.com stories don't mention it, but the NFL has a vested interest in downplaying the negatives, so I don’t think their leaving it out is significant. A number of major mainstream publications have covered them in depth, outside their sports sections. So I think it is important to mention these issues prominently in the bio, and not bury them at the bottom of the article in a separate controversy section which makes them appear unrelated to his status as a draft prospect. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this material belongs in the lead. It's an easy call, in my view, given the guidance at WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Including rape allegation etc. in lead section

The lead section paragraph mentioning Winston's alleged rape, shoplifting, etc. as a central consideration in his draft prospects was just deleted, with the edit summary: "this paragraph is outdated now that Winston has been drafted." But the topic remains a centrally important consideration in nearly all coverage of Winston, in news coverage of his selection and its implications for the future. Coverage after the draft by numerous outlets centers on these questions. (For instance Sports Illustrated, ESPN/Associated Press, and National Public Radio) And this MSNBC article surveys what various experts, including the publications Slate and the Orlando Sentinel, have to say on the matter. This topic belongs in the lead section. As discussed above, it is the one aspect of Winston's career that nearly every story about him has covered. The article should reflect the bulk of coverage to date. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Items about the draft seem to be long standing information. In addition The New York times investigation should be cited from a seperate source, it is self published information. Jadeslair (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, thanks Jadeslair. I just added two sources indicating the significance of the Times investigation. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil suit

Cla68 added a paragraph on a recent preliminary ruling in a civil lawsuit involving Winston. This looks good, but one important issue: the phrase "upheld his claim for defamation" isn't accurate. The source article says that the judge "declined to dismiss" the claim, which is quite different from upholding it; the lawsuit considering the defamation claim is not yet resolved. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No objection from me if you want to change it as you explain above (if you haven't done so already). I had a hard time figuring out how to put it in the correct legalese. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- just wanted to check first. I'll take care of it in a moment. I’ll add a second source too. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Biased editing

As a Washington Examiner article points out,[3] Edwardpatrickalva has been editing this article and others in which he has a vested interest. I've reverted the changes he made to the sections detailed in the WE article.

This infraction is being discussed on the relevant noticeboard.[4] AWildAppeared (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It sure looks like Edwardpatrickalva discussed these changes above, no? And declared his COI on his talk page. Where's the problem such that an article at a publication typically considered an unreliable source for anything controversial beyond authors' personal opinions demands immediate on-wiki reaction? I'm not restoring the material myself because I'd rather not get involved in this sensitive WP:BLP issue without being certain (and I'm frankly not certain what the right course of action is -- I just know that "per an article at the Washington Examiner" is almost always a poor rationale for major changes to a controversial subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)