→Full disclosure: shit |
|||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
::: Thanks. Two points. One: the biased editors on this page would not allow me to even place it as a single word in the "See also". And you think they will allow it as text in the article proper? Two: the statements included in the article do not have to be "accusing him". They can simply be about the scandal and his connection to it. He is a central figure in the scandal (whether or not he is accused of anything). So much so that he held a press conference about the scandal. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 05:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
::: Thanks. Two points. One: the biased editors on this page would not allow me to even place it as a single word in the "See also". And you think they will allow it as text in the article proper? Two: the statements included in the article do not have to be "accusing him". They can simply be about the scandal and his connection to it. He is a central figure in the scandal (whether or not he is accused of anything). So much so that he held a press conference about the scandal. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 05:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::Again, per BLP we cannot insert anything that relies on guilt by association. So unless and until the NFL links Brady to the situation, we don't include it. Second, you need to cut the crap with calling others biased. If you can't come up with a better argument than that, you've lost. [[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#C60C30; font-family:serif">'''-- ''Calidum'''''</span>]] 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Admin help request == |
== Admin help request == |
Revision as of 20:21, 29 January 2015
Tom Brady was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DeflateGate
Is there any mention of DeflateGate in this article? I couldn't find anything. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be considering there is no confirmation he was involved in it. -- Calidum 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Confirmation is not a requirement whatsoever. Reliable sources certainly cover Tom Brady's relationship to DeflateGate. Even if it's only accusations or suspicions, it's in plenty of reliable sources. He doesn't need to be confirmed as being involved as a requirement to include the information on his page. It seems quite curious (i.e., biased) that this article makes no mention of DeflateGate, when literally every reliable source out there mentions "Tom Brady" in every sentence that mentions "DeflateGate". I will add something in, if no one else does. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, so can we mention Russell Wilson's teammates being suspended for PEDs? -- Calidum 04:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Confirmation is not a requirement whatsoever. Reliable sources certainly cover Tom Brady's relationship to DeflateGate. Even if it's only accusations or suspicions, it's in plenty of reliable sources. He doesn't need to be confirmed as being involved as a requirement to include the information on his page. It seems quite curious (i.e., biased) that this article makes no mention of DeflateGate, when literally every reliable source out there mentions "Tom Brady" in every sentence that mentions "DeflateGate". I will add something in, if no one else does. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea who Russell Wilson is. So, I can't comment. But, your reply seems like you are playing "tit for tat". Something along the lines of: "If you say something bad about my favorite player, I will say something bad about yours!" Which is indicative that you base your edits upon bias, as opposed to bona fide validity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- My comment means that unless and until Brady is proven to have committed to have done some sort of wrong doing, we should not include the information. Policy explicitly says to "beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." -- Calidum 06:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea who Russell Wilson is. So, I can't comment. But, your reply seems like you are playing "tit for tat". Something along the lines of: "If you say something bad about my favorite player, I will say something bad about yours!" Which is indicative that you base your edits upon bias, as opposed to bona fide validity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Believe what you want. I disagree. Your intent is (clearly) to white wash the article. That's clearly POV. And you are clearly a fan of Brady, acting out of bias. As your comment above indicates. For cripes sake, the guy himself held a press conference on it. Repeat: the guy himself held a press conference on this very topic. That's not notable? Yeah, right. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll offer to arbitrate this argument. I'm about as unbiased a person as lives on this planet concerning this subject: I don't watch football, don't care about it, don't even have a TV feed, haven't been to a game in 30 years. Here's my decision: Make a section, down toward the bottom, "DeflateGate". Put one or two sentences to the effect that there was a flap about cheating, or whatever it was; Mr. Brady held a press conference, and the jist of what he said therein. The language can't say he was involved; it can only state facts, in a neutral way. It can say that as of <date> there's been no resolution. It cannot say he's probably guilty, nor that he's probably innocent, nor "Why would he, a star with so many accomplishments be involved?" When the issue is resolved it can add some words as to the result. The reason for this is because big news events are almost always written up in w, and updated as they unfold. Friendly Person (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your offer. I, too, don't know the first thing about football. Nor do I care to. I am not a football fan at all (unless you count my local high school). So, along with you, I too am about as unbiased a person as lives on this planet concerning this subject. I just followed this story since it has been in the news so much lately. And I was shocked to see that this article has no mention (zero) about DeflateGate. (A clear bias, I believe.) In any event, I think your proposal is quite reasonable. Facts. Well sourced. Unbiased. Etc. But ... just try getting anything whatsoever about DeflateGate into this article. Just try it. I challenged you to do that. All of the Brady fans go crazy and find "reasons" to delete it. They usually twist words, misrepresent the facts, and then cry "BLP violation". I could not even get one single word, DeflateGate (sourced by CNN), to be added as a "See also". So, with that in mind, what do you suggest? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll admit to a bias here, as a New Englander. But it seems clear that 1. The balls were deflated after they were checked in. 2. This is cheating. 3. Tom Brady, while he may have benefited from it, didn't personally do it. To quote WP:PUBLICFIGURE (part of WP:BLP): "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis mine)" So, here's the thing you have to do: 1. Put it in the actual article, not as a See Also (might I suggest the section "2014 Postseason") and 2. Find multiple reliable sources that directly accuse Tom Brady of interfering with the footballs. Then no one, no one, can hide behind BLP. Achowat (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Two points. One: the biased editors on this page would not allow me to even place it as a single word in the "See also". And you think they will allow it as text in the article proper? Two: the statements included in the article do not have to be "accusing him". They can simply be about the scandal and his connection to it. He is a central figure in the scandal (whether or not he is accused of anything). So much so that he held a press conference about the scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, per BLP we cannot insert anything that relies on guilt by association. So unless and until the NFL links Brady to the situation, we don't include it. Second, you need to cut the crap with calling others biased. If you can't come up with a better argument than that, you've lost. -- Calidum 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Two points. One: the biased editors on this page would not allow me to even place it as a single word in the "See also". And you think they will allow it as text in the article proper? Two: the statements included in the article do not have to be "accusing him". They can simply be about the scandal and his connection to it. He is a central figure in the scandal (whether or not he is accused of anything). So much so that he held a press conference about the scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Admin help request
Some editors will not allow any mention of DeflateGate on this page, despite the fact that it is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. It is clearly POV to "white wash" the article of this notable incident. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's clearly a violation of our BLP policy to accuse a professional athlete of cheating. We can wait until the league resolves this situation before we decide to add the information or not. -- Calidum 06:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is accusing anybody of anything. Reliable sources are reporting this. For cripes sake, the guy himself held a press conference on it. Repeat: the guy himself held a press conference on this very topic. To leave this serious topic out is clearly POV and an attempt at white washing the article. And, as stated above, he does not have to be confirmed guilty and we don't have to wait for the issue to be resolved. Those are not requirements for something to be notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I subdued the {{Adminhelp}} template; the template is not for content disputes. Content disputes are best discussed on the talk page of the article, which seems to be going on in this section. In fact, trying to use administrative enforcement for a content dispute that has yet to be resolved can be considered disruptive. Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- You miss the point. This article, for the most part, is attended to by Brady fans. So, clearly, there is an inherent bias in the article as well as on the Talk Page. (I mean, hardcore fans of Cher or I Love Lucy are not going to worry about nor visit the Tom Brady article. The hardcore Brady fans are.) This is a content dispute that needs a neutral eye. Not merely the biased eyes of Brady fans. In the article itself and on its Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you missed my point. I don't feel that asking for Administrative help is an abuse. You do. Fine, let's disagree. You seem to think that all of the Brady fans on this Talk Page are capable of a neutral decision. I disagree with that and feel that more neutral eyes are needed. Hence, the request for "external help" (above and beyond this talk Page, which – generally speaking – is visited by Brady fans. Unlikely to be unbiased.). In any event, you were not helpful. And I've posted my question elsewhere. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)