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 ([2]). 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.[3] 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)

This just came up at WP:AN/I. At the moment, that info is down in the "Controversies" section, not in the lede. That's appropriate, per WP:BLPCRIME. BLP policy is not to emphasize accusations. Convictions are different; when there's a criminal conviction, that belongs in the lede, a "Criminal" infobox can be used, and details about sentence served, prison location, and prisoner numbers are appropriate. Accusations, not so much. John Nagle (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:19, 20 November 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,[4] 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.[5] 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)

The source is irrelevant as it links to diffs: that Edwardpatrickalva has a COI [6] and has made many, many edits on the BLP of a person named in his film as a rapist, including rewriting the intro to include negative information,[7] which he did even despite objections on the talk page. It draws into question his motivation for doing so. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites Whether Alva discussed the changes above or not is irrelevant--he edited the article in a way that is indefensible, removing pertinent information without any justification for doing so. AWildAppeared (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Others agreed with his edits, which were discussed at length above. The Washington Examiner article doesn't give details of this, it just accuses him of something and then leaves out virtually all other pertinent info about his edits and the discussions had on this page. The word "bias" has lost all meaning, the way it's been thrown around by those so utterly convinced they are innocent of it. The bias is on the WE article, but the rest of Wikipedia's editors shouldn't need to suffer certain inaccuracies just because one article in a not terribly credible publication feels otherwise. Far more reputable sources tout the film's merits and deficits without resorting to the Washington Examiner's article. Kirby Dick's detractors usually have an agenda based on falsehoods. If COI is an issue here, focus on that instead of trying to say the edits are false when they're actually not, as demonstrated by the validations of other experienced editors on this talk page . Ongepotchket (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you input has any relation to my preceding comment. AWildAppeared (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ongepotchket is correct. Their response to you is very relevant because your comments reveal you don't understand our COI guideline. A COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies, then judge based on those infractions. While it's wisest for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus. If Alva had edit warred and shown ownership behavior, it would be another matter entirely, but he didn't.

In this case, as evidenced by the interactions between Alva and other editors above, he was editing collaboratively, seeking their input and approval, and he received it. If editors here had no problem with his edits, then no one else has a right to object. If he had violated policies and edit warred, I'm sure they would have objected, and then he could get into trouble, and possibly be topic banned from editing the article itself. That did not happen because it was not necessary.

It is the editors on THIS page who make up the consensus here. You're attacking Alva, who is a subject expert who did not hide his COI, and he's a newbie with very few article edits. Don't bite the newbie. He cannot be expected to understand the complexities of this place. No harm has been done and he's been very cooperative, so AGF. Any minor disagreements can be dealt with and fixed. The world has not come to an end. AGF should be extended toward COI editors and newbies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Flawed

This source (A Star Player Accused, and a Flawed Rape Investigation) was used a sentence or two after the following section:

Though a medical examination of the complainant revealed bruised knees and semen on the woman's body—and the complainant identified 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 source, however, says:

1. Semen on underwear
2. Bruises (does not mention knees) developed after the exam
3. Does not link the semen to the medical exam
4. Says they did not attempt to interview Winston for nearly two weeks - (only a picture caption says they did not interview him)
5. Says the video was deleted before the police were aware it existed

I've replaced the text with the following:

The complainant developed bruises and semen was found on her underwear. 34 days later the complainant identified Winston by name as her attacker. Tallahassee police contacted Winston about 13 days later. No DNA sample was taken from Winston until the prosecutor took over the case, months later.

Please feel free to improve subject to the normal BLP and other policies.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

Clarification. The above text should really be re-written since it is wholly within the context of reporting the article, rather than the allegations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

The page states: "No DNA sample was taken from Winston until the prosecutor took over the case, months later." However the page does not include updated information that the DNA from Winston was proved a match to that taken from the victim. This was announced on 11/21/13. Please see: https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=jameis+winston+dna+match&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 Please ad this updated information.

2601:981:0:2F00:5CB3:85AC:A67C:A0FF (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Done -- an obvious omission, now remedied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Alas - use of "victim" in Wikipedia's voice is improper - there is an accusation, but "victim" strongly implies that Wikipedia states that a crime was committed. As no adjudication has made that it is a claim of fact, it is improper for us to assert it as one per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

NYT Public Editor commentary

[8]

The largest one is whether — as some readers believe — The Times is on a one-sided crusade about sexual assault, especially on campus. Reporters and editors certainly have made that issue a high priority over the past year, not only on Florida State, but with an investigation of a poorly handled sexual assault claim at Hobart and William Smith College, and a recent article about a student accused of sexual assault at Columbia University.

After a debacle at Rolling Stone, with its flawed reporting of a rape accusation at the University of Virginia, every media organization pursuing this subject needs to take a hard look at itself. My reading of Times coverage does not suggest any runaway trains. What I’m seeing is hard-nosed and aggressive reporting that has put a harsh spotlight on an ugly underside of campus life.

The next is inadequate labeling, and this clearly needs to be fixed. The article — especially when read online — closely resembles a news story. The fact that Ms. Macur is not well known as a columnist (her Times bio calls her a sports reporter), and still occasionally has bylines on news stories, adds to the confusion. It would be easy to remedy this with the word or label “Opinion” atop columns. While that’s not an elegant design solution, it’s probably the clearest to readers. Something like that should happen — and fast. Mr. Stallman said that this incident had made that clear to sports editors, and that they would act on it. In fact, it’s a problem throughout The Times’s online offerings, not just in sports — a subject I expect to return to soon.

The final issue is the mixing of news and opinion in one article. The column’s transition from newsiness to sharp opinion was part of what caused Paul Marx of Towson, Md., to write to me: “I challenge you to read today’s Macur without wincing.”

The Times should have first covered the transcript as a news story, then had a columnist follow up. Using an opinion column to break news is not unheard-of and not necessarily inappropriate. But in this case, it just didn’t work.

In short - Wikipedia must be on careful watch about opinion columns being used for claims of fact as though they were straight reportage. Collect (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016

Under career highlights and awards, "NFL Rookie of the Year" per NFL Communications (NFL345) Twitter account. Robotzebra (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Please change " including shoplifting soda and crab legs, and an allegation of sexual assault, for which there was no prosecution" to "including alleged sexual assault and shoplifting soda and crab legs."

The way this post is written now is both grammatically incorrect and inaccurate in that it prioritizes a minor charge over a major one--making this article biased and non-adherent to Wikipedia's standards. To make this point clearer, compare it to the article regarding Robert Durst, accused of murder. One would put that Durst was accused of murder ahead of a discussion of his shoplifting history. Bamendol (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as IMHO actual offences take priority over an allegation - Arjayay (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Arjayay, fwiw. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jameis Winston. 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.buccaneers.com/team/roster/jameis-winston/ebadd6a8-cc30-4cd8-a0be-fb410cc45d40/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seminoles.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209573010&DB_OEM_ID=32900
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seminoles.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/jameis_winston_820606.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

When typing his name in the search bar, his description refers to him a an american rapist football and baseball player. The word rapist needs to be removed. 108.247.237.175 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: There is no mention of the word "rapist" in the entire article. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Look at his page on the wikipedia mobile app. Just under his name is the phrase american rapist football and baseball player. This also shows up on wikipedia's front page when his name is typed in the search bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.237.175 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done the mobile version takes the summary information from Wikidata, not en.wikipedia. The title was vandalized on 25 March 2016 by an IP who is now blocked until 3 May 2018, the description on 6 January by a single-use account - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ‎

The name is now cleared on wikipedia's front page, but it still shows on the mobile app page. Can someone edit the mobile page?

There is no "Mobile page" the mobile version combines information from Wikidata and en.wikipedia and it is not in either (other than being mentioned in the "Sexual assault allegation" section way down the page, which is well referenced, and will remain)
Having checked the mobile version, I don't see it, other than in the "Sexual assault allegation" section.
I suspect you may have a caching issue - your mobile has "saved" the version of the page you saw earlier, to save downloading it again. WP:clear your cache may cover your mobile.
The other problem may be that IP readers do not always see the latest version straight away, whereas logged in users see it immediately - Arjayay (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I cleared the cache on my mobile device and now it is fixed. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.237.175 (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Winston's recent statements that females are "supposed to be silent, polite, gentle."

Someone please add this incident to the "Controversies" section of the article:

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/jones-jameis-winstons-pep-talk-to-kids-sends-wrong-message-wvideo/2314204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.145.130 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not notable.--Yankees10 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you would think this is not a notable topic. I have added this on 2 different occasions and fully cited with references from Sports Illustrated, ESPN, USA Today along with other legitimate news sources. It shows how Mr. Winston thinks and his character. I believe it speaks to the person he is - and I even included that he apologized for what he said "after the fact". I will add this to the end of the talk section and include my original text. I personally think Yankees10 oversteps sometimes and doesn't allow other editors to publish content. --bucsfannva 8 October 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jameis Winston. 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/20140102163116/http://www.seminoles.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/jameis_winston_807027.html to http://www.seminoles.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/jameis_winston_807027.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Careless driving

I wanted to put up for debate whether or not the careless driving allegations are notable or not. Please share opinions. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000917307/article/jameis-winston-cited-for-careless-driving-in-crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkuchnir (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Of trivial consequence at most. UNDUE for sure if we put it in when others regard it as minor. Collect (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Another editor apparently has not read WP:BLP with regard to disputed material. Collect (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How can it be "alleged" if he apologized?

It might be time to remove all the uses of the word "alleged" regarding the Uber driver assault. He literally apologized for it. "First and foremost, I would like to say I’m sorry to the Uber driver for the position I put you in", etc. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/06/28/jameis-winston-confirms-suspension-apologizes-to-uber-driver/

Wknight94 ^talk 19:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep adding section on school incident only to have it removed (again)

I have added this to Mr. Winson's page several times but it continues to be removed. I believe it speaks to his character and the person he is - eventhough he has apologized for the incident (which was noted in the edit).

In February 2017 Winston made gender based comments while speaking to students at Melrose middle school in the Tampa Bay Area.. He said "All my young boys, stand up. The ladies, sit down, but all my boys, stand up. We strong, right? We strong! We strong, right? All my boys, tell me one time: I can do anything I put my mind to. Now a lot of boys aren't supposed to be soft-spoken." Winston said about girls: "But the ladies, they're supposed to be silent, polite, gentle. My men, my men (are) supposed to be strong. I want y'all to tell me what the third rule of life is: I can do anything I put my mind to. Scream it!" Parents and teachers who witnessed the speech felt the comments were derogatory towards girls and young women. Winston later admitted it was a poor word choice and apologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucsfannva (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

first Black qb to join the 5,000-yard Club

It should be duly noted, probably somewhere in the tail of the section about his 2019 season, that he is or became the first Black quarterback to throw for more than 5,000 yards in a single season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.72.232 (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is true from what I can tell, but has this been discussed in reliable sources? I did a quick search and it doesn't look like it's discussed anywhere online, so that would be original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What difference does it make if it is original research or not? It's a fact. If someone has an issue with this, all they have to do is look at the small club of 8 members and see that he is, in fact, the only Afro-American on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.72.232 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow for additions of original research per this policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)