This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The heading on a sub-section is "Investigation and charges". I changed it to "Criminal investigation and charges". One more than one occasion, this was reverted with an edit summary that basically said: "this was not a criminal investigation" and/or "this did not start out as a criminal investigation". So, I am confused. What exactly does the FBI and the State Police investigate, aside from criminal matters? And, even if it did not start out as a criminal investigation, it certainly ended up there. And, clearly, where it "ended up" (criminal) is more important than where it "started". So, the heading should contain "criminal". Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither you, Lootbrewed, nor Joseph Spadaro, have provided anything solid that shows - per policy - why we should ignore reliable sources that refer to the original, initial investigation at Fogle's home as nothing more than an investigation, rather than what you are insisting was a criminal investigation. You further claim my position contradicts policy - how so, exactly? Further, I have used no sarcasm. I have used no condescension. Continuing to make these accusations after I've already addressed such only shows a severe lack of WP:AGF on your part. I stated you are new and have less than 200 edits because I was noting that as a [WP:NEWBIE|newbie]], you might not be aware of the policies I listed above for you to read. As far as finding consensus, if consensus violates policy - especially in the way of a WP:BLP - it's not a valid or usable consensus. Now, if you would, please show me where my stand on the need to find reliable sources that support your claim that it was always a criminal investigation is contradicting policy. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Lootbrewed, it's important that you discuss your edits, your rationale for edit warring, and now the reinsertion of a highly discouraged section "Popular culture". Such a section is trivia; using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll just say this: if references do not refer to it as a criminal investigation, we do not call it a criminal investigation. See WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material for more. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Folks, in Wikipedia we follow the sources, not our ideas or opinions. It is quite simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
My opinion, if anyone cares, is that titling the section "Criminal Investigation" does not automatically mean that Fogle was the target of the investigation. The house was searched as part of a criminal investigation, albeit about someone else. I am unsure how this makes it any sort of other kind of investigation. Perhaps a good compromise, and to add some clarity, would be a sentence about why the house was initially searched. Beach drifter ( talk) 03:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't. And at least two other editors don't think it's okay, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Investigation, criminal charges, plea deal". It hits on all of it, but doesn't betray what the sources say. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hoping to find some sources with a clearer time frame but several news outlets are reporting that Fogle himself has been under investigation for years. Beach drifter ( talk) 04:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Should probably be updated from present to 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.221.96 ( talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover that Fogle's date of birth is not sourced anywhere in the article. Another editor has attempted twice to insert a different month and day in the past several hours, but provided no source. 1 2. The editor who reverted the most recent attempt provided this source in their edit summary. There are two problems with it. First, it only shows the month and year. Second, and much more importantly, it clearly looks like it got all the information from this article! I attempted to find a solid reliable source with the full birth date, especially an interview with Fogle, but couldn't find one. If someone else can find a solid source, please add it. If not, the date of birth should be removed today. Lootbrewed ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that Fogle has a sentencing hearing scheduled for November 19, 2015. He wouldn't be due for sentencing unless his guilty plea has already been signed. I would think that would be enough to not only put the criminal infobox in, but to note in the lede that he is an admitted child pornographer and child exploiter. HangingCurve Swing for the fence 17:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"he is an admitted child pornographer and child exploiter") off the talk page and out of your editing. This is a BLP and there are policies regarding such comments. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Winkelvi, I have a question: you removed sentencing data from the lede with the summary "not appropriate for lede, not lede-worthy, date dependent". May I ask why you feel this way?
IMHO, this should be there. By point: 1) the lead section " should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."; 2) "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." Absent reading further, the reader is not informed by the lead whether the article subject is in custody, and if not, why not; and 3) as a living encyclopedia, a great deal of Wikipedia is "date dependent", and we do not make decisions to include or remove data based on something that hasn't happened yet. This is not, say, a WP:CRYSTAL issue, or the data wouldn't be in the article at all. — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 🖖 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
After November it will mean squat and be an outdated piece of trivia. The lede should stand alone and should also be filled with content that isn't time or date dependent (at least that's how I interpret the MOS). I'm sure there will be those who disagree with me on this. But I really don't see how saying he will be sentenced in November is something that has to be put into the lede - we aren't a newspaper, as you already know. I'm willing to discuss this and change my opinion should someone come up with a good reason for including it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/22/jared-subway-charges-children/32155115/ - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently there is an edit war going on over whether an AP story (specifically this one) is a reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG, it is pretty clear that the AP is a reliable source, so I have added the content back in. Inks.LWC ( talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Inks.LWC, Fogle absolutely will be registering as a sex offender regardless of what comes out of his sentencing hearing. It's federal law. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"A plea agreement is the agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant that says that the defendant will plead guilty in return for something". That's essentially what I said (and I didn't go to law school). He's still admitted to a federal crime, no way he's not going to have to register as a sex offender after admitting to having sex with minors and possessing child pornography. But it really doesn't matter - "will"/"would" - he will, but we can wait until November to change it back to "will". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not what you said, and this point is very important. You said, "He already pled guilty; no judge is going to reject a guilty plea." Both halves of that sentence are severely incorrect. Going to law school is not a requirement to understanding this. Even the sources we've used for the article indicate that he hasn't yet pleaded guilty; they all say that he is going to plead guilty at his next court date. Had you read the articles thoroughly, this would have been clear to you. And although he admitted to prosecutors that he committed a crime, if his plea deal is rejected, his statements in the plea agreement are inadmissible in court. This is not a minor point; there is still a very real possibility that Fogle will not have to register as a sex offender. It is not a likely possibility, but it is very real. The word "will" implies that it is set in stone; that is not the case, and it is inaccurate and misleading to use the word "will". Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Inks.LWC, the reference (People) that had the direct quote (which is also now in the article) states very plainly "dissolution", not "divorce". Why did you change it back when that's not what she said? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material ... for which no reliable, published sources exist.And then look at the sources (emphasis mine in both):
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.There's a reason why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources, and confusion like this is one of those reasons. The fact that you're confused as to there being a difference in Indiana between dissolution and divorce is precisely the reason why "divorce" should be used in the article. Inks.LWC ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Not only are you misapplying WP:OR, you are ignoring a key portion of it entirely. It's not against policy. Where in WP:OR does it say that it doesn't matter what reliable sources say after the primary source says something? It doesn't say that! If your bastardized interpretation of WP:OR was correct, then if an individual lied in making a primary statement, we would never be able to use a secondary source to contradict it. Talk about applying common sense. We have not one, but two, reliable sources that use the word "divorce". Divorce is a word that carries with it no confusing connotations about fault vs. no fault. Additionally, as I stated above, and as you conveniently ignored, articles should primarily be based on secondary sources, rather than primary sources. The secondary sources use the word "divorce"; only the primary source uses the word "dissolution". This entire discussion is patently ridiculous; a statement explicitly made by two reliable sources cannot possibly be original research, because original research is "material ... for which no reliable, published sources exist." If a reliable, published source exists regarding the material, there is no original research problem; such is the case here. You can argue all you want about wanting to use the wife's statement, but that argument isn't based in any policy or guideline and certainly isn't based in anything in WP:OR. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"changed back to divorce; there is no difference in Indiana, but there are differences in other states. Using "dissolution" could mislead people"(found here). THAT is original research. On top of using wording that was never uttered by the individual the content is about. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any validity to your argument(s) on this. None. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this: [1] -- no, it's not original research, Inks.LWC, it's merely a (clearer) variation of what you wrote. And, frankly, I'm sick of you (seemingly) finding any little fucking reason to revert what I do at this article. It's starting to really feel like you believe you WP:OWN this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Yes, it is original research, because that is not what the reliable sources say."How totally fucking hilarious. That's exactly what I said to you regarding the difference in the article between "dissolution" and "divorce". And how did you respond? Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you having an ownership issue with this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
filed for divorce on Aug. 19and
announcing that she plans to seek a divorce). Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"We've been over this"..."Please don't talk down to me - I don't need, nor do I deserve, your condescension. I'm not a child and you're not my parent. I'm not a student and you're not my teacher. You're not a lawyer and I'm not your client.
King's denial that the man on his birth certificate is his bio father is a primary source, which, in the world of Wikipedia, is a primary source, and not wholly reliable.I'm not the one making up rules as I go to fit my agenda. The preference for secondary sources is clearly stated in the policy. The only one applying rules in one place and then ignoring them in another is you. On one talk page, you argued that primary sources are not wholly reliable, and now you're arguing here that we can't get a better source. So which one is it? Inks.LWC ( talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"Fogle's wife's statement is a primary source, while the news articles are secondary sources."Not if it comes from a reliable secondary source. That's WP:COMMONSENSE.
"King's denial that the man on his birth certificate is his bio father is a primary source"Wow, are you seriously comparing two completely different situations and trying to make me look like I'm an idiot who is playing a game and have some sort of agenda? Fogle's wife's statement is her statement to the press through her attorney, the press covered it. That's secondary. King denied the claims from his Twitter account - that's the primary source I was referring to. There's no comparison in either situation, there's no comparison in the sources, there's no comparison in what I said about King and what I said here about Fogle's wife. I don't know if you're trying to look truly obtuse as a ploy to win your side of the argument or if you really are having a hard time seeing the differences, so I'll err on the side of WP:AGF. Still, wow. I'm shaking my head big time on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if/when the article will be expanded but this may be a good source. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
CAN WE ADD THIS?!?!? http://nypost.com/2015/07/10/woman-claims-subways-jared-told-her-middle-school-girls-are-hot/ Woman that wore wire for FBI does interview and says "Gross Jared Says Middle School Girls are Hot!" Like to lead off with this cite or at least lead off the personal life section, right before we talk about his parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:804:0:3AA8:6419:94D5:C179:742 ( talk) 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I got his address off the Indiana court records. I pulled up his property from the State GIS I would like to take a screenshot and have the satellite imagery of his Zionsville house added to this article. It's all in the public domain I just need the article unlocked or to give the image to someone that will add it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:804:0:3AA8:604F:6738:25BA:1F43 (
talk) 04:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not think they will unprotect it for that but you do not own the copyright for that image anyway so I do not think you could upload it. I may be wrong but unless they have released the rights, someone else owns the copyright.
Jadeslair (
talk)
05:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Today there are very specific text messages being reported on related to the scandal. Convicted or not, I was really surprised there is absolutely no mention of this in the article. Wikipedia usually reports established facts about ongoing events. It is known without a doubt that the police raided his house and found incriminating material is it not? Does the article really need to wait until he's sitting in jail to talk about this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182074/Subway-s-disgraced-spokesman-Jared-Fogle-bragged-AMAZING-sex-16-year-old-girl-texts-female-colleague-report-claims.html
tharsaile ( talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC) And...he's busted. tharsaile ( talk) 21:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Just created Russell Taylor (director) as a redirect for the Russell Taylor disambiguation page. Tagged it as a redirect with possibilities.
Directed it to the Jared Foundation section because this is where Taylor is first mentioned.
He is also mentioned in the criminal investigation section though.
Is a point approaching where the notability of Taylor may rise to a great enough deal that this redirect ought to be expanded into an article? The focus of the recent Dr. Phil episode was (in spite of Phil's hashtag choice) almost entirelty on actions surrounding Taylor and guests at his home.
I am wondering if this would be useful for helping clear up spelling errors. http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/11/12/teen-speaking-out-in-sex-scandal-involving-former-subway-spokesperson/ for example spells his name Russel Taylor. Does anyone know for sure whether his first name ends in one L or two Ls? Sources seem to mess this up a lot, I have seen the girl turning 17 this December (mother named Tara) spelled "Annalisa" (as in this CBSlocal article) or "Analissa" (I believe a graphic on Phil's show uses this) or "Annalissa". Extra for example has "lissa" consistently but uses "Ana" and "Anna" inconsistently. Ranze ( talk) 19:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Also fact-tagged these, the only reference listed after that was http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2006/06/15/news/local/jared0616.txt which was only about him being a mitzvah and did not mention his parents. Ranze ( talk) 19:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Support split - Jared Foundation was marked as a redirect with possibilities. I support the split to a new article entitled Jared Foundation. Thoughts? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Support split - That is becoming something of a scandal in itself with Taylor's sex crimes and the financial irregularities.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Against split What is the rationale? There isn't even enough info on the current article to support a whole new page. It's just a small footnote in this person's life. Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Against split per Air Combat. I'm just not seeing enough there to support a separate article. LM2000 ( talk) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose. Not enough content nor is there a need to split into another article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose. Like I stated before, it does not need its own Wikipedia article; WP:Notable and WP:Spinout apply here. Also see WP:No split. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The heading on a sub-section is "Investigation and charges". I changed it to "Criminal investigation and charges". One more than one occasion, this was reverted with an edit summary that basically said: "this was not a criminal investigation" and/or "this did not start out as a criminal investigation". So, I am confused. What exactly does the FBI and the State Police investigate, aside from criminal matters? And, even if it did not start out as a criminal investigation, it certainly ended up there. And, clearly, where it "ended up" (criminal) is more important than where it "started". So, the heading should contain "criminal". Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither you, Lootbrewed, nor Joseph Spadaro, have provided anything solid that shows - per policy - why we should ignore reliable sources that refer to the original, initial investigation at Fogle's home as nothing more than an investigation, rather than what you are insisting was a criminal investigation. You further claim my position contradicts policy - how so, exactly? Further, I have used no sarcasm. I have used no condescension. Continuing to make these accusations after I've already addressed such only shows a severe lack of WP:AGF on your part. I stated you are new and have less than 200 edits because I was noting that as a [WP:NEWBIE|newbie]], you might not be aware of the policies I listed above for you to read. As far as finding consensus, if consensus violates policy - especially in the way of a WP:BLP - it's not a valid or usable consensus. Now, if you would, please show me where my stand on the need to find reliable sources that support your claim that it was always a criminal investigation is contradicting policy. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Lootbrewed, it's important that you discuss your edits, your rationale for edit warring, and now the reinsertion of a highly discouraged section "Popular culture". Such a section is trivia; using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll just say this: if references do not refer to it as a criminal investigation, we do not call it a criminal investigation. See WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material for more. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Folks, in Wikipedia we follow the sources, not our ideas or opinions. It is quite simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
My opinion, if anyone cares, is that titling the section "Criminal Investigation" does not automatically mean that Fogle was the target of the investigation. The house was searched as part of a criminal investigation, albeit about someone else. I am unsure how this makes it any sort of other kind of investigation. Perhaps a good compromise, and to add some clarity, would be a sentence about why the house was initially searched. Beach drifter ( talk) 03:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't. And at least two other editors don't think it's okay, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Investigation, criminal charges, plea deal". It hits on all of it, but doesn't betray what the sources say. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hoping to find some sources with a clearer time frame but several news outlets are reporting that Fogle himself has been under investigation for years. Beach drifter ( talk) 04:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Should probably be updated from present to 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.221.96 ( talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover that Fogle's date of birth is not sourced anywhere in the article. Another editor has attempted twice to insert a different month and day in the past several hours, but provided no source. 1 2. The editor who reverted the most recent attempt provided this source in their edit summary. There are two problems with it. First, it only shows the month and year. Second, and much more importantly, it clearly looks like it got all the information from this article! I attempted to find a solid reliable source with the full birth date, especially an interview with Fogle, but couldn't find one. If someone else can find a solid source, please add it. If not, the date of birth should be removed today. Lootbrewed ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that Fogle has a sentencing hearing scheduled for November 19, 2015. He wouldn't be due for sentencing unless his guilty plea has already been signed. I would think that would be enough to not only put the criminal infobox in, but to note in the lede that he is an admitted child pornographer and child exploiter. HangingCurve Swing for the fence 17:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"he is an admitted child pornographer and child exploiter") off the talk page and out of your editing. This is a BLP and there are policies regarding such comments. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Winkelvi, I have a question: you removed sentencing data from the lede with the summary "not appropriate for lede, not lede-worthy, date dependent". May I ask why you feel this way?
IMHO, this should be there. By point: 1) the lead section " should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."; 2) "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." Absent reading further, the reader is not informed by the lead whether the article subject is in custody, and if not, why not; and 3) as a living encyclopedia, a great deal of Wikipedia is "date dependent", and we do not make decisions to include or remove data based on something that hasn't happened yet. This is not, say, a WP:CRYSTAL issue, or the data wouldn't be in the article at all. — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 🖖 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
After November it will mean squat and be an outdated piece of trivia. The lede should stand alone and should also be filled with content that isn't time or date dependent (at least that's how I interpret the MOS). I'm sure there will be those who disagree with me on this. But I really don't see how saying he will be sentenced in November is something that has to be put into the lede - we aren't a newspaper, as you already know. I'm willing to discuss this and change my opinion should someone come up with a good reason for including it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/22/jared-subway-charges-children/32155115/ - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently there is an edit war going on over whether an AP story (specifically this one) is a reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG, it is pretty clear that the AP is a reliable source, so I have added the content back in. Inks.LWC ( talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Inks.LWC, Fogle absolutely will be registering as a sex offender regardless of what comes out of his sentencing hearing. It's federal law. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"A plea agreement is the agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant that says that the defendant will plead guilty in return for something". That's essentially what I said (and I didn't go to law school). He's still admitted to a federal crime, no way he's not going to have to register as a sex offender after admitting to having sex with minors and possessing child pornography. But it really doesn't matter - "will"/"would" - he will, but we can wait until November to change it back to "will". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not what you said, and this point is very important. You said, "He already pled guilty; no judge is going to reject a guilty plea." Both halves of that sentence are severely incorrect. Going to law school is not a requirement to understanding this. Even the sources we've used for the article indicate that he hasn't yet pleaded guilty; they all say that he is going to plead guilty at his next court date. Had you read the articles thoroughly, this would have been clear to you. And although he admitted to prosecutors that he committed a crime, if his plea deal is rejected, his statements in the plea agreement are inadmissible in court. This is not a minor point; there is still a very real possibility that Fogle will not have to register as a sex offender. It is not a likely possibility, but it is very real. The word "will" implies that it is set in stone; that is not the case, and it is inaccurate and misleading to use the word "will". Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Inks.LWC, the reference (People) that had the direct quote (which is also now in the article) states very plainly "dissolution", not "divorce". Why did you change it back when that's not what she said? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material ... for which no reliable, published sources exist.And then look at the sources (emphasis mine in both):
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.There's a reason why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources, and confusion like this is one of those reasons. The fact that you're confused as to there being a difference in Indiana between dissolution and divorce is precisely the reason why "divorce" should be used in the article. Inks.LWC ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Not only are you misapplying WP:OR, you are ignoring a key portion of it entirely. It's not against policy. Where in WP:OR does it say that it doesn't matter what reliable sources say after the primary source says something? It doesn't say that! If your bastardized interpretation of WP:OR was correct, then if an individual lied in making a primary statement, we would never be able to use a secondary source to contradict it. Talk about applying common sense. We have not one, but two, reliable sources that use the word "divorce". Divorce is a word that carries with it no confusing connotations about fault vs. no fault. Additionally, as I stated above, and as you conveniently ignored, articles should primarily be based on secondary sources, rather than primary sources. The secondary sources use the word "divorce"; only the primary source uses the word "dissolution". This entire discussion is patently ridiculous; a statement explicitly made by two reliable sources cannot possibly be original research, because original research is "material ... for which no reliable, published sources exist." If a reliable, published source exists regarding the material, there is no original research problem; such is the case here. You can argue all you want about wanting to use the wife's statement, but that argument isn't based in any policy or guideline and certainly isn't based in anything in WP:OR. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"changed back to divorce; there is no difference in Indiana, but there are differences in other states. Using "dissolution" could mislead people"(found here). THAT is original research. On top of using wording that was never uttered by the individual the content is about. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any validity to your argument(s) on this. None. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this: [1] -- no, it's not original research, Inks.LWC, it's merely a (clearer) variation of what you wrote. And, frankly, I'm sick of you (seemingly) finding any little fucking reason to revert what I do at this article. It's starting to really feel like you believe you WP:OWN this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Yes, it is original research, because that is not what the reliable sources say."How totally fucking hilarious. That's exactly what I said to you regarding the difference in the article between "dissolution" and "divorce". And how did you respond? Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you having an ownership issue with this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
filed for divorce on Aug. 19and
announcing that she plans to seek a divorce). Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"We've been over this"..."Please don't talk down to me - I don't need, nor do I deserve, your condescension. I'm not a child and you're not my parent. I'm not a student and you're not my teacher. You're not a lawyer and I'm not your client.
King's denial that the man on his birth certificate is his bio father is a primary source, which, in the world of Wikipedia, is a primary source, and not wholly reliable.I'm not the one making up rules as I go to fit my agenda. The preference for secondary sources is clearly stated in the policy. The only one applying rules in one place and then ignoring them in another is you. On one talk page, you argued that primary sources are not wholly reliable, and now you're arguing here that we can't get a better source. So which one is it? Inks.LWC ( talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"Fogle's wife's statement is a primary source, while the news articles are secondary sources."Not if it comes from a reliable secondary source. That's WP:COMMONSENSE.
"King's denial that the man on his birth certificate is his bio father is a primary source"Wow, are you seriously comparing two completely different situations and trying to make me look like I'm an idiot who is playing a game and have some sort of agenda? Fogle's wife's statement is her statement to the press through her attorney, the press covered it. That's secondary. King denied the claims from his Twitter account - that's the primary source I was referring to. There's no comparison in either situation, there's no comparison in the sources, there's no comparison in what I said about King and what I said here about Fogle's wife. I don't know if you're trying to look truly obtuse as a ploy to win your side of the argument or if you really are having a hard time seeing the differences, so I'll err on the side of WP:AGF. Still, wow. I'm shaking my head big time on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if/when the article will be expanded but this may be a good source. WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
CAN WE ADD THIS?!?!? http://nypost.com/2015/07/10/woman-claims-subways-jared-told-her-middle-school-girls-are-hot/ Woman that wore wire for FBI does interview and says "Gross Jared Says Middle School Girls are Hot!" Like to lead off with this cite or at least lead off the personal life section, right before we talk about his parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:804:0:3AA8:6419:94D5:C179:742 ( talk) 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I got his address off the Indiana court records. I pulled up his property from the State GIS I would like to take a screenshot and have the satellite imagery of his Zionsville house added to this article. It's all in the public domain I just need the article unlocked or to give the image to someone that will add it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:804:0:3AA8:604F:6738:25BA:1F43 (
talk) 04:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not think they will unprotect it for that but you do not own the copyright for that image anyway so I do not think you could upload it. I may be wrong but unless they have released the rights, someone else owns the copyright.
Jadeslair (
talk)
05:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Today there are very specific text messages being reported on related to the scandal. Convicted or not, I was really surprised there is absolutely no mention of this in the article. Wikipedia usually reports established facts about ongoing events. It is known without a doubt that the police raided his house and found incriminating material is it not? Does the article really need to wait until he's sitting in jail to talk about this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182074/Subway-s-disgraced-spokesman-Jared-Fogle-bragged-AMAZING-sex-16-year-old-girl-texts-female-colleague-report-claims.html
tharsaile ( talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC) And...he's busted. tharsaile ( talk) 21:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Just created Russell Taylor (director) as a redirect for the Russell Taylor disambiguation page. Tagged it as a redirect with possibilities.
Directed it to the Jared Foundation section because this is where Taylor is first mentioned.
He is also mentioned in the criminal investigation section though.
Is a point approaching where the notability of Taylor may rise to a great enough deal that this redirect ought to be expanded into an article? The focus of the recent Dr. Phil episode was (in spite of Phil's hashtag choice) almost entirelty on actions surrounding Taylor and guests at his home.
I am wondering if this would be useful for helping clear up spelling errors. http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/11/12/teen-speaking-out-in-sex-scandal-involving-former-subway-spokesperson/ for example spells his name Russel Taylor. Does anyone know for sure whether his first name ends in one L or two Ls? Sources seem to mess this up a lot, I have seen the girl turning 17 this December (mother named Tara) spelled "Annalisa" (as in this CBSlocal article) or "Analissa" (I believe a graphic on Phil's show uses this) or "Annalissa". Extra for example has "lissa" consistently but uses "Ana" and "Anna" inconsistently. Ranze ( talk) 19:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Also fact-tagged these, the only reference listed after that was http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2006/06/15/news/local/jared0616.txt which was only about him being a mitzvah and did not mention his parents. Ranze ( talk) 19:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Support split - Jared Foundation was marked as a redirect with possibilities. I support the split to a new article entitled Jared Foundation. Thoughts? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Support split - That is becoming something of a scandal in itself with Taylor's sex crimes and the financial irregularities.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Against split What is the rationale? There isn't even enough info on the current article to support a whole new page. It's just a small footnote in this person's life. Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Against split per Air Combat. I'm just not seeing enough there to support a separate article. LM2000 ( talk) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose. Not enough content nor is there a need to split into another article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose. Like I stated before, it does not need its own Wikipedia article; WP:Notable and WP:Spinout apply here. Also see WP:No split. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)