Talk:Jared Fogle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Investigation and charges

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)

Furthermore, that specific sub-section only addresses a criminal investigation. It says nothing at all about any "non-criminal" investigations. So, what's the deal? And why are some editors insisting that the word "criminal" not be present in a section that only deals with a criminal investigation? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The first Investigation was just that: part of an investigation in relation to the other individual and the Jared Foundation. It didn't become a criminal investigation until they found something criminal - which was later. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro. When the FBI and state police raid a home (and seize property), it's unquestionably a criminal investigation. It doesn't matter who they were investigating at the beginning; the point is that it was part of a criminal investigation. And, clearly, we know in hindsight that Fogle was indeed being investigated when they raided his home. In any case, an "investigation" is extremely vague. There are endless types of investigations that are non-criminal and have nothing to do with law enforcement, such as employment investigations, etc.. Having said that, the current heading is too vague; it should be specific to summarize the content of the section. Rather than say it's a criminal investigation, I feel the heading should be more along the lines of Arrest for sex with minors and child pornography. If there were multiple arrests over the years for unrelated incidents, then the section heading should simply be Arrests, with subsections with more specific headings. But since Fogle only has one criminal incident, I feel we should use a heading that is specific, such as the one I suggested. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty certain the sources from the time of the initial investigation didn't refer to it as a criminal investigation. If the sources don't say it, we don't interpret it to say something else. Find reliable sources from the time of initial investigation that said it was criminal and that's what it was. If you can't, then it wasn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The only types of investigations the FBI and state police do are criminal investigations. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What. Do. The. Sources. Say? We go by what's reliably sourced, not what we think something is or isn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I'll ask that you please refrain from responding to editors with uncivil sarcasm ("What. Do. The. Sources. Say?"). You're essentially using the argument that if the source doesn't specify that the sun is hot, then it can't be said. Again... as Joesph pointed out, the only types of investigations the FBI and state police conduct are criminal investigations. You have yet to address that point. In any case, even the very first source used in the "Investigation" section says "FBI sources told FOX59 state and federal investigators were serving warrants at Fogle’s Zionsville home in connection with a child pornography investigation." "Child pornography investigation" = criminal investigation. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm being quite civil and there is nothing sarcastic in what I said. The bottom line for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If you or anyone can verify via reliable sources the initial investigation of Fogel's home was criminally focused on him, then it can be referred to as criminal. If there is nothing saying it was, it can't. We write what is supported by reliable sources, not what we think or believe or know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's puzzling that you are choosing not to answer counterpoints that have been raised repeatedly and continue to debate the obvious— that the entire section is obviously about a criminal investigation. What other types of investigations, besides criminal, do the FBI and state police conduct, particularly when they raid a home? When sources say that it is a "child pornography investigation" or "sex with minors investigation", do you really not understand that those are criminal investigations? Unless you would like to answer the points made or offer something new, I'll leave my thoughts at that. You'll need to get a consensus for your position in order to change the heading. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

My position is based on policy. This is a BLP. Standards for BLPs are more strict. Read WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP, WP:REF, and WP:OR to get a handle on why I am saying what I'm saying. You're new to Wikipedia, less than 200 edits. Please become familiar with policy and guidleines and their importance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your position contradicts policy, existing sources, and common sense. Rather than responding to editors with sarcasm or condescension, perhaps it would have been much more productive if you had addressed the specific questions and points that have been raised with regard to this issue. For the record, you should never assume another person's level of experience based solely on the number of edits they've contributed. A lot of editors followed or edited the project for many years as an IP before finally deciding to create an account, and they are therefore quite familiar with the policies and guidelines. Further, it serves no purpose to tell someone they're "new" or to announce how many edits they've made since (1) you obviously have no idea how "new" someone is, and (2) each editor is well aware of how many edits they've contributed. Perhaps you will find a consensus that shares your views on this issue. Good luck. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"What. Do. The. Sources. Say?" Winklvi - please choose not to engage in this type of behavior. After your most recent (fifth) block, you indicated you had learned better techniques with which you could interact with editors with whom you disagree. Do you need a refresher? BlueSalix (talk) 18:12, 21 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)

While you are edit warring to get the article back to your preferred version, Lootbrewed, I am waiting for you to answer the questions asked above and show how I am not following policy and you are. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 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)

WV, how interesting that the only two editors who supposedly support your flawed position, SNUGGUMS and Cwobeel, are the two you begged to come here by posting a biased rant about me on their talk pages.123 You failed to get any support from neutral editors who would join the discussion on their own, so you decided to go looking for some allies to take your side so you wouldn't remain all alone in your views.

Nevertheless, your two friends merely repeated some of your irrelevant talking points that clearly are not applicable to the issue at hand. This is and always has been a criminal investigation, ever since the day Fogle's home was raided. Obviously, when endless sources, including the very first one currently used in the "Investigation" section (source 21), say that the raid on Fogle's home was part of a "child pornography investigation", then it is, by definition, a criminal investigation. Further, WV, you chose to ignore perhaps the most relevant question that was asked numerous times by both Joseph A. Spadoro and me: What other types of investigations, besides criminal, do the FBI and state police conduct (particularly when they are raiding someone's home)?? It's very revealing that you have refused to answer that question every time it's been asked. Finally, regarding your faulty notion- that it wasn't a criminal investigation when it started but became one later- that would be irrelevant even if it were true. The fact is that the section as a whole is obviously about a criminal investigation and the event that happened as a result of it. So how you claim it supposedly "started" does not change the fact of what it became. The section heading, therefore, needs to reflect that. There was no consensus before you unilaterlly changed the heading back to your version, nor is there one now, especially in light of the fact that you directly lobbied the two editors who took your side immediately after they received your plea for help.

The next time you take a position where no one takes your side, do not go out seeking allies by posting heavily biased pleas on their talk pages. If you want to get opinions from others, the way to do it is by asking completely neutral editors in a completely neutral manner, not by picking and choosing a couple pals who will obviously take your side regardless of what they actually believe. On a final note, WV, I see that you have been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and edit-warring. Therefore, I would reconsider your tactics and behavior towards other editors so that you do not continue getting blocked in the future. I doubt that bullying "newbies", as you like to call it, will work out well for you in the long run. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WV, I have just discovered that you clearly violated WP:CANVASS in multiple ways when you posted those messages on the talk pages of SMUGGEMS and Cwobell.123 I don't know if you've violated this behavioral guideline previously, but WP:CANVASS says "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." In any case, since your only support in this discussion is from your two friends whom you canvassed inappropriately, it invalidates any input that stemmed from it. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in asking for a second pair of eyes. Winkelvi and I not always agree on issues and sometime we hold opposing views. You need to take down a notch see WP:OWN - Cwobeel (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, there is nothing wrong asking for a second pair of eyes if it is done in a way that does not violate a very clear behaviorial guideline. Winkelvi violated it in multiple ways. I would suggest educating yourself on WP:CANVASS, as I did myself a few hours ago. By the way, before you tell another editor to "take it down a notch" (or similar), perhaps you should consider focusing on your own behavior instead. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:19, 22 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, there was something about it that I had added last night, but it was reverted out by an editor who has chosen edit warring and WP:OWN behavior over discussion and compromise. His way or the highway, basically. Hence, the 3RR I filed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well how about I ask him instead of us continuing this nonsense about a trivial matter? What title would you prefer for the section? As he has been charged, "investigation" now seems unnecessary. Beach drifter (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional I think the last paragraph of the section should be removed until the Judge actual rules on the matter, since at this point that is all really just speculation. At the very least it should be reworded to make it apparent as such. Beach drifter (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the current language (Criminal investigation and plea agreement) is appropriate and is fine. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking "charges" is more appropriate because we are beyond an investigation. However since people feel otherwise I am happy to look at other options. Ideally this section could be appropriately titled after everything in court is concluded, but I am not sure if there is a time frame for that. Beach drifter (talk) 04:08, 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)

You want it to remain as "Investigation", correct? What about "Charges"? That is easy enough to source. Or "Arrest". Also easy. Can we get the other two editors to chime back in and clarify their potions? Beach drifter (talk) 04:08, 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)

WV, the two other editors who don't think it's ok are are the two you inappropriately campaigned; a clear violation of WP:CANVASS.123 Jospeh, Beach drifter and I take the other view. And neither of them were canvassed. This is very simple. It was always a criminal investigation; whether Fogle was the target or not when they raided his home is completely irrelevant. To argue that a "child pornography investigation" is not a criminal investigation is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Even the very first source in the section says it, that "state and federal investigators were serving warrants at Fogle’s Zionsville home in connection with a child pornography investigation". Beach drifter summed it up very simply, logically and effectively in his initial comment. Please, stop debating that a child porn investigation is not a criminal investigation. It makes no sense at all. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with User:Lootbrewed. I cannot fathom how anyone with a straight face can advocate that this is not a "criminal investigation". And cannot understand why someone is so vocal about leaving the word "criminal" out. This is clearly about a crime that Fogle committed (and even admitted to). Why are some people trying to hide that very obvious fact? Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 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)

Investigation or criminal investigation. There is a difference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd honestly like for you to explain to us the difference. The FBI does not investigate anything but crimes. At the end of the investigation, Fogle was charged with multiple crimes. Hence, they were investigating crimes. I like to stick to policy as well but this is a little ridiculous. Beach drifter (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Beach, "ridiculous" is putting it kindly. Now you see precisely what's been going on here. Winkelvi continues to argue that a "child pornography investigation" is not a criminal investigation; and that somehow the FBI and state police investigate something other than crimes. I've asked the question you're asking him numerous times, but he has yet to answer or even acknowledge it. It's been explained to him repeatedly. So good luck with that. By the way, Beach, I see that you've been editing for four more years than Winkelvi, so at least he won't use the "newbie" rationale on you as he's done with me.. In any case, we need to seriously put an end to this nonsense, which is exactly what it's become. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Beach drifter, I just noticed your suggestion above, which said "I'm thinking "charges" is more appropriate because we are beyond an investigation". So I assume you are suggesting a heading of "Criminal charges and plea deal", correct? If so, I would support it. It's clear, concise, and accurately sums up the section content. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is what I was thinking. Again I think we might want to tweak it after everything is finalized but that seems the most accurate title at the moment. If more sources and details come out about a long term investigation I think it is definitely worth expanding a bit on that area but still under the same section. Beach drifter (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Beach. I really like your proposal a lot. At this stage in the series of events, it very accurately reflects the content in the section. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with "Criminal charges and plea deal". It is a good reflection of the section. Also, it removes the word "investigation", with which some editors were "uncomfortable" (unreasonably so, in my opinion). Next, those same editors will likely argue that these are not "criminal charges", but rather just "charges". LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Years Active

Should probably be updated from present to 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.221.96 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

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.12. 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)

Added and sourced. Took longer to find than expected. Whew. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Great job. It's remarkable that an incorrect, unsourced date of birth was in the article for over 10 years. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hence the reason why colleges don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source and Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, a Wikipedia article itself is not a reliable source. It's the reliable sources each article uses that are the reliable sources. And it's far beyond colleges that know this and have strict rules about it. Sadly, many media outlets and others frequently violate this rule by simply grabbing content from a WP article and accepting it as fact, without ever checking the sourcing. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Might be time to change the infobox

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)

First of all, HangingCurve, there's no hurry to change the infobox -- obviously, it's going to be the criminal infobox for at least five years and his sentencing isn't for three months. Secondly, because he made a plea agreement, he's not officially convicted until he is sentenced, therefore, a criminal infobox at this time would be inappropriate. Lastly, please keep your personal, POV feelings about Fogle ("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)

Hanging, your premise that "he wouldn't be due for sentencing unless his guilty plea has already been signed" is false because his guilty plea actually has not been "signed", meaning that it has not yet been accepted by the federal court judge. The hearing is November 19. Currently, there is simply a plea agreement between Fogle and the prosecutors, which is just one step in the process. Although highly unlikely, the judge is permitted to reject that plea deal. A conviction doesn't occur until the court enters a judgment. This page outlines the federal rules of criminal procedure. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake ... I didn't know it was possible for a sentencing hearing to be scheduled before a guilty plea is formally entered.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sentencing in lede

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)

And, again, Wiki is a living encyclopedia, and this is August; if "outdated piece of trivia" is the sole denominator, it wouldn't be in the article at all. The lead should tell the reader whether someone who has agreed to plead to such significant criminal charges is in custody and, if not, why not. This is, IMO, "a good reason for including it." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also question "piece of trivia" on its face: it is this hearing that will convict him—as you note above, he merely stands accused until a plea is entered and sentence is given—and it is this hearing that will determine the length of his sentence. To me, this is the opposite of "trivia". Meantime, if we assume things occur as scheduled, after November this article will read, "On November 19, 2015, Fogle entered a guilty plea to [charges]. He was sentenced to [commitment] ...", which will be neither squat nor outdated. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, ATinySliver. Those points convinced me to go a different direction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ATinySilver, as you can see from this edit I made earlier today, I agreed with your inclusion of the November hearing, so I simply expanded it to use the specific date since there's a great, existing source for it. Unfortunately, Winkelvi yet again reverted content agreed upon by multiple other editors. However, your edit summary for adding it back because of another editor's not "beating around the bush" with the section heading, is not a valid reason because that section heading is of course completely inappropriate since Fogle had not yet been convicted, and, more importantly, there is a current discussion (above) regarding what that heading should be. But, as I said, I do support your inclusion of the November hearing reference in the lede, with the full November 19 date, but it's not really an issue I'm passionate about. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't gonna touch that section heading; I'm not really a participant in the discussion and, if only in reference to the accusations, it was at least factually accurate. My concern per WP:LEAD is that someone reading only the lead could be left with the impression that there's been a conviction; to my way of thinking, that's WP:SYNTH-by-absence. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

More fallout

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/22/jared-subway-charges-children/32155115/ - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wife filing for divorce

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)

I agree that the AP is a reliable source. However, I do think we are placing undo weight by now having the divorce mentioned in two places (both the "Personal life" section and at the end of the "Criminal investigation and plea agreement" section). We really only need to mention this once in the article - I have no preference on which section is used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is part of the reason why I wanted the other editor repeatedly putting the content in to come here and discuss. I was interrupted twice IRL and didn't have a chance to get here until now. No, we don't need the same content twice. In all fairness to the other editor, I will say that I missed that this was an AP and thought it was just Yahoo news - which has a tendency to be less than accurate depending on where they get their "news". That was my bad and I take responsibility for the error. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Once is indeed enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That was never mentioned by either of the editors engaged in the edit war in their edit summaries, but I had the same thought and have already removed it from the criminal investigation section; it makes more sense to have it with the other discussion about the wife and kids, as if we mention the marriage in the personal life section, there has to be some mention of the divorce there, otherwise it's a bit misleading to readers. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:10, 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)

Or the judge could reject the plea deal, and he could go to trial and be acquitted. It's extremely unlikely; however, it is certainly not impossible. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

He already pled guilty; no judge is going to reject a guilty plea. What the judge could reject is the terms of the plea deal. Regardless, he pled guilty, therefore, he will be registering as a sex offender - as I already stated, it's federal law. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, he has not entered any such guilty plea. When is it that you're thinking he entered the guilty plea? Once he does, he cannot withdraw it if would not be able to withdraw it simply because the judge sentences him above the agreed upon time frame; however, he has not yet entered a guilty plea. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you think a plea agreement is? It's where the individual charged with the crime gives a plea of guilty (hence the terminology "plea") in exchange for certain things stated within the agreement (lesser time served, gives up others involved in the crime, etc.). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what a plea agreement is. I went to law school; I know what I'm talking about here. A plea agreement is the agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant that says that the defendant will plead guilty in return for something (there are 3 possible somethings: the first is that the government will not bring or will dismiss other charges, and the second and third deal with agreements as to sentencing). That document is the plea agreement. At the next court date, the judge will consider the plea agreement and will either accept it or reject it (or in some instances will defer the decision to a later time, but that is irrelevant here). The prosecutor and Fogle have an agreement, but Fogle will not actually enter the guilty plea until the next court date. At that point, there are a variety of reasons for which the judge could reject the plea agreement, and Fogle would be entitled to withdraw the guilty plea. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:38, 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)

Dissolution vs. divorce

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)

As I said in the edit summary, there is no difference between "divorce" and "dissolution of marriage" in Indiana; however, in several U.S. states, there is a difference. Using "dissolution" could cause people in such states to infer that what Fogle's wife filed was not a divorce. The sources use the word "divorce", and "divorce" is the more common word among the general population, and it does not carry any risk of misleading people as to what exactly was filed. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is original research. We don't interpret for readers, we put in what's sourced and what's stated directly. It needs to be changed to match the direct quote from his wife. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How could it possibly be original research when the sources say it? Read the page you just linked to: 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):

• Entertainment tonight "ET can confirm that Jared Fogle's wife, Katie, filed for divorce on Aug. 19."
• People: "The wife of Jared Fogle, the ex-Subway spokesman who is facing child pornography charges, released a statement on Wednesday announcing that she plans to seek a divorce, according to multiple sites."

There is no reason that we need to use the exact language that his wife used when we have multiple sources that use the word "divorce", and I am lost as to how you can think that it would be original research. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would think that her own words would trump whatever the sources say, any day. She said "dissolution" and it was quoted, verbatim, via a statement through her lawyer, in a reliable source. (her lawyer doesn't understand the difference in Indiana between dissolution and divorce? I don't think so) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No... the entire point of what I'm saying is that in Indiana there is no difference between dissolution and divorce, and that being so picky about the wording other than in the quote from Mrs. Fogle in the article has a great possibility to cause misunderstanding to readers in states where there is a difference. Look at WP:OR: 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)

The entire point of what I'm saying is: you are applying original research and are interpreting for the reader - which isn't what we should do. It's against policy. SHE said - through her lawyer - "dissolution". That is her statement, it doesn't matter what reliable sources say after we have what she, herself, said. We need to be consistent and not apply original research. Further, along with following policy on WP:OR, applying WP:COMMONSENSE would be the right thing to do in this case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 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)

No, I'm not misapplying OR. The moment you gave your reason for changing from dissolution to divorce with the reasoning that Indiana doesn't have dissolution but divorce instead, you were using original research to come to that conclusion and trying to get the content to fit that original research. As far as direct quotes -- I'm not talking about direct quotes in relation to original research. Is that clearer as to where I'm coming from? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am using original research to explain my rationale to you; however, that is not against policy. There is no policy that original research can't be used on the talk pages. The use of the word "divorce" is supported by reliable secondary sources. The word "dissolution" is only supported by a reliable primary source. Reliable secondary sources are preferable. Additionally, the word "divorce" carries with it no confusing connotations. These are the two relevant points that you have yet to dispute. So far, you've only cited WP:OR, and now you're saying it's because I used original research on the talk page; again, original research on the talk page isn't really a problem. So I'd ask you to address the two points that actually matter, now that we've established that original research isn't actually a relevant problem. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, you must think I'm an idiot. No policy against original research being used on a talk page? Gee, I never knew that! (yes, that was sarcasm). I'm not talking about discussing original research on the talk page. I'm talking about you, using original research, for a rationale for changing the direct quote "dissolution" to "divorce". Allow me to now quote you, in your edit summary, with the explanation you used for why the wording should be "divorce": "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)

And there's no policy against using original research in an edit summary either. WP:OR only applies to the article. The word "divorce" is supported by a reliable, published source; that's all that matters. I have been able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to using the word "divorce" in the article, have I not? I cited not one, but two, sources. There is nothing in the policy that says that we prefer wording uttered by the individual; in fact, as I've indicated above, and you've ignored for the third time now, the policy prefers secondary sources over primary sources. The question comes down to this: Is the word "divorce" supported by a reliable, published source? If you could truthfully answer that question with a "No", then you would be correct; however, you cannot do so, because I have shown that there are multiple reliable, published sources that support my position. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm ignoring it because I choose to use WP:COMMONSENSE rather than stick to policy to the letter on this. I'm ignoring it because I think you are wikilawyering and working very hard to be right about something that you should compromise on. Fogle's wife said she was getting a dissolution, her lawyer helped her make the statement. Obviously, the lawyer knows what's happening. You're drawing conclusions based on what you (think you) know and would rather go with your own knowledge (i.e., original research) than with what the individual said. Further, you'd rather go with what reliable sources say is happening as opposed to what the actual individuals involved say is happening. That defies logic and common sense. Sorry, but you'll never convince me to see your side of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going with what the reliable sources say; that's something you haven't contested. Whether I've used original research for my rationale is irrelevant. Your preference to rely on primary sources over secondary sources isn't supported by policy; you may think it defies logic and common sense, but consensus is clearly against you there. Honestly, I don't really care if I can't convince you to see my side of it, but I think I've laid a good explanation for why the article should read as it should. If you can somehow convince others that "dissolution" is best and establish consensus to use that word, more power to you. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

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. I am only reverting what you do to the article when what you are doing is inaccurate. You've made 6 edits to the article today; I only reverted 1, because that 1 happened to be an inaccurate revision. I've seen you around the project before, and if anyone has a problem with ownership of articles, it's you. Please show me the language in the plea deal that indicates that the deal is contingent on the judge's acceptance of the deal. The enforcement of the deal is contingent on her acceptance, but that is different than the deal itself being contingent on her acceptance. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:32, 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)

We've been over this... the reliable sources use the word "divorce". Yes, it's exactly what you said, but I'm actually reading the sources when I'm saying it; when you said it, you were ignoring the reliable sources (filed for divorce on Aug. 19 and 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.

Yes, reliable sources said divorce. Reliable sources also said dissolution. Moreover, Fogle's wife, through her attorney, said "dissolution". As you said above, we go with what the sources say. Can't get a better source than a direct quote in a reliable source from the soon-to-be-ex-wife via her attorney. Unless it's you who says that's not a good enough source and we should go with what the reliable source changed it to be in spite of what the wife said through her attorney. Again, you're proving my point re: WP:OWN. You're also making up the rules as you go to fit your agenda. Such behavior and "wisdom" from editors such as yourself is what keeps Wikipedia in the shit-pile for reliable internet references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we can get a better source than Fogle's wife. Fogle's wife's statement is a primary source, while the news articles are secondary sources. As I said up above, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Oddly enough, you acknowledged this and agreed with it not long ago: 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)

A newspaper quoting the wife does not make the wife's statement a secondary source. The newspaper didn't do a detailed fact-check of the wife's statement; they just quoted what she said. This entire discussion essentially boils down to the fact that you have a severe misunderstanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources. Repeatedly you've shown a complete lack of knowledge regarding policies and relevant facts. First you were saying that Fogle pled guilty, even though not a single reliable source had said that. And now you're saying that because a newspaper published a quote, that that statement is a secondary source. Wrong and wrong again. Debating this is a waste of time. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A possible source:

• Higgins, Will. "Archive: Indiana's Jared Fogle defies odds with Subway staying power." Indianapolis Star. Sunday, March 2, 2008. Re-posted on July 7, 2015.

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)

Ongoing Scandal

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)

Text Messages and Raid on his home

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

The article you linked came out today. And you are "surprised" mention of it is not in the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Marteau (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It also needs a better source. The DM is a tabloid. John from Idegon (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look good for Jared, but so far he hasn't been charged with anything. It was an employee of Fogle's foundation who committed a crime, and it is entirely possible that Jared Fogle is innocent. Time will tell.

tharsaile (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC) And...he's busted. tharsaile (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article includes the line "As part of his plea deal, Fogle will be forbidden to possess any child-related pornography". Isn't everyone forbidden from possessing child-related pornography? --Roisterer (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a plea condition. Typically it means that, if he is found in possession, then his deal is cancelled and he'll face the max penalty. -- Jibal (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Russel Taylor

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)

Parent names and occupations

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)

Jared Foundation

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's^{up, 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)