Wikipedia

Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 3

< Talk:Tom Brady
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

"Greatest of all time"

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

There has been a lot of back-and-forth on the final paragraph of the lead: Due to his accomplishments and accolades, many analysts and sportswriters consider Brady to be among the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, if not the greatest.

On the one hand, here are reliable sources being quoted, on the other hand, this is an encyclopedia and we should recognize puffery and not propagate it. The last four words, I regard as puffery, and probably offensive to fans of other quarterbacks. The statement prior to those four words probably merits keeping. But either way, we should avoid the slow-motion edit war that's been going on. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove the last four words, although I say this reluctantly, because the last four words are actually more in line with what the sources are saying than the rest of the sentence. But it does reek of puffery, especially for a still active player. We also have to take into account the reactionary nature of today; those sources were all published immediately after his latest super bowl win. If Seattle hands the ball to Marshawn Lynch, this conversation never happens. Lizard (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. The other thing that's notable, the mention of deflategate has vanished. We don't need the level of detail in the lede that was present several months ago (someone insisted on giving date-by-date stages in the lede, which was overkill), but deflategate and resulting suspension is a significant part of his history. The lede really should mention that. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
See my comment a few sections above. Lizard (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: The same user repeatedly restores the contentious wording (which is all he's done in the past 9 months). Not sure how to deal with him at this point. I don't wanna keep edit warring ad nauseam. Curiously, someone re-added the deflategate suspension to the lead and it was promptly shot down. Lizard (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I suspect if Brady wins Super Bowl LI there will be a lot of fresh GOAT debates. Already a lot of credible media sources are stating that if he wins a fifth ring he would "have" to be recognised as the GOAT (see for example:1, 2, 3. However, suggest we park that debate argument until after the game. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely should be included now that Brady is considered the Greatest QB of all time. After yesterday, he is pretty much universally considered such by every journalist, analyst and media outlet. There is no debate any longer. It should be there just as it is for Wiki pages of Michael Jordan or Roger Federer.~~Robbypark~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbypark (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. But let's move it down to GOAT debate below. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

People forget Bart Starr has 5 World Championships: 2 Super Bowls & 3 NFL Championships before Super Bowl 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.199.108 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Deflategate in the lede

Latest comment: 7 years ago76 comments14 people in discussion

Since we have had deflategate information in the lead bouncing in and out over the months, let's discuss it here. There was a statement added and reverted, Brady was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season for his alleged part in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate.

I'd contend that a statement to that effect belongs in the lede. There is a detailed section under the 2015 season on the subject, and it is a hotly debated topic to this day. That argues it should receive a mention in the lede, particularly as it will get brought up when he's considered for the Hall of Fame. The suspension itself (4 games) is largely meaningless, but the bitter legal battle between one of the marquee names in the sport and the Commissioner going almost to the Supreme Court, deserves mention in the lead. I would suggest a statement more like:

Brady was alleged to have participated in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. The back-and-forth conflict between Brady and Goodell escalated through the courts being reversed multiple times, at one point looking like it was going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. After more than a year of court battles, Brady served a 4-game suspension at the beginning of the 2016 season, ending the legal battles.

Comments? Tarl N. (discuss) 00:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's address the problem with the lead as a whole: that it has very little substance. Right now the lead is just a bunch of "Brady has done this, Brady has done that, and he's done them more than anyone else." From MOS:LEAD, the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I think context can be established much better. I always like to refer to the lead of Don Bradman; I know next to nothing about cricket, but just from reading that lead I can easily see why he's considered the greatest cricket player of all time. I could probably reach that conclusion myself even if the lead didn't say so. Also, the lead flows naturally. It doesn't appear that anything was just stuck in there because it was important to have there. I think if we rewrote Brady's lead so that it brought up the controversy in an appropriate context, instead of just throwing it in, people would be a lot more accepting of it. Lizard (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. Either WP:BRD or present a suggested version here which we can nit-pick. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Heh. And there lies the trouble of writing the lead independently from the body. Lizard (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To quote myself from October, when this issue was last discussed, Von Miller was suspended six games for a failed drug test -- no mention in lead. Ben Roethlisberger suspended four games for personal conduct issues related to sexual assault allegations, an actual crime -- no mention in lead. Peyton Manning accused of sexual harrasment and steroid use -- no mention in lead. Le'Veon Bell multiple suspensions for drugs with no mentions in the lead. Yet we have an SPA pushing to get this info included in Brady's article. Makes you wonder if ulterior motives are in play. Calidum ¤ 19:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Completely incomparable. Were any of those cases the subject of constant national news for nearly two years? Did any of them almost reach the US Supreme Court? Do any of those have their own Wikipedia article? This goes far beyond just a suspension. Not to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF. Roethlisberger's and Manning's cases being mentioned in the lead were also debated more than once. I'd even argue Bell's lead should mention his suspensions. But none of those received a fraction of the press coverage that the deflategate saga received. Lizard (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all of the points made by Lizard above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • With the lead in its current state, a whole paragraph is too much. I think just "For his alleged involvement in the highly publicized deflategate football tampering scandal, Brady was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 NFL season." would be better, if no one wants to consider rewriting the lead entirely. I would but I'm not an expert on Brady's career, nor am I interested in becoming one. Lizard (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The sentence proposed above by Lizard is fine with me, for the lead. I think a full separate paragraph is a bit too much. One sentence -- possibly two -- is fine. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I was bold. So I just added that sentence in. However, I am thinking about the word "alleged". (Namely, as in Brady's alleged involvement.) Is that word appropriate? I didn't think the conduct was merely alleged. I thought it was at one point alleged and then, at some later point, affirmed or confirmed or proven (or whatever word you want to use). This subsequent "affirmation", then, negates the "alleged" adjective. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
It's still alleged. Brady denies it, and Goodell's "proof" is flimsier than tissue paper. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, he denied it. That does not mean that the "alleged" adjective is perpetually maintained. I forgot all of these details, since it has been a while ago. But didn't someone, somewhere (like the Commissioner or the court system/judge or whoever) find that Brady was indeed guilty? I would have to refresh myself with the details of the case. But I imagine that that must have been the case. Someone somewhere upheld the allegations against him. Thus, the term "alleged" is no longer appropriate or applicable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
And apparently Goodell's "flimsy" proof -- as you put it -- was "good enough" proof for the Supreme Court. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Err, no. It was never heard by the Supreme Court. And after several reversals, the 7th 2nd circuit ruled that Goodell had the negotiated right to rule as he pleased, not that the evidence was good. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are making no sense. Someone somewhere (I guess, Goodell) adjudged that Brady was guilty of the violations. He used whatever proof he needed to use to make his decision, which was "good enough" for the 7th Circuit. So, it is no longer an allegation. It is an allegation that was adjudicated; and Brady was found guilty. So, he is no longer "alleged" to have committed the violations. He is adjudged to have committed them. Goodell's decision was "good enough" for the 7th Circuit. Brady did not appeal to the Supreme Court. (Or, he did and the Supreme Court refused the case.) So, by extension, the decision of the 7th Circuit was "good enough" for the Supreme Court. That is, Brady decided not to go further with his losing case. A case in which the allegations of the violations were proven (to the satisfaction of the fact-finder and to the satisfaction of the federal appeals court). So, Brady is not "alleged" to have committed the violations. The allegations were proven. And upheld by the federal appeals court. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
It was the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that sided with the NFL and Goodell. Jerry Stockton (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't think that the "Seventh Circuit" sounded correct. I assumed this all came out of New York (which is the Second Circuit). But I didn't bother to look it up. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Denny Chin stated that “the evidence of ball tampering is compelling, if not overwhelming.” ESPN estimated that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) spent 7.1 million dollars defending Brady in the court cases. The NFLPA knew that this was an extremely important case, thus the 7.1 million dollar outlay, and that the loss to the NFL would probably need to be considered in any future appeals of a player's punishment. This case was important enough that the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) filed an amicus curiae brief to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the NFLPA and Brady. Even after spending 7.1 million dollars they lost. Jerry Stockton (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
After Brady's loss at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals the NFLPA and Brady requested an en banc rehearing by the full court. Their request was denied. None of the 13 judges issued a dissent. Jerry Stockton (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. And either Brady (and the Union) decided not to appeal this to the Supreme Court. Or, they did file an appeal, which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Off the top of my head, I think it was the former scenario (without looking it up and doing any research). In other words, both Brady and the Union knew that they had a losing case. So, they cut their losses at the Second Circuit level. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Corrected my mention of 7th circuit, it got mixed up with another case I've been dealing with. But the point is that the case decided by the 2nd circuit panel was decided on the basis of whether Goodell had authority to issue the punishment, not that the evidence was good. The decision to end the appeals was not a concession that Brady committed the offense, but that the courts would not intervene in a union contract that granted him the authority to impose arbitrary penalties at his own discretion.
The original reversal by Berman was a ruling of lack of due process, during which the NFL conceded in court it had no direct evidence, no "smoking gun" (see wiki). The NFL appealed the reversal saying it wasn't about the evidence, but about Goodelll's power under the contract. The ultimate ruling by the panel was that the contract met the Labor Relations act, not that the evidence was was there. So it's still "alleged", not factual. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs and mincing words. The conduct was (at the beginning of the process) merely "alleged". At some point (later in the process), those allegations were proven or substantiated or whatever word you want to use. Apparently, Goodell -- under his power and authority -- found that Brady did commit the violations. (And, hence, was due a punishment.) So, Goodell was the fact-finder. He was given the allegations. He considered them. And he "found" (i.e., "ruled") that Brady did violate certain rules. So, at that point, the allegations become substantiated violations. Found by the "trier of fact" (Goodell) and upheld by the Courts. The Courts ruled that the process (by which Goodell found that Brady committed violations) was fair and correct and appropriate and legal. Please stop splitting hairs. Of course, Brady is going to -- from a "PR" point of view -- deny the allegations. That is irrelevant. The allegations have been proven. (Why do you think he "suffered" a punishment?) So, the word "alleged" is no longer appropriate. If Brady wants to hang his hat on the word "alleged", he needs to appeal to the Supreme Court. Which never happened. And, I am sure, the time frame has expired. So, the word "alleged" is off the table. It has been found / substantiated / proven (by Goodell) that the allegations were sound and that Brady committed the violations. Do you really think that after this whole process is done, Brady is still only under "allegations" and not "proven violations"? And yet -- with only "allegations" out there (not proven misconduct) -- he was punished? And the Union allowed that? That makes no sense at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I am neither splitting hairs nor mincing words. At no point were the allegations "proven or substantiated or whatever word you want to use". That's the whole point. Even Goodell didn't "prove" the allegations, the report concluded "more probable than not" (the specific wording in the union contract). In other words, the report said the writers think it's likely he was involved (my italics). Goodell never claimed higher proof, just that it was his right under the contract to act on his thinking something likely. At no point did anyone claim any proof or smoking gun, and the NFL conceded that on the stand. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
You are indeed splitting hairs and mincing words. You do not need a smoking gun. You do not need proof that is 100% certain or 99% certain. What you need (under that contract) is "preponderance". In other words, to prove misconduct, Goodell needed to find a preponderance (and no more than that). That was the only burden of proof that he was required to meet. He met it. Therefore, the misconduct was proven. It was proven by preponderance. Which is the required level of proof. You don't seriously think that -- in order to prove misconduct -- you need 100% proof positive? That you are required to produce a smoking gun? If you do, you are wrong. And the federal courts disagree with you. As does the past 200+ years of legal precedent. Goodell proved the misconduct by whatever level he needed (i.e., a preponderance). So, yes, the allegations were proven. They were proven to the required level. They were proven by a preponderance. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
And, by the way, every civil case (not criminal case) in America is "proven" by the same exact level of proof (preponderance). Just because the level of proof is preponderance -- and not some higher level -- does not negate the fact that the misconduct was proven. And it does not allow the word "alleged" to remain perpetually. Once allegations are proven -- by whatever required level -- they are no longer allegations. They are proven misconduct. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
I believe that is correct, they elected not to appeal to SCOTUS. I think it was reported that it was partly because their chances were slim (the words "hail Mary" were used a lot), and partly for tactical reasons - he would prefer to serve the suspension for the first four games rather than risk them falling at a key part of the season and/or during the playoffs. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
My understanding (which may be incorrect, Brady is the only one who knows for sure) is that the decision to not appeal any further was predicated on no longer having an injunction to delay the suspension. The suspension would have been enforced even while the appeal was in progress, and once the suspension was served, the appeal would become moot (no remedy available). The Supreme Court does not hear moot cases. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Nobody gets punished for "alleged" misconduct. One only gets punished when the alleged misconduct is proven or substantiated or found. As in the case here. The process (by which Goodell ruled that there was indeed misconduct on the part of Brady) was upheld by federal appeals courts. The word "alleged" is completely off the table, at this point in the proceedings. That's what this discussion is about. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A general comment about standards in this article - remember that WP:BLP standards apply. Claiming that "Nobody gets punished for "alleged" misconduct" is laughable, as well as WP:SYNTH. That was the whole point of the lawsuits, Goodell claimed the right to inflict punishment based on exactly that, and the courts found that the union contract allowed it. At no point did either the NFL or any court claim actual proof of the involvement. If you make an edit stating his involvement as proven, this has to go to WP:BLP/N. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are laughable. You clearly have no idea what the word "proof" means. And what the phrase "proof by preponderance" means. I will explain one last time. There were allegations. In order for the allegations to be substantiated, the trier of fact (Goodell) needed a certain level of proof. That certain level of proof was "preponderance". He found a preponderance. So, the allegations were proven. They were proven by a preponderance. Which was the required level. Period. The misconduct is no longer alleged. The misconduct has been proven. It has been proven by a preponderance. You clearly lack any understanding whatsoever of this topic. And how this all "works". You think the conduct -- at this point -- is still only "alleged"? (Not yet proven?) And that he was punished for merely alleged conduct that was never proven? And that the Union "stood for this"? Talk about laughable. You have no understanding whatsoever. Take this to BLP/N or where ever. You have a losing case. Wow! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I see your confusion. In a criminal case, indeed, punishment is not delivered until the defendant is guilty, because the court rules the defendant is guilty. This case was not criminal, and Goodell is not a court. Goodell's only claim is that he had the authority to impose non-judicial punishment based on his own un-reviewed opinion. The 2nd circuit panel ruled that he has that authority, but did not rule either that Brady committed the act in question or that Goodell had the authority to declare with legal authority that the acts had occurred. Just that he had the authority under a contract to inflict punishment without review. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
My confusion? LOL. That's funny. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
So, are you bringing this over to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, or not? I'd love to have them pipe in on this. Please advise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tom_Brady. On second thought, this belongs in WP:RFC/BIO. It looks like it will take legobot about 3 hours to pop the entry over there. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
When legobot gets around to creating the entry on RFC/BIO, I will add the text:
There has been contentious discussion on Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 3#Deflategate_in_the_lede about whether the lede can claim that Tom Brady can be asserted to have been involved in Deflategate, or is merely alleged to have been involved. The claim is that since punishment was imposed, Goodell qualifies as a court and can (and presumably has) declared Brady guilty. I contend that without a court ruling, we cannot declare that Brady was involved only that he was alleged to have been involved. I feel that claims that punishment being imposed declaring his guilt are WP:SYNTH, and not acceptable for a WP:BLP article. Can someone from this noticeboard please comment on the discussion w.r.t. BLP? In particular, whether Wikipedia could be sued for defamation for asserting that in his biography? Tarl N. (discuss) 21:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I will add here that you certainly mischaracterized the issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Legobot has updated, and it turns out that I cannot add wording over there. Would you care to describe how I mischaracterized the issue? The question is whether we can assert that Brady was involved, or was alleged to have been involved. It's a non-trivial distinction. Is there something else that you think is at question? Tarl N. (discuss) 21:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This most recent post and the one immediately above are saying different things. I don't understand your point, to be honest. You think there is a distinction to say that he was involved versus he was allegedly involved. That is easily remedied by saying that "he was found to be involved (by Goodell)" or he was "adjudicated to be involved (by Goodell)". You are mincing words, all for naught. No one knows if he was really involved or not (other than him). So, the best that we -- as humans -- can do is to pose that question to a judge or adjudicator, in this case Goodell. And we leave upon him (Goodell) the onus to conclude whether or not Brady was involved and whether or not Brady committed misconduct. I have no idea what your "issue" is. Honestly, I don't even think that you know what your issue is. It is still unfathomable to me how you perceive that -- at this point in the proceedings -- he is merely alleged to have been involved, yet not adjudicated (determined / adjudged) to have been involved. Unreal. You really believe that? And can say that with a straight face? Yet -- according to you -- even though he is merely alleged to have been involved (yet not proven to be, by preponderance), he can still earn a punishment that a federal court upholds? You do not see the ridiculous point that you are hanging your hat on? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyway ... where is the discussion? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
In the middle of the page. Not added at end, as I would have expected. But you can't discuss things over there, it simply points you to discuss things here. Hopefully we will get someone with BLP knowledge to discuss here, and not have to resort to WP:BLP/N, which is only supposed to be invoked when edits are made which need to be removed. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Huh? What's the point of that page? To tell us to come back here and discuss it? Which is where we already are, and what we are already doing? I am totally confused. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Per the top of that page: The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention. The point is not for us to discuss it elsewhere, we have already reached the level of personal insults (I described a statement as laughable, you responding with personal insult describing me as laughable). The point is to bring others in, particularly those with more concern for WP:BLP issues and defamation, which seems to be getting lost in the discussion. Making a statement in Wiki's voice originating out of WP:SYNTH, exposes Wiki to defamation lawsuits. If you make the edit, then this does have to go to WP:BLP/N, which gets administrator action.
For the record, the following are facts we can state:
  • Brady was alleged to have been part of a conspiracy involving deflating footballs.
  • Brady contested the allegation and (along with NFLPA) Goodell's right to issue unreviewed penalties.
  • The courts reversed and then re-reversed, based purely on whether Goodell has the right to unreviewed punishment under the union contract.
  • Brady served a 4-game suspension.
Nothing in the above gives us the right to say that factual determination has been made of Brady's actions. Saying that because he was punished, we can now just state he was guilty of what he was accused of, is incorrect. Punishment does not equal guilt. Stating such exposes Wikipedia to defamation lawsuits - particularly since Google now presents the lede on all searches, giving it huge visibility. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"... Goodell announced that he had upheld the four-game suspension, citing Brady's destruction of his cell phone as a critical factor: "On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed," the league statement read. "He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone." (emphasis are mine) Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The 2011 NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFLPA and the NFL basically gave Goodell the authority to be judge, jury and court of appeals. It appears that the Second Circuit Court based their ruling, at least in part, due to the fact that the NFLPA had agreed in the 2011 CBA to let Goodell be judge, jury and court of appeals, and that Goodell's actions "met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947". When the NFLPA and Brady's request for an en banc hearing was denied without any of the 13 judges issuing a dissent, the authority of the commissioner of the NFL was clearly established. Jerry Stockton (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
From Deflategate at Wikipedia:
" ... an anonymous league source stated that the investigation was focusing on a Patriots locker room attendant who was seen on surveillance video taking the 24 game footballs (12 from each team) into a restroom for approximately 90 seconds. This video was provided to the NFL by the New England Patriots the day after ... the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts on January 18, 2015." This restroom stop happened before the start of the game and just after the balls were checked by league officials to make sure they were between 12.5 and 13.5 psi.
"The [Wells] report focuses on the communications and actions of locker-room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski. The report concludes it was "more probable than not" that the two deliberately released air from Patriots game balls after they were tested by game officials. In several texts between Jastremski and McNally, the two mention and joke about inflation, deflation, needles, and gifts from Tom Brady to McNally. Tom Brady was a constant reference point in these discussions. McNally referred to himself as "the deflator" in a text message to Jastremski as far back as May 2014." (emphasis are mine)
"NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent's May 11 letter to Brady stated in part: "Your [Brady's] actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football." Troy Vincent's letter further stated: "With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) ..." (emphasis are mine)
"... Goodell announced that he had upheld the four-game suspension, citing Brady's destruction of his cell phone as a critical factor: "On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed," the league statement read. "He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone." (emphasis are mine) Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Tom didn't want his phone examined, that's a reasonable inference to draw. I'm still holding out hope for a tweet from Gisele: There were selfies on that phone we didn't want published! :-) Tarl N. (discuss) 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears that when Brady found out his phone was to be searched for possible evidence relating to the Deflategate investigation he had the phone destroyed along with any evidence it might have contained. Goodell cited Brady's destruction of his cell phone as a critical factor in upholding Brady's suspension. Brady knew his phone was wanted so it could be searched for evidence and he destroyed it anyway. No matter why Brady had his phone destroyed the destruction of Brady's phone became part of the Deflategate investigation. That appears to be involvement in Deflategate to me. Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This RFC is poorly formulated since there aren't clear alternatives stated. Also, a couple of opposing editors are engaged in a repetitive TLDR exchange, making the same points over and over again, as if repetition is an effective persuasion technique (it isn't). Of course, this matter should be given due weight in the lead, and the lead should summarize the whole article. The lead should not state that he was conclusively, overwhelmingly proven to have been involved, nor should it call the NFL judgment into question. Consensus wording should be crafted, and I expect the two most involved editors to collaborate to develop that wording. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion did not start out as an RFC. It was simply a Talk Page discussion. Also, Brady was proven to be involved. That's how and why he received a punishment. And the process was upheld by the federal courts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Woah, I see this has turned into a full-blown RfC while I was taking a break over the holiday. It's a little TL;DR to me though. So are the masses fine with the current construction? Lizard (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I think we're exposed to a libel suit for stating as fact that Brady participated in Deflategate. Goodell alleges Brady was involved. There are certainly reasons many people believe it (Goodell would not ever state something false), but it was never ruled in a court of law that Brady participated, and he never admitted participation. Spadaro is mistaken, being punished for something is NOT the same as being guilty of it. The only court rulings involved whether Goodell could impose punishment without due process and without review under the NFLPA contract, they did not rule on the facts of the case. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Brady was suspended four-games after the Wells report, see Deflategate, concluded that it was "more probable than not" that Brady "was at least generally aware" of the deflation of footballs before the AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts in 2015. Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
And I withdraw my comment; I see that we are no longer stating as fact in the lede. I hadn't noticed the change yesterday, the comment as is does not expose us to liability. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that clears it up. I was wondering what you were referring to. Yes, I wouldn't say "more probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware of the deflation of footballs" is sufficient to be considered a factual certainty. Lizard (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Especially since Goodell's and the NFL's subsequent actions in regard to ball pressures—both here and elsewhere—are suspect, at best. Samer (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't really an RfC question here, it would be a good idea to delete the RfC template. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Done. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can one or all of you formulate a proper RfC about IF this material belongs in the lede, and IF so, in what form. There needs to be clear and conviencing consensus for this to be included the lede, and I am not really seeing it above. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As it is Wikipedia Policy that "any prominent controversies" are to be included in the lead, and no one has presented any reason why that Wikipedia Policy should be ignored, I will be reposting the information about his suspension in the lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The information needs to be there, but we because of WP:BLP we need to be careful of phraseology. Making sure the statement doesn't go away prevents another go-around on the limits of opinion vs. reality. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • . It obviously and clearly should be reflected in his page, but this isn't a "controversy" that warrants highlighting in his lead. Deflategate is not a "prominent controversy". It's pure stupidity that has been clearly debunked and has been shown that Brady had no clear or indirect involvement in anything, considering there was never a "crime" to begin with, as deflation is a natural occurrence. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPOV. The saga is real, whether the charges were or not, they have produced controversy in that some people utterly believe them and others utterly disbelieve them. The controversy remains. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • People believe in "Pizzagate", but that does not and has not warranted highlighting that for the lead on Hillary Clinton's or John Podesta's page. Sorry, this needs to be removed. It especially doesn't warrant being written in a manner that paints Deflategate as a solidified fact as a "football tampering scandal", glances over the fact that the suspension was overturned by a federal judge, appealed to second circuit court by the NFL due to Goodell seeking power through Article 46 and Brady subsequently having to accept rather than take to the Supreme Court. Again, not valid for the lead. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
As you can see above, this has extensive discussion and at least a degree of consensus. Per WP:BRD (please read that page), once you have been reverted, please discuss your changes and achieve consensus before reinstating them. Just stating that you think the information doesn't belong does not qualify as achieving consensus. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion doesn't not at all drive to a "consensus". In fact, it seems only Jerry Stockton and yourself see it as such. Again, to further a point mentioned above. You don't see any of Ben Roethlisberger's sexual misconduct scandals highlighted at the top of his page, nor do you see anything on Von Miller's publicized struggles. The lead should highlight the most important aspects of a person and their contributions. Highlighting a suspension that has been a small blip in the continuing career of Brady is not warranted in the lead. It deserves a significant spot on his page, no doubt, but the lead, it does not. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the deflategate saga turned into a years-long confrontation between the NFLPA and the league, going through federal courts almost to the supreme court is a major part of Brady's history now. Regardless of how individuals may feel about the truth or falsehood of the charges, this issue will be brought up and endlessly re-hashed when his Hall of Fame candidacy opens. That by itself merits a mention in the lede. This sentence has gone back-and-forth many times (before this round of discussion, you can find them in the archives), with varying level of detail, up and including a paragraph longer than the rest of the lede. Removing the sentence will just bring back the edit wars on this. As for consensus, even if only Jerry Stockton and I are the only ones to agree on this (and I don't agree with that characterization), that's more of a consensus than you alone. If you disagree, you can always start a RFD on this. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you take a bit of your own advice and take how YOU feel, out of the equation. To believe this will be brought up when his Hall of Fame candidacy opens is pure lunacy. No intelligent sports analyst still believes Deflategate was even a real occurrence, let alone think Brady is not "Hall of Fame" worthy. He's talked about as the greatest of all time and your trying to defend your position by saying a fake scandal will be held against him in Hall of Fame capacity? Give me a break. Saying that Deflategate is worthy for the lead because trolling sport show hosts like Stephen A. Smith still talk about it to try and diminish Brady's accomplishments because people like Smith know controversy sells and makes people talk, is, again, lunacy. This again, needs to be removed unless you plan on going to every sports figure's page and putting a suspension they served at the top of their page. I do disagree, and if an RFD is needed then it is needed. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly without an RFD (or more discussion from other editors in some fashion), we aren't removing that statement. As for how I feel about it, not that it matters, I'm a Patriots fan. That should tell you enough. But that's irrelevant, deflategate is now part of the Brady saga, by which many (if not most) of the people in this country define him. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
A suspension as part of Brady's 'saga', once again friend, is fine and necessary for his page, but does NOT warrant a spot in the lede, especially being written as such where it inaccurately describes the entire situation, the process and the end result. If you're going to wrongly highlight a four game suspension in his lede, there needs to be more context than a "football tampering scandal" which we now know to be entirely false and NOT the reason this was litigated in court and "continued on for years" as to your point. If you cannot see that, perhaps you shouldn't be patrolling this situation with such vigor. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It belongs in the lead. The sheer amount of press it received (and continues to receive) is the reason that it belongs. Whether or not he was guilty of anything is irrelevant. Although I find it funny that we continue to debate over the single sentence of negativity in the lead, while the rest of the lead paints Brady to be the next coming of Jesus Christ. Lizard (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't somebody do a RfC about whether this belongs in the lede? There doesn't seem to be consensus for inclusion so it should stay out until there is. I am not going to revert because I don't really care unlike some folks in here who think they own it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia Policy "It [the lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Deflategate is clearly a prominent controversy. It has its own page at Wikipedia, the court case almost reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and two years after the AFC Championship Game it is still a matter of great debate. Even if Brady had absolutely no knowledge of any football tampering, or even if there wasn't any football tampering at all, it only matters that Deflategate is a prominent controversy and that Brady is at the very center of that controversy. To not include Deflategate in Brady's lead is to ignore Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:LEAD. Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I personally think that Deflategate should be mentioned in the lead, and think that the current wording of the sentence in the lead is fine. I agree with you that it is irrelevant whether any tampering occurred or whether Brady was involved in any tampering, as it is a major story that is covered in detail later in the article, and thus it should be mentioned in the lead. However, WP:LEAD is not policy, but instead is a style guideline. It provides advice on how best to write articles, but does not require articles to be written in that way if there is a consensus that a specific article should differ from it. Actual policies, such as WP:Consensus and WP:Edit Warring, take precedence over anything in a guideline like WP:LEAD, and you should be careful not to violate those policies in trying to enforce the guideline. Since there is obvious disagreement about whether Deflategate should be mentioned in the lead, even after a long discussion, an RFC is the proper way to decide if it is included. I see that Lizard the Wizard has started one below, so please participate in it. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion here is about as convoluted and speculative as the whole scandal--whether the verdicts in the investigation were accurate or not, a scandal of such depth and uncertainty should NOT be mentioned in the lead of a living person so soon after it has been instituted--let the due process of history decide if it belongs in the lead, for now, remove it. A four game suspension is not a prison sentence, not a felony conviction. I'm just an average reader of Wikipedia and not really much of a Tom Brady fan (GO PACKERS), I just find it disrespectful and spiteful that there is a little jab paragraph tacked on at the end that I have no power to edit.Zenzizenzizenzic (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect facts in Lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The lead states that Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls (36, 38, 49) and has been Super Bowl MVP twice. He has actually won 4 Super Bowls (36, 38, 39, 49) and has been Super Bowl MVP 3 times, as stated elsewhere in the article. With all of the Deflategate/GOAT bickering that is going on, it would be nice to at least get the facts of his career correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F07:67F:225:4BFF:FEA0:1B06 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be reading a different lead than I am:
[...]earned six trips to the Super Bowl, the most for any quarterback in history, winning four titles.[...]
Brady has won three Super Bowl MVP (Super Bowl XXXVI, XXXVIII, and XLIX) and two league MVP awards [...]
To me that reads like four wins and 3 SB MVPs. By the way, new sections belong at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
They must be (somehow) reading the 3 super bowl mvps as super bowl wins, and the 2 league mvps as super bowl mvps. Unless they're not a native English speaker, it seems clear enough to me. Perhaps we can re-word it to something like "named/recognized as Super Bowl MVP three times" instead of "won". But I really don't think it's necessary. After the season is over and the dust has settled I think I'll rewrite the whole lead. It just occurred to me the word "history" appears 5 times in the lead. Lizard (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remove "but the RNC denied the request". There is no evidence for this. His wife, not RNC, denied his request to speak. Numerous sources report that Brady said "I talked to my wife and she said I can't talk about politics anymore. I think that's a good decision for our family." [1] Vxu (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done JTP (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/11/09/tom-brady-on-donald-trump-support-gisele-says-i-cant-talk-politics-anymore/

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under his super bowl stats in "NFL career statistics" it does not show that his 37 passes completed is an NFL record. http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/records/superbowls/player/passing Lassebender7 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done Lizard (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate?

Latest comment: 7 years ago35 comments28 people in discussion
SUPPORT
*Summary: Consensus exists for the inclusion of this information in the lead.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead in any way mention the Deflategate football tampering incident? Support or Oppose mention. Lizard (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: When this RfC opened, the lead contained a standalone sentence that read "For his alleged involvement in the highly publicized Deflategate football tampering scandal, Brady was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 NFL season." That sentence seems to have been removed at some point in the hoopla that followed the Super Bowl. So if there aren't any objections to that specific sentence, that's what will be restored should this RfC end in support. It was there for roughly half of the time the RfC was open and many !voters likely based their decision off of it. Lizard (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

I should add a secondary comment; when we didn't have the mention in the lede, we had a steady stream of complaints and edit wars over it not being present. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
A notable example I saw today, here. It's a tongue-in-cheek comparison of the upcoming Superbowl with "Rogue One", presenting Belichick in his Darth Hoodie guise, and commenting on Brady: Patriots quarterback Tom Brady — Dark master of the art of handling a football — inflated or deflated. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact there's an entire page on it is actually reason to mention it in the lead. The event was so notable that it warrants its own Wikipedia page, and Brady was a centerpiece. And again, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Ricardo Azziz is not Tom Brady. He's not even an athlete. Lizard (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it seems more something for a subsection but not the lead. It is minor in WP:WEIGHT of his overall coverage as a rough google shows ~20Million hits for him and 880 thousand (4.4 %) mention deflategate. It is also not a major part of the article content so WP:LEAD does not support it. Finally, it seems a bit counter to WP:BLP guidance to write conservatively. Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Deflategate is clearly a prominent controversy and it belongs in Brady's lead. WP:OTHERCONTENT "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page." That other athletes don't have their suspensions or controversies mentioned in their lead is not a reason to exclude Deflategate from Brady's lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Per WP:LEAD. The lead is a summary of the article. The controversy is prominent and extremely well sourced. I see no reason other that WP:IDONTLIKEIT to not include this.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The fact the Deflategate has its very own Wikipedia page sets it apart from other suspensions as being extremely noteworthy in its own right. The fact that it happened recently (relatively speaking) is beside the point. The only reason not to include it would be to avoid controversy, which is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors.Pistongrinder (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportFor same reasons as Pistongrinder, despite that it may be unfair to Brady and despite the wikipedia page on deflategate not calling out prominently the weight of support for Brady, even by New York Times, Washington Post etc. I plan an RFC on that shortly.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Plenty of other players have been suspended for far more serious infractions than whatever the commissar said Brady did. It's not a good look to single out Brady. 166.216.159.38 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Basically what everyone else has been saying. Many other high profile players have been involved in other scandals (off the top of my head, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger), with no mention in the lede. While some people on the support side say that major controversies belong in the lede, this is typically more along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby rather than alleged equipment violations. (141.212.194.179 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC))
  • Oppose As stated several times. High profile QBs like Manning and Roethlisberger don't have any mention of any controversies of their own in their ledes. (Manning curiously enough has had ALL of his controversies erased from his Wikipedia page. No mention of his U of Tenn. scandal as well as the Al Jazerra report, but I digress.....) Deflategate has since been proven to be a falsity and any court drama and appealing were due to the Commissioner's authority and did not having ANYTHING to do with the loss of air pressure in footballs. Ten years from now, Deflategate will be looked at as a joke, as it is already becoming that way. Brady certainly will not be remembered or defined by what transpired with Deflategate, a minor equipment violation turned witch hunt. Of course Deflategate is part of Brady's biography, that cannot be denied. But it certainly does not belong in the lede. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find it ridiculous that this is even an argument. After his latest Superbowl win, the Deflategate Saga is basically a controversy that is completely behind us and will rarely be mentioned again. In fact, anybody watching sporting news anywhere knows that pretty much every analyst has now stated that the Deflategate Controversy is dead and buried. There is simply no valid reason to have it in the lede as Deflategate will not define his career or his legacy in anyway any longer, just as Spy Gate has had and will have zero effect and Bill Belichick's legacy. - robby
  • Support if the lead merely says (as it does now) that "He also endured the Deflategate football tampering scandal during 2015 and 2016", but Oppose if the lead says anything more than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this compromise. Mushh94 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per comments above. Many other players have no mention of any controversies in their leads. Also, it is not important enough in the article to be mentioned in the lead. Brojam (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Most all of the oppose !votes seem to be predicating their position on an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style argument, rather than an analysis of this particular page, it's sources, and how WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD apply to them. Even a superficial review of the sources pretty clearly demonstrates the considerable role this particular controversy has played in Brady's career and the corresponding prominence of the matter within this article's content provides all the justification needed for a mention in the lead. I do, however, also agree with Anythingyouwant that the mention should probably be kept brief and simple.
And if I may add as a purely impressionistic observation (only the factors in the above sentences went into my policy analysis, but the following is worth mentioning for perspective), as someone who knows very little about American football, I can still tell you details about this "scandal" (tempest in a teapot that it nevertheless seems to be to me), whereas I could tell you pretty much nothing else about the man and his career, which to me seems to parallel the great breadth of coverage I am seeing in the sources. Wikipedia's biographical articles include any information that is relevant to the subject as an encyclopedic topic; we don't streamline them for just the details the most fervent fans of their career (or their general profession) would want to see, not in the article broadly and not in the lead. Snow let's rap 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a question of what's due. The coverage for Deflategate was massive, constant, and endured for over a year. It still isn't dead, over a year later. That warrants a mention. ~ Rob13Talk 02:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the one-sentence status-quo suggestion offered by Anythingyouwant; oppose anything more detailed. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As UNDUE weight given to a four game suspension, considering the rest of his career. I suspect there is also some WP:RECENTISM involved. Ten years from now this will be relatively unknown, though appropriate for the article itself. Note, I'm not at all a fan of Brady or that team that he's on. First Light (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was going to be an easy "Support" !vote for me, since Deflategate has received so much media attention. But then for kicks I ran Google News searches for "tom brady greatest of all time" and "tom brady legacy," sources that are likely to put Brady's career in long-term perspective, and I was surprised that the vast majority of the sources--maybe 17 of the 20 top hits--included no mention of Deflategate. (FWIW only 3 of those sources were New England sources.) I guess with the latest Super Bowl heroics the reliable sources are treating Deflategate as a thing of the past. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, your sampling methodology may have produced an unbalanced result. Any article which mentions "greatest of all time" is likely to be biased in the direction of proving the premise. There indeed may be some WP:RECENTISM in this debate here, but without mention of deflategate in the lede, we had a steady stream of editors adding varying intensities of mention under the claim the lede looked whitewashed without it. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this was a major story for over a year. Comparisons to other suspensions are unconvincing because the Deflategate scandal was a controversy beyond the level of most other incidents that have led to a suspension. Purported 'golden boys' like Brady simply don't get suspended. At any rate, we aren't suggesting devoting a full paragraph to this, but rather a single sentence related to a major incident in Brady's career. Hardly undue. Lepricavark (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Alleged"

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

For someone unknown reason (the reverters have declined to comment despite being asked to do so), people are reinserting the word alleged into this sentence: For his alleged involvement in the highly publicized Deflategate football tampering scandal, Brady was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 NFL season.

Brady's involvement in deflategate is not an allegation. He was involved. In fact, he was the central figure. There is no disputing that deflategate and Brady are inextricably linked and that Brady participated in the events involving deflategate.

Although Brady was adjudicated through a legal, binding process to be guilty is a fact that does not need to be relied on to remove the word "alleged" from the sentence, though it very obviously is enough of a reason, as the sentence is not saying he was "guilty" of something, merely that he was involved in a controversy. The vast majority of reliable sources talk about Brady's role or involvement in deflategate, not his alleged role or involvement (and most of the ones that do use the word do so before the final, binding decision was upheld in the courts https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+brady+involvement+deflategate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). There is simply no justification, either linguistically or under wikipedia policy, to use the term "alleged" here.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the word alleged is entirely appropriate. Almost every source I've read has said it was not proven that he did anything wrong (and in fact many sources say the ideal gas law means the footballs might not have been intentionally deflated at all). The court cases ultimately found that the NFL was allowed to punish Brady in the way they did, but the wording made it sound like the judges thought the punishment was unfair but that there was no legal basis to overturn it. I supported mentioning Deflategate in the lead, but would be strongly opposed to including it if the word "alleged" is not included. Calathan (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It's debatable whether Brady was involved or not. So let's not get into that. What is clear is what the NFL ruled, that he was "at least generally aware" of what was going on, that he was involved.[1] If enough people are worried about NPOV, the lead could add that Brady appealed and lost. These are indisputable.—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how the central figure of deflategate (or if you want to be generous, one of the central figures) could not be "involved" in it. Even if he were completely innocent, he would be involved. Can't we just say what the vast majority of reliable sources say on the subject?LedRush (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The only association between Brady and Deflategate that we have absolute proof of is that there were text messages between McNally and Jastremski in which Brady's name was mentioned, and that Brady himself touched the footballs while playing. There is nothing to indicate Brady had any participation in or even awareness of intentional deflation of footballs. The Wells report even stated Brady probably was only aware of it. There are only allegations which have have not been substantiated. In short, the word "involved" implies participation or awareness, which there is no proof of. Mushh94 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Except for the overwhelming evidence and the adjudication of an arbiter, yeah. But that isn't even necessary here. He is the central figure of the controversy...of course he is involved in said controversy.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I invite you to present such overwhelming evidence, because I have yet to see any. The judgment of an biased arbiter is not proof either. Again, "involved" implies active participation, Brady was an unfortunate bystander and scapegoat of two equipment managers's false-implicating conversation. Yes, he is the central figure of the Deflategate controversy, but he was "involved" in it as much as you or I. Mushh94 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's become clear to me that this is mainly an interpretation issue. He was indeed "involved" in the sense that he was part of Deflategate as a whole. No one is arguing against that. The question is whether he was involved in or aware of the actual deflation of footballs (if there was any). My intention when I originally proposed that line of text (see a few sections above) was the latter interpretation. He was allegedly involved in or aware of the fact that football were intentionally deflated. This can easily be remedied by changing around the wording, and would probably be a lot easier to cite. Lizard (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

We need to stick with what the majority of reliable sources say, not with what the NFL alone said. Several sources stating that the balls probably weren't intentionally deflated or that Brady was punished unfairly are given at Deflategate#Media_coverage, and I'm aware of other similar sources (e.g., Peter King in one of his weekly columns). My impression is that most of the news media sees the situation as an embarrassment for the NFL because they punished Brady excessively and without proof, and not as it being that Brady was proven to do something wrong (and again, the court ruling was only that the NFL had the right to punish Brady as they did, not that Brady actually did anything wrong). Calathan (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We might as well wait for the RfC above to finish, but it'd probably be best to eliminate "involvement" altogether. A better wording might be "As a result of the Deflategate football tampering incident..." It also doesn't help that it sticks out like a sore thumb since it's isolated in the lead. Once the season is over and the dust is settled, a complete rewrite of the lead so that we can fit it in naturally is in order. Lizard (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No mention of spygate

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The first seven years of Tom Brady's career were played during the Patriots' spygate regime. Surely this is relevant when discussing his career stats and the stats of those seasons, no? I would think that on some level it's unfair to compare a quarterback who knows what the defensive plays are going to be and one who doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.90.148 (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not only is that assuming way too much (we have no idea if this was the only time it was done, or if it was done for every game, how much was benefitted from it, etc) but Brady didn't receive any direct punishment from it. In fact, "Brady" appears exactly 0 times in our article on Spygate, which shows how little he was involved (allegedly or otherwise). Lizard (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
So, the article cites a source that the taping had been going on since 2000. Of course there's no way to know how much he benefited, but knowing the defensive plays is a huge advantage, especially for a young quarterback. I am just suggesting that some mention should be made that he had an advantage during those years.67.149.90.148 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If him having an advantage during those seasons is widely discussed in reliable sources, then we can mention it. That's how Wikipedia works. Lizard (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll comment that the spygate article makes clear in the first and second sentences of the article that filming opposing teams on the field was legal, and still is to this day. What had changed in 2007 was where the filming could be done from - it was no longer legal to film from the sideline, the photographer had to stand somewhere else. It wasn't an issue of the Patriots having information not otherwise available. In addition to Brady not being mentioned in Spygate at all, note a competing coach's comments several years later: [...]former Jets head coach Eric Mangini stated that "I think when you look at the history of success that [the Patriots] had after that incident, it’s pretty obvious that it didn’t play any type of significant role in the victories [the Patriots] had or the success that [the Patriots] had. I think that should close the book on wanting to add something to this biographical article. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It says 207 where it should say 2007 in the introduction 130.225.198.231 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Undid revision, article correctly showed 207 combined regular season and postseason wins. Brady has 183 regular season wins and 24 postseason wins for a total of 207 regular season and postseason wins. Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm just going to address this now: Yes, Brady will now be considered the greatest quarterback of all time by most reliable sources. But the lead still needs to be neutral. This 5th Super Bowl win actually works in our favor as editors; his legacy is now cemented. Which means whatever the sportswriters write about him tomorrow will likely be the final say on Brady. Before haphazardly throwing "Sportwriters consider Brady the greatest of all time" into the lead, please take time to study the sources further than just their headlines. Lizard (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The following sentence in the lead really makes no sense in that location: For his alleged involvement in the highly publicized Deflategate football tampering scandal, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Brady for the first four games of the 2016 NFL season.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.240.200 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
"It [the lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Deflategate is clearly a prominent controversy. It has its own page at Wikipedia, the court case almost reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and two years after the AFC Championship Game it is still a matter of great debate. Even if Brady had absolutely no knowledge of any football tampering, or even if there wasn't any football tampering at all, it only matters that Deflategate is a prominent controversy and Brady is at the very center of that controversy. Please see WP:LEAD Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
My problem was the location of the deflategate sentence. The last sentence of a lead shouldn't be off-topic as compared to the rest of the lead. "This guy is a great quarterback and has all these accomplishments... but we'll leave you with this: he's a cheater." Someone has made the correction, so all is well now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.240.200 (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Deflategate should be more than just one half of one sentence. Being bold and added: In May 2015, the NFL announced that it was suspending Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season as a result of the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. In September 2015, Judge Richard M. Berman vacated Brady's suspension. It was reinstated in April 2016, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Brady missed the first four games of the 2016 season. Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted it back to a single sentence, because many editors in the RfC based their support on the condition that mention would be limited as such. Lizard (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

GOAT debate

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

In the wake of Brady's fifth Super Bowl win, I suspect we are going to see a lot of edits with "greatest of all time" quotes. I am wondering if we should create a dedicated section just to deal with the subject and the debate? --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure but the thing is, there is no longer any large debate. Just as there is no debate when it comes to Jordan, Gretzky or Federer. I am a sports nut and I have not seen a single analyst or journalist that doesn't concede to Brady now being the undisputed Greatest of All Time. I have seen double digit articles now emphatically stating that the debate is over. In fact, the debate talked about in Sports journalism now seems to be if Brady is the greatest player of any position in the history of Football. --Robbypark (talk - contribs) 12:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.252.5 (talk)

I think this is an excellent example of WP:FLOWERY. It's ultimately undecidable, but you will see a lot of puffery in articles out there. I think the example they give of Dylan is the proper way to handle the issue. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Which was the purpose of the section I started just above this one, which was of course disregarded because "BRADY IS THE GREATEST IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE LEAD NOW!" Lizard (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to record it here, Joe Montana's comments on the debate, here. See Otto Graham, seven championships: 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1954, 1955. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lede read "many analysts and sportswriters consider Brady to be among, if not the, greatest quarterback of all time."? The linked sources concede him as the greatest, but right now, it's written as if he's a candidate for GOAT, but not there yet. Bigtrade 23 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue is it's too flowery, and informal. Lizard (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

why is 1 kid named but not the 2nd and 3rd kid?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

His first child, son John with Bridget is named. John's birthdate is here also. Why are his other 2 kids not named? Son Benjamin was born December 2009 and daughter Vivian Lake born December 2012. There were birth announcements and press releases so why arent they named? 173.13.246.253 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Because work--and especially work on the world's single largest volunteer project to provide encyclopedic summary of an indeterminate number of topics known to man--doesn't occur at the speed of thinking "Hey, I just noticed something that is missing." If you know that there were birth announcements and press releases (or preferably WP:Secondary sources covering those announcements), by all means, present them here and chances are, we can add that content with the sources. I see no compelling reason not to, but the simple answer to your question is that that section had not been updated, other than to note the fact of the births superficially, since before they were born. But this being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you can change that. It's entirely reasonable (even advisable) to present the proposed change for the editors on the talk first, the first couple of times, but even the leg work on the sources drastically simplifies the matter. Snow let's rap 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Tom Brady is not nearly a great quarterback as Peyton Manning Chrisrobert123 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: @Chrisrobert123: That's too subjective of a statement to go in the article. It's better to focus on statistical comparisons, as they are more objective. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
And there lies one of the problems with being flowery. Lizard (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention of Charles Haley in lead; perhaps trivial, but...

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a personal rule of thumb, I always try to limit talking about other people in a subject's lead, and if possible I avoid name-dropping. So I was going to revert this edit, but I think it goes without saying, when a reader sees "one of only two people" they're going to want to know who the other person is. So I think we should probably mention Haley here with the readers in mind. Lizard (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, your initial impulse was the correct one. In biographical leads, only the accomplishments/points of notability of the article's subject are germane, unless reference to an outside figure is absolutely essential to make meaning of the statement, and that is not the case here. Furthermore, the introduction of that clause has now broken up one very fluid and well written statement (which connected two rather similar and connected facts) into two sentences with poor grammatical flow and style:
"He is one of only two players, and the only quarterback, to win five Super Bowls, and the only player to win them all playing for one team." → "He is one of only two players to win five Super Bowls, with Charles Haley being the other. Brady is the only quarterback to win five and the only player to win them all playing for one team."
That is rather a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion, for no good cause. It may well be that the first thing the reader will be asking themselves on reading of the record is who the other party is, and maybe the fact bears mentioning in this article's body somewhere, but the lead is not the place. Mind, even given the context of the lead, this is a minor difference and I don't recommend going to the mat over it if there is resistance to reverting, but for me your initial appraisal is the clearly appropriate way to go. Snow let's rap 00:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

First SB-winning QB with a four-game suspension

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An editor continues to add an unsourced mention of Brady being the first Super Bowl champion QB to receive a four-game suspension, despite being reverted by multiple editors. The edits are explained with edit summaries such as "NFL records", "NFL stats", or "added to the NFL career of a player". The suspension has been covered adequately in relation to the available sources on the matter, and I'm posting this in the hopes that the editor will stop and discuss instead of edit warring. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That has no place in the article. Totally arbitrary. Did someone win the Super Bowl after a 3-game suspension? What about 2 games? Why is 4 significant? Lizard (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The best?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tom Brady has won 5 super bowls and 4 super bowl Mvps. So is he the best? Alot of people say that he is the best and some say he is not. But, in my opinion, he is the best. Jenni1112 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. But this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion. Lizard (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change "completing 16 passes in the row" to "completing 16 passes in a row" under the 2011 post season paragraph. The grammar is not correct Mwe056 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thanks! — IVORK Discuss 05:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Tom Brady. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Brady/Archive_3&oldid=1136227566"