Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
:::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'''. <i>If</i> 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. [[User:Lootbrewed|Lootbrewed]] ([[User talk:Lootbrewed|talk]]) 21:35, 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'''. <i>If</i> 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. [[User:Lootbrewed|Lootbrewed]] ([[User talk: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. |
::::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. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:48, 20 August 2015
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uh oh.
17 is the age of consent in New York and 16 in Indiana isn't saying their underage inaccurate?
- age of consent is for in-state only. if either party crosses a state line in furtherance of the act, age of consent automatically becomes 18 per the Mann Act. and even where that doesn't apply, "underage" is still usually linked to 18 -- sentences like "underage but above the age of consent" are not uncommon. 209.172.23.2 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this page is about to be popular and busy with lots of reverts. freshacconci talk to me 13:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I bet it stays very busy over the next few days. Indy (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- certainty, hopefully we can keep it accurate. They news agencies will publish anything to be the "first" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
- Per both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME, this is wholly improper at this time. I am not trying to edit war, but I will be removing the bit about the warrant again as it is an obvious BLP violation. We don't generally even discuss arrests without convictions, why in the name of all that is right would we report this sensationalist crap that we really know nothing about? We have ONE source, and it is FOX, a source that is frequently considered unreliable. All the other coverage I see is based on their report.
- @Flyer22, just because the foundation was redirected here does not make this article about the foundation. The arrest of the dude is only marginally proper in an article about the foundation. Any copy that does not relate directly to Fogle does not belong here now or ever. If enough info comes out on this that we can use without violating BLP, perhaps you may wish to recreate the article on the Foundation. Until we know more, this should not be in here either. Most certainly, the names need to come out. I realize this is your hot issue, but still...innocent until proven guilty, etc..... John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I believe there's a great deal of leeway given in terms of edit warring when it comes to BLP. So far there's an investigation, nothing more. To suggest anything else in the article, especially labeling the subject in any way to imply guilt is libelous and we can remove it immediately. Since Wikipedia isn't the news we are in no rush to add any info on this situation and can wait until something substantiated appears in reliable sources. I think this discussion and a quick consensus of editors can justify removal of BLP violations without edit warring issues. freshacconci talk to me 19:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- don't worry about an edit war from me unless someone goes on a wild free-for-all. I have not read the articles since earlier but there are already multiple sources. I do not see any that stated he was arrested. The USA today article seems to be the most accurate because they checked with multiple government officials. I do not see any connection to the foundation, it probably should not have been added to that section (yet, depends on how it all rolls out). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
- This page is going to be crazy enough. Please Jadeslair, please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). John from Idegon (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- And I have posted at WP:RPP requesting full protection until the sources stabilize. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- John from Idegon, yes, I reverted you, with a followup note. I reverted you because what you removed was not a WP:BLP violation; neither is this bit you opted to remove upon my restoration of the text you cut out. If you think that these aspects are a WP:BLP violation, you are free to query that matter at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I mentioned the Jared Foundation because this is the article that the Jared Foundation is covered in (it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article; nor does it need its own Wikipedia article; WP:Notable and WP:Spinout apply there), and you removed the fact that Russell Taylor, the director of the Jared Foundation, was arrested on child exploitation, possession of child pornography, and voyeurism charges. And the fact that "Fogle severed all ties with Taylor immediatelly following the arrest." Yes, almost all of what you removed belongs in this article. And what do you mean "[you] realize this is [my] hot issue"? What, because I am clear about WP:Child protection, child sexual abuse and pedophilia on my user page? Don't be so presumptuous. This Fogle matter is a hot topic for many people right now. I did not state that Fogle was guilty of possessing child pornography, and neither did the article. In fact, I am likely to take this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard if you or no one else does. Also, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page, considering that the article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That stated, I agree that, per WP:BLPCRIME, the "in connection with a child pornography investigation" part should remain excluded at this time since it can suggest that Fogle was in possession of child pornography. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see that, with this edit, RadioFan restored the name "Russell Taylor"; I'm not sure how I feel about that
since WP:BLPCRIME suggests that we don't include the names of relatively unknown people in a case like this.RadioFan also added this material. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see that, with this edit, RadioFan restored the name "Russell Taylor"; I'm not sure how I feel about that
- Regarding the name bit, I mean WP:BLPNAME; it doesn't suggest that we exclude the name for a case like this. It's the opposite since the name "Russell Taylor" has been reported in various reliable sources in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Taylor has been the subject of media reports for months and is linked to Fogle. WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here. Omitting information about Taylor from this article would be unfair to Fogel as it could imply guilt which is very inappropriate at this point in the investigation. Should Fogel be charged with a crime, which is has not as of the day the warrant was served, the article can be updated.--RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- As of Tue evening, Russell Taylor is mentioned in thousands of media reports on the subject. Even before Tuesday's FBI raid, Taylor was the subject of numerous regional media reports on his arrest. [1][2][3] In fact, Taylor, through these charges as well as his position in the foundation could be argued to meet wikipedia's notablity standarrds himself.--RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- RadioFan, I didn't object to you re-adding information about Russell Taylor; above, I clearly stated that the material should be in the article. I questioned the fact that you re-added his name. Despite Russell Taylor being reported in news media, he is still relatively unknown; by that, I mean I highly doubt that the general public would know who you are talking about if you stated, "Russell Taylor." And, per WP:ONEEVENT, he is not WP:Notable. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT is a useful guideline in determining whether a person meets notability guidelines for a dedicated article, not mention in another article. The litmus for whether or not a detail, even an individual's name, is appropriate for an article is not whether or not the general public knows who you are talking about. It's references in reliable sources, which has been met here. In the spirit of WP:BIO and its focus on protecting individuals, we should be as specific as possible when writing about the situation Fogel is involved in. --RadioFan (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- RadioFan (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this page is on your WP:Watchlist), I didn't state or intentionally imply that WP:ONEEVENT is a useful guideline in determining whether a person should be mentioned in an article. You stated, "In fact, Taylor, through these charges as well as his position in the foundation could be argued to meet wikipedia's notablity standarrds himself." I argued that, per WP:ONEEVENT, he does not meet WP:Notability. I don't see that he warrants his own Wikipedia article at all. You also stated, "The litmus for whether or not a detail, even an individual's name, is appropriate for an article is not whether or not the general public knows who you are talking about." Well, WP:BLPNAME begins with, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." It then goes on to advise whether we should include a name that has not been widely disseminated, and so on, and whether to include a name on the basis of its "publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" and that this "should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." John from Idegon having removed the name Russell Taylor before you restored it, WP:BLPCRIME mentioning the aspect of relatively unknown people, and what WP:BLPNAME name states, is why I noted that Russell Taylor is relatively unknown. I also stated, "Regarding the name bit [...] it doesn't suggest that we exclude the name for a case like this. It's the opposite since the name 'Russell Taylor' has been reported in various reliable sources in this case." So I clearly don't see a big problem with including his name. But do I see that we need to mention his name? No. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe, because the foundation is completely related to Jared, it is reasonable to mention the arrest of the employee, the reasons why and their suicide attempt, and that Fogle severed ties. I believe it is more appropriate to hold off on the other extraneous additional information that violate the rules of the site regarding living people. It isn't entirely necessary to include harmful information within hours of it being published. That being said, every single time this information is removed, it is going to be readded by people that dont realize it should not be there. I did not put the information there initially, it was already there, I simply moved it to the section regarding the Foundation (which was an error, I should have removed it), and I made an attempt to balance the information so that is was more neutral.MeropeRiddle (talk) 21:36, 7 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) 04:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Propose
I propose that the article state something similar to what it states now. "On July 7, 2015, FBI and Indiana State Police investigators widened their investigation searching Fogle's Zionsville, Indiana home, removing computers. Fogle was not arrested at the time. With USA TodayfoxCNN as the sources. Please vote agree, disagree or comment with any appropriate rules. WP:TALKDONTREVERT Note that the current section spells his name wrong Jadeslair (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The article info oz says his employer is Subway. As reported in the reliable source already quoted, they mutually parted ways. Plz fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.43.139 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Investigation and charges
If he's going to be serving a sentence of at least 5 years, it won't be in jail, it will be in prison. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.49.221 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
North Central High School grad
Fogle graduated from North Central High School (Indianapolis).
Sources:
The Lebanon Reporter: http://www.reporter.net/news/local_news/slideshow-federal-state-agents-raid-home-of-subway-spokesman-jared/article_5907f922-24af-11e5-b30a-d3c7980a2974.html "Fogle graduated from North Central High School in Indianapolis and moved to Bloomington to go to IU…"
Indianapolis Monthly: http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/news-opinion/jared-fogle-business-subway-star/ "And the North Central High School and Indiana University alum still seems enamored with a life that includes meeting two U.S. presidents and hanging with Hollywood A-listers." --12.180.133.18 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
References to the search of his home includes references to being in conjunction with Taylor. The citations DO NOT support this. The feds have said NOTHING, officially or off the record and anything else is speculation at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.193.115 (talk • contribs)
- I had proposed that, no one responded. I made the change although your request was not formatted properly. You could have voiced your opinion above also Jadeslair (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Subway affiliation
First paragraph should add "former" in front of Subway spokesman ref: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/07/feds-police-search-home-subway-pitchman-jared-fogle/ , http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/07/police-investigation-jared-fogle-subway-pitchman/29808241/ , http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/subway-suspends-relationship-jared-fogle-807206
Current text: Jared Scot Fogle (born December 1, 1977), also known as the Subway Guy, is known as a spokesman for Subway through appearances in the company's advertising campaigns. He gained fame for significant weight loss (now known as the "Subway diet"), attributed to eating Subway sandwiches, which led to his role promoting the company.
Proposed text: Jared Scot Fogle (born December 1, 1977), also known as the Subway Guy, is a former A B C spokesman for Subway through appearances in the company's advertising campaigns. He gained fame for significant weight loss (now known as the "Subway diet"), attributed to eating Subway sandwiches, which led to his role promoting the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.168.132.23 (talk • contribs)
Not done He was suspended, not fired. That means he could return to his position as spokesman after the suspension. None of the sources say he is a "former" spokesman. Marteau (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015
Eternityky (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC) On July 7th FBI agents led by Indiana's internet Crimes Against Children Task Force raided Fogles home.They confiscated computers, media storage devices, DVDs and documents. One law enforcement officer entered the home with a dog capable of sniffing out micro SD cards, typically used to store photos and videos,Eternityky (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)- He's innocent until proven guilty and this is breaking news, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this may blow over, maybe only his friend who ran his foundation is guilty, that doesn't mean Jared is. There are reliable sources but they don't say all that such as dogs sniffing for certain kind of cards. Popish Plot (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly can understand why WP:BIO keeps us from publishing details about the recent accusations, but this will be notable guilty or innocent. For now, I feel that posting {{Current related}} would be a good compromise. Oldag07 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 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)
"Fogel" to "Fogle" (misspelling)
Two spelling errors in the last bullet point of the "In popular culture" section need to be corrected; both are spelling "Fogle" as "Fogel", which is incorrect.
"Fogel makes a cameo in the 2014 Community episode "Basic Story". When Greendale Community College is purchased by Subway to be converted into Subway University, Fogel arrives to inspect the facilities."
should be
"Fogle makes a cameo in the 2014 Community episode "Basic Story". When Greendale Community College is purchased by Subway to be converted into Subway University, Fogle arrives to inspect the facilities." 71.165.73.244 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sex with minors - age 16 or 14?
I think the article should be clearer about the age of the girls involved. There were 16 year olds. That's clear. Anything lower than 16?
The Chicago Tribune article says:
Between 2011 and 2013, Fogle also repeatedly sent text messages to escorts, "soliciting them to provide him with access to minors as young as 14 to 15 years,"
So he asked them to find 14 year olds for him, but I don't see anything saying that he slept with any 14 year olds. And the NBC article is the same:
Witnesses from Florida, Georgia and Washington state told investigators Fogle also allegedly contacted them to have sex with minors as young as 14 and 15.
So would it be right for the intro to say he's pleaded guilty to paying 16 year olds for sex? Gronky (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- It should say exactly what he pleads to. according to the NBC article: illicit sexual conduct with a minor and one count of distribution and receipt of child pornography. Jadeslair (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pleas are limited to using the terms of the law. The law he broke is called "sex with a minor", so that's all his plea can say. Wikipedia isn't his plea, so it doesn't have this restriction. If he had sex with eight year olds, Wikipedia can say he was put in prison sex with a minor because he had sex with eight year olds. Or if it was 14 or 16 year olds, Wikipedia can say that. Gronky (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia says whatever the sources say, nothing more. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pleas are limited to using the terms of the law. The law he broke is called "sex with a minor", so that's all his plea can say. Wikipedia isn't his plea, so it doesn't have this restriction. If he had sex with eight year olds, Wikipedia can say he was put in prison sex with a minor because he had sex with eight year olds. Or if it was 14 or 16 year olds, Wikipedia can say that. Gronky (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- the article says the charge and then details about the plea deal, I think the difference should be clear so the reader does not get confused. The plea deals include the age information. Jadeslair (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you're suggesting be done to the article?
- What if a part of the intro was changed from:
- Fogle was investigated for allegedly paying for sex with minors and receiving child pornography
- to
- Fogle was investigated for allegedly paying for sex with minors (16 and 17 years old) and receiving child pornography
- Would that be accurate? Gronky (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think something like "Fogle has agreed to a plead guilty to the charges of one count of child pornography and one count of traveling to engage in commercial sexual acts with minors, court documents say he sent text messages to older prostitutes "soliciting them to provide him with access to minors as young as 14 to 15 years" and has viewed child porography with children as young as 6 years of age." Does that easy to understand? Jadeslair (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's in the right direction. From the sources I read, the allegations about child porn are that he "received" it rather than "viewed" it. And, why do the numbers 14 and 6 get included but not 16? Gronky (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I did not exclude anything on purpose, you may have gone through the articles better than I have. Feel free to be Wikipedia:Bold. If there is an issue we can discuss it. Jadeslair (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think something like "Fogle has agreed to a plead guilty to the charges of one count of child pornography and one count of traveling to engage in commercial sexual acts with minors, court documents say he sent text messages to older prostitutes "soliciting them to provide him with access to minors as young as 14 to 15 years" and has viewed child porography with children as young as 6 years of age." Does that easy to understand? Jadeslair (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
- 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)