Talk:2007 New England Patriots season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 2007 New England Patriots season was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
March 3, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject National Football League (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New England Patriots
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New England Patriots, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the New England Patriots and the National Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Cheating[edit]

I think the patriots cheating needs to be discussed, its pretty important to not only their season, but the Whole NFL.--TheNation 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing anyone from adding that information, provided it's fully sourced and is written from a NPOV. But it's difficult to source anything at this point, since everything is speculation -- the NFL hasn't said anything officially. Pats1 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with posting what the media has said. That is the story.►Chris Nelson 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"On September 10, Bill Belichick was accused by the Jets of authorizing his staff to film the Jets' defensive signals, a violation of league rules"

This is factually inaccurate. Filming of the opposition's defensive signals was, and is, legal. It was the specific position from which the recording was done (pitchside) which made it an offense. Needs to be corrected.

139.222.126.137 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have source for this material? Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you're responding to a 18-month old post. Secondly, the source is the rule itself that was cited. It only prohibits taping signals from a sideline location; there's nothing preventing a team from shooting signals from the normal video location. See the first few sections of Spygate. Pats1 T/C 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section heading[edit]

The investigation was about "illegal videotaping." I can't see how you can argue this. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Spying has much broader, negative connotation connected to it and suggests more than what actually happened. Pats1 T/C 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The investigation was about 'spying.' I can't see how you can argue this." They weren't being investigated because they were "illegally videotaping" the Jets. They were being investigated because they were spying on the other team and stealing their signals. Videotaping is just the method they used, but spying is the offense. Ksy92003(talk) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really feel too strongly on the subject and I have no plans to edit anything related to this again. I agree with Pats1's argument here, and I disagree with Ksy92003 in saying videotaping was just the method. That is not true. The specific rule they broke WAS for videotaping, it is a more specific and totally accurate so it really can't be argued.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If you agree with Pats, then why did you revert him? You said "the investigation was about spying, there is no POV issue there." Pick a side, dude. You say one thing, and now, you say something else. You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie (and don't go saying that I made a personal attack in saying that you can't be trusted and are a liar; that's simply what you appear to be). Ksy92003(talk) 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Enough. Stop. You're trying to start stuff and I don't want to see this happen again. Chris stated his opinion, deal with it. Pats1 T/C 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start anything. Chris' comment here is contradictory to one he gave earlier. And to me, Pats1, I just think you're upset at me because Chris agreed with you and I'm trying to figure something out. Keep out of it. Let Chris speak for himself. Ksy92003(talk) 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm upset with you because you, totally unprovoked, tried to launch this thing into a whole situation we all know far too well. There was no need for that "you always lie" comment and you know it. This situation was kept, as it should, on a content-only level until that. Realize when to keep it that way (always, preferably). Pats1 T/C 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if I speak for myself, considering I'm an untrustworthy liar? Pats1 is right. I felt one way, but after reading what Pats1 said on the subject here, I was swayed. Grow up, man.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How am I the problem here. I don't see anything wrong at all with what I did. I don't really care if you're upset with me, Pats1, because I know I didn't do anything wrong. Anybody else would've wondered the same thing I did, why Chris reverted you saying one thing and all of a sudden changed his opinion.
And you, Chris. You continue with the personal attacks with the "grow up, man" comment; I didn't feel that was supposed to be used in a kind way. I highly suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to learn how not to offend other people. Ksy92003(talk) 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, hypocrisy reigns. Who was the first one to blatantly disregard WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in this discussion again? Pats1 T/C 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm done with this. I gave my opinion, I was attacked for it, and I have nothing more to say. Sorry Pats1, I hope you understand that this is just not a big enough issue for me to endure this crap.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I never violated those. I said "that's simply what you 'appear' to be." Giving my opinion isn't making a personal attack, is it? And others feel he is a liar because he made a pledge to follow a topic ban, saying that he wouldn't edit other football articles, and as soon as he said that, he edited football articles. There is proof that Chris isn't a man of his word. Ask Durova (talk · contribs) if you must, although she might not answer because she's "fed up" with Chris and this whole situation. Ksy92003(talk) 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In the words of Glenn Ordway, "you're making my point!" What the hell does any of this have to do with a heading in this article? Stop bringing outside, irrelevant gripes into this discussion just to start something. Get back to the topic at hand. Pats1 T/C 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't begin this. You did. I made a simple point about Chris' opinion. You lashed out at me, saying "Enough," Stop," and "Deal with it." I defended myself. You say "I'm upset with you because you, totally unprovoked, tried to launch this thing into a whole situation we all know far too well." I didn't do a thing. This whole conversation which has veered off course resulted because you provoked me. I asked Chris a simple question about why he was saying something different now as opposed to earlier today, and you lash out at me. You tell me to "get back to the topic at hand" when you're the one who began bringing the conversation off course.

I didn't do a thing wrong here, and you were the first to make a comment not related to the topic, so I haven't a clue why you're directing all the blame at me. Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me. Ksy92003(talk) 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Twenty bucks you could not find an admin to agree with anything you've said here lately. Any reasonable admin (or person, really) would say you're the one in the wrong here. You're delusions are incomprehensible.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As Sasha Callahan, an admin, reverts ksy's latest edit on this page... Pats1 T/C 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but where did you get the impression im an admin? Sasha Callahan 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure. I was thinking of Alison for a minute. Pats1 T/C 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll take it as a compliment. Sasha Callahan 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean, Chris? What can't I find any admin to agree with?
And if I am "in the wrong" here, I ask you to please tell me how, because I don't have a clue. Ksy92003(talk) 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Chris... Ksy92003(talk) 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Spygate[edit]

Not gonna happen. Now you're just going backwards. A fake word used by some in the media is clearly NOT the best choice for this section. Give it a rest.►Chris NelsonHolla! 11:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Patriots Spygate" on Google or Google News, and you'll find plenty of results on it. If it's not going to be the section title, then "Spygate" should atlest be in the text somehwere, since it would helpful if someone was searching on it. An alternative (to the section title) would be to mention somewhere that the controvery was "dubbed spygate" or something. Bjewiki 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's in no way official and there are plenty of other things it should be called. It has no place here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. It appears that, without making too much of an assumption here, ksy is going backwards in a WP:POINT kind of way. Spygate (or Videogate or Cameragate or whatever) is just a sensationalized media title. It's in no way encyclopedic or as widely recognized as Watergate (which, of course, is an actual name and not just a media portmanteau'd attention-grabber). But I can't see at all how "Spygate" is an acceptable heading for this section. Pats1 T/C 20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just forget it. Chris, you at first agreed with me, but then flip-flopped for no reason. Obviously, you're not gonna agree with me on anything because you and Pats1 always side with each other, so there isn't any point in discussing this anymore. I give up. Just keep it the way it is.
But Chris, I would still like an answer to the questions I posted in the above question. Ksy92003(talk) 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind because Pats1 made a good argument and the more I thought about it the more I felt he was right on the issue. I'm sorry if you are incapable of believing I just changed my mind because of the topic itself, and not because any stupid allegiance to Pats1 and/or any bad feelings toward you.
I'm not answering your questions above because I'm not wasting any more time on the issue. Basically, everything you claim here is wrong so that is my answer. You drove the discussion off-topic, you made it personal without reason, you made personal attacks, and you're the one behaving like a child. Everyone else would see it exactly the same way, so the problem here is with you and not myself.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not drive the discussion off-topic. Pats1 did in the way that he replied to my comment, which was a perfectly valid comment and perfectly related to the topic, and I defended myself, and it branched off from there. Ksy92003(talk) 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you fucking blind? Here are the first four comments in this discussion:

The investigation was about "illegal videotaping." I can't see how you can argue this. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Spying has much broader, negative connotation connected to it and suggests more than what actually happened. Pats1 T/C 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The investigation was about 'spying.' I can't see how you can argue this." They weren't being investigated because they were "illegally videotaping" the Jets. They were being investigated because they were spying on the other team and stealing their signals. Videotaping is just the method they used, but spying is the offense. Ksy92003(talk) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really feel too strongly on the subject and I have no plans to edit anything related to this again. I agree with Pats1's argument here, and I disagree with Ksy92003 in saying videotaping was just the method. That is not true. The specific rule they broke WAS for videotaping, it is a more specific and totally accurate so it really can't be argued.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If you agree with Pats, then why did you revert him? You said "the investigation was about spying, there is no POV issue there." Pick a side, dude. You say one thing, and now, you say something else. You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie (and don't go saying that I made a personal attack in saying that you can't be trusted and are a liar; that's simply what you appear to be). Ksy92003(talk) 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You made it personal, not Pats1 and not myself. If you can't see that you're the one at fault here, you're beyond hope. I will not be replying again. It is up to you to make progress in your behavior.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, all those four comments are on topic. The next comment, the one Pats1 left me, reads as follows:

Enough. Stop. You're trying to start stuff and I don't want to see this happen again. Chris stated his opinion, deal with it. Pats1 T/C 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely, you can see that this was the first comment that was off-topic. My following comment was a statement of defense. Nothing wrong with that, and clearly not initiated by me. I honestly don't know how you can't see that. Any reasonable person can see that Pats1 provoked me and made the initial comment. Ksy92003(talk) 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
And no, I am not _______ blind, but thanks for making another personal attack which could probably get you blocked again if I tell somebody, which I'm considering. Ksy92003(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Find an admin. Find ONE. You won't be able to, because most admins are probably reasonable, sane people.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
These disruptive antics must stop. Chris has been blocked, and blocked again, and the personal attacks still don't stop. I've taken the liberty of alerting User:Durova to Chris' recent posts here, because I know that he has dealt with him before. Bjewiki 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, don't act like Chris "started it" and was the only editor involved. Secondly, getting this discussion back on track is more important than perpetuating this conflict through admin reporting, PAs, etc. Just keep it on a content-level, people. Pats1 T/C 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will find an admin. Ksy92003(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you're in high school, but you could at least try to grow up...►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am grown up. Ksy92003(talk) 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between having pubes and behaving like a mature adult. And in the words of Van Wilder: write that down.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's a unique analogy, I suppose. Not sure what to make of it. But I am a mature adult. And I'm not sure it makes one an adult to challenge if another one is. Ksy92003(talk) 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say:

"You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie" Ksy92003 Revision as of 21:37, 30 September 2007. Pats1 T/C 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Ksy92003(talk) 05:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
What did that comment have to do with anything? (Or, more specifically, whether the title a heading on this article should be "spying" or "illegal videotaping?" You failed to keep the discussion on-topic and instead decided to drag on a past grievance.) Pats1 T/C 11:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how you don't understand this. In that comment, I was asking why Chris had changed his opinion on the topic. I don't know how that isn't on-topic. Ksy92003(talk) 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to break up the party, but this is not the place to fight. Take the issue to your talk page or better yet, request a mediation. Dabomb87 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don Shula called it "Spygate", as did Ellis Hobbs (Patriot's Cornerback) - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3099870 So it's not just the media that calls it that. I think whither people are Pat's fans or not, the word is in common use - even on the Pat's team; and should be mentioned in the article Mefanch 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the harm in mentioning it with a reference. Something along the lines of "dubbed Spygate by the media" etc. Even though Don Shula's a bitter old man who's making himself look like a retard.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Living updating[edit]

I really don't think it's necessary. I remember Soxrock used to do it for basketball games and it was frowned upon by some admins.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well basketball games are little different, but it does make sense. Pats1 T/C 22:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
We've already been through this with Soxrock and the basketball/hockey playoffs last year. I can't remember which part of WP:NOT we said it was against, but no reason for it here. Ksy92003(talk) 04:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Videotaping incidient section title[edit]

There is some disagreement over the title of the section describing the signal videotaping incident during the Jets game. One option is "Illegal Videotaping Incident" while another option is "Signal Videotaping Incident". In my opinion, "signal" is a better and more descriptive term than "illegal" as it conveys more information. I think any discussion of legality belongs in the section's text, not the title. Thoughts? Chaz Beckett 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifics don't need to go in the section title. The important thing is the fact that rules were broken - the specifics are what should be in the article itself. I believe you have it totally backwards.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a more specific title, it's a more descriptive title. The reason the videotaping was prohibited was because it was the signals that were being videotaped. Mentioning the legality of the videotaping before even mentioning what was videotaped is backwards. I also think it's generally a bad idea to use words with negative connotations such as "illegal" in section titles. I also wouldn't mind seeing a link to a reliable source describing the videotaping as illegal, instead of prohibited. Making that interpretation based on a dictionary definition is skating a little close to original research. Thanks, Chaz Beckett 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowing the definition of a word is original research? You just lost all credibility with that one. I'm dropping out of this conversation - there's no point discussing something with someone that isn't going to make sense.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. It's not knowing a definition of a word that's OR, it's the using that definition to classify a specific incident. I'd just like to see a reliable source that classifies the incident as "illegal" instead of prohibited. Chaz Beckett 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
A source isn't needed to define a word. Illegal and prohibited mean the same thing - against the rules. Therefore a source proving something is prohibited is a source proving something is illegal, because they are mutually exclusive. This isn't rocket science.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
From the verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The two words have different connotations and usages. "Illegal" usually refers to breaking a law, while "prohibited" is more general, referring to a rule. How about this, just provide a source and let's see what others have to say? Chaz Beckett 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not my fault you don't know the full definition of "illegal." But one is no more valid than the other. It doesn't matter what you usually think of when you here the word. Illegal and prohibited are synonyms by the very fact they mean the same thing. I'm not doing this anymore, it's like trying to teach calculus to a monkey.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted until such time you choose to provide a source. The wording was not in compliance with WP:V or WP:OR. You might also want to take a look at WP:CIVIL. Chaz Beckett 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And you might want to look at Webster.com. Some of that shit will blow ya mind.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't give a darn about the title, but here's the justification for using the word illegal, straight from the NFL Rulebook: Where the word “illegal” appears in this rule book, it is an institutional term of art pertaining strictly to actions that violate NFL playing rules. It is not meant to connote illegality under any public law or the rules or regulations of any other organization. Samer (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NFL Network Simulcast[edit]

I changed the wording slightly regarding "the first simulcast of any NFL game since Super Bowl I." I'm fairly certain the NFL Network simulcasts their games to LOCAL markets (i.e. I know for a fact that the first evening Thanksgiving game last year on the NFL network - Broncos at Chiefs - was simulcast to our local Kansas City station as many folks did not have the NFL network were still able to watch the game), so I changed the wording to the "first NATIONALLY simulcast NFL game..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.213.5 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the game might be worth an article in and of itself. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that depends on who wins, but there's certainly tons of material on it. I heard tickets were going for $2,500 on eBay (which I'd add if I cared to find a source right now) WallyCuddeford (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, only championship games have their own article. RC-0722 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of college football games have individual articles if they're notable enough. I don't see why pro football should be any different. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please cite a reference of one regular season NFL game that has it's own article? And also, I don't need to be rude but I wish people would stop posting scores before the game is over. Thank you. RC-0722 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Records Broken[edit]

Should there be a section on what records were set/tied/broken by the 2007 Pats? I know in the last game alone, there was the single-season touchdown passes [Brady - 50 passes], single-season touchdown receptions [Moss - 23], most points scored in a season [589] and first 16-0 perfect season. There were more records broken during the season, I just don't remember them. I think that's pretty significant and should be added. Or atleast mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.91.190 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all mentioned in the game summaries (or, in the case of this week's game, will be soon). But I guess a chart could be made. I have made a list over the course of the seasons, and there's a lot of them. Pats1 T/C 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd hold off until the playoffs are over (for the pats at least) to do a "records broken" section--just collate it all at the end. I do think it should be in the article--even though most of the country is bitter and loathing. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Virtually all the records apply only to the regular season, so there's not much need to wait until after the playoffs. The only exception I can think of is wins in a season, which the Pats would break if they go 19-0. Chaz Beckett 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First Miami Dolphins game[edit]

Im pretty sure the line about "gay" interception isnt exactly up to wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How is an interception by Randall Gay not up to WP standards? Pats1 T/C 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Week 16[edit]

Somebody want to update Week 16's blurb? I would if I had watched the game.The freddinator (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Week 17? Yeah, it will be updated sometime in the near future. Pats1 T/C 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Pats1 T/C 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, week 17. As is, I think it's too in-depth, too much like a play-by-play (I don't know if there is any precedent for this, but are there any WP articles on significant games? perhaps this would warrant one?). I think I will tone it down some tomorrow afternoon. The freddinator (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, usually only super bowl games have their own article.RC-0722 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough.The freddinator (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Week 17 rewrite[edit]

It is apparent that Week 17 is too long right now, but I think we should keep it long and shorten it, rather that have a paragraph of speculations the week prior, followed by the aftermath. I am not usually involved in major edits, so if someone else could head a collaborative rewrite of this section, that would be great. Until then, I think we should postpone any drastic changes to Week 17.The freddinator (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's too long. For starters, one of its paragraphs is about the record TV coverage; another is on the season records the game itself set. There were at least 5 or 6 individual and team records set during the game, sometimes on otherwise insignificant plays that are mentioned (and the previous record holders mentioned, which takes up room too). The game was the subject of national attention and is a WikiNews item. In fact, the actual game summary isn't much longer than some of the other "popular" games from the season, such as the Ravens or Colts games. Pats1 T/C 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Both the Colts and Ravens games are more than 2000 characters shorter. I'm talking about getting rid of sections like this:

After a 6-yard Faulk catch ended the third quarter, Maroney was tackled for a loss of 5 yards to begin the fourth quarter. The Patriots converted on third down with a 10-yard Faulk catch, but a Watson catch for a loss of 1 yard and two incompletions forced a Hanson punt. Manning recovered his own fumbled snap to begin the Giants' next drive, and two plays later, the Giants punted back to the Patriots with less than 12 minutes remaining in the game. After a first down incompletion to Welker, Brady attempted a deep pass to Moss, which was underthrown and dropped.

This sections simply play-by-play leading up to the point, Randy Moss caught the record-setting pass. Aside from that play, the rest of the text is insignificant and irrelevant.The freddinator (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly play-by-play though. In there is the fact that the fourth quarter began, and the Patriots, trailing in the game, were forced to punt. Then there's the fact that Manning fumbled his own snap, which is significant in the sense of the momentum of the game starting to turn. The other things ("two plays later" and "two incompletions later") is just to fill in the holes. The Moss dropped pass is definitely notable, and the Welker incompletion sets the stage for the touchdown pass as being on third down. In other words, once you have a few notable plays, you need something to fill in the holes for it can still make sense. Pats1 T/C 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Argue about momentum all you want, the fact is that none of the other sections in this article follow suit. They make a generalization about a set of downs that resulted in an interception or fumble giving key field position, resulting in a score, but they do not outline two consecutive non-scoring drives. If these are momentum, then you might as well do a complete play-by-play, arguing that every change of possession is a shift of momentum. An inconsequential fumble (losing yards, fine, but no change of possession), 4 yard run (that does not result in a touchdown), pass for negative yards, and a series of incompletions are not, in my opinion, significant to the rest of the game. My point is furthered evidenced with this passage:

The Giants' next drive began with a 17-yard Kevin Boss reception, but three plays later, the Giants punted back to the Patriots with 7:40 remaining the first half.

Just because it is a significant game does not mean it warrants a 7000+ character section within an article giving an overview of the season. If this were a page dedicated to this one game, I would be fine with it, but that is not the case. The freddinator (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And it's never going to be the case. The game simply doesn't feature any historical moment like the Snowplow Game or is universally known by a specific name like the Epic in Miami. And it's not a Super Bowl. The game obviously comes much, much closer to it than any of the other games in the article. The game is much more notable than the others, and thus is should be treated differently than the others. Which is, of course, just what you're saying, so I don't see how we disagree. Pats1 T/C 02:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to start a separate page (at some point this week) just for collecting significant statistics and records set by the Patriots this season, since this page is long enough as it is. (And, I might add, the game description as it stands now is still missing some of the records set by the Patriots!) Perhaps the solution is a "stub" article here and a (significantly?) longer treatment on a separate page (that could talk about the controversy over coverage, the significant plays, etc.)? Samer (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What did I miss!? Pats1 T/C 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the game warrants its own article. Perhaps take the content as it is now, expand upon it as you see fit, and use the summary I wrote or an even more compressed summary per Wikipedia:Summary style. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the current summary is unnecessarily long, especially compared with the other summaries in this article and in other articles. My edit, though still a bit long, keeps all the important beats (scoring, major turns, and records). Its a summary, not a play-by-play, and even whole articles on individual games don't have this kind of detail. Summarizing is better, because that is what it is, a summary. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a separate article for the game would pass notability guidelines. Articles on single games do have this much detail, and usually much more in the case of Super Bowls (see Super Bowl XLI for an example). I can't see how it's a play-by-play -- what is needed to set the context for each "major" play is provided, and the rest consolidated into number of plays or something like that. How long the other summaries are really doesn't matter -- a game like Week 3 vs. Buffalo doesn't have neither the action nor the importance and notability as this one does. This is the end of the line as far as this game is concerned, as it has more detail than any other mention of it in articles such as New England Patriots, History of the New England Patriots, etc. It is a summary, it's really no different than the other 16, just with more meat because of its importance and the audience that is directed to it. Pats1 T/C 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
For an example, check out the second to last paragraph of the Ravens' summary. That's a single drive, and easily the most dramatic of the season. That is blow-by-blow, and deservedly so. Pats1 T/C 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree about whether it would pass notability guidelines. While it might not have a name (à la "Super Bowl 41.5"), it does have special significance, if not from a game aspect, then certainly from a cultural aspect (e.g., the debate over whether Coughlin and/or Belichick should rest starters, who would be able to see the game, all the records set, etc.). FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight: as long as the information is preserved somewhere on an active Wikipedia page, I don't care if it's this one or a separate one. I was just throwing an idea out there. Samer (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's about how I feel. I just know that, if it came down to it, there wouldn't be a strong case for "keep" in an AfD. It would almost certainly be merged back here. The length of this article is of no real consequence - nothing on here (except the playoffs, and *maybe* Super Bowl sections) is really worthy of a separate article. But that in now way gives license to limit the content of the Week 17 game summary just because there are other games that are shorter. What's provided in the summary is probably the most neutral material you'll find in any of the 2007 season articles. Most of the other articles feature a lot more "Luckily, team X was able to storm right back" stuff that violates WP:POV. RC-0722 mentioned that this looks like an "ESPN play-by-play." It isn't. This is in prose, and it's about as colorful as it can get while still staying encyclopedic and conforming to NPOV. If it reads like a boring play-by-play type of recap, that's how it should be -- just the facts. And there certainly were a lot more notable facts for this game, hence the length. The game itself was particularly notable as well, hence the depth. Pats1 T/C 02:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, three games are just too long. I have fixed this several times but my edits were reverted and I was threatened with bannishment. Please leave your thoughts/comments before I fix this again and probably get banned. RC-0722 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not "fixing" anything; you're blanking out content that at the very most would be reduced, not deleted. Pats1 T/C 02:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pats1 on this one: I have no problem with a summary of the game, but the "edits" by RC, IMO, simply cannot be seen as an "improvement." WP is not ESPN, I will freely admit, but the sheer amount of attention paid to the game makes a compelling argument for more coverage. Let me ask this, though: before any of us go to the trouble of creating a new article, is there a way to see if it would survive an AfD? Samer (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it can survive AfD. There are a ton of articles on individual games, see National Football League lore. It is certainly notable: unprecedented historic three network simulcast, ratings in excess of 35 million, international media coverage, multiple records broken, undefeated season, and on and on... by the standards of the other individual non-Super Bowl games, an article on week 17 would have a lot going for it in its favor. (And I'm a deletionist!) --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If it can be reduced, then why haven't you or someone else done it? The "sheer amount of attention paid to the game" does not make a good argument for a play-by-play summary. Look at the packers/cowboys game in week 13, it's summary is small, quick to the point. And yet, the game recieved the same amount of attention as the patriots/giants game. We need for the summary to be more encyclopedic. If anybody wants I can contact an admin for a third opinion. RC-0722 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"And yet, the game received the same amount of attention." Umm, did the NFL Network have a countdown clock for that game? Did they basically re-air the entire Cowboys or Packers seasons to date? Yes, there were complaints about coverage, but reports of Senators essentially threatening the NFL? That, combined with the historical significance of the game (and the number of records set during the game), IMO, warrants expanded coverage somewhere in WP, if not necessarily this article. Samer (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: RC, I have personally reduced week 17. Twice. And I was reverted each time by Pats1. It seems clear that there is a consensus for reducing the entries, and only one person seems to be objecting to the reduction. So I have re-instated my edit. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually in favor of a shorter entry per se. I'm actually in favor of significantly more coverage, which I think would "unbalance" the page, for lack of a better term (ditto for the page I mentioned before collecting statistics and records). I'm not going to revert the edits now, since I hope to start the "2007 Patriots v. Giants game" article in the next 24-48 hours. Samer (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see at all where the "clear consensus" is. Pats1 T/C 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I went to a New Year's Eve Party at 9 EST and come back to find this thread has tripled in size. First of all, Happy New Year, everyone. Second of all, I still stand by my prior assertions. When I say I want to cut down the size of the section, I simply mean cut out inconsequential drive summaries. Pats1 referenced the game against the Ravens, saying the entire last drive was detailed. I am all for that kind of information, however when you have details about non-scoring drives, such as those I referenced eariler, you need to cut some of that out. The size of the sections would not bother me if it were completely filled with significant material. I don't want to turn this into an edit war, however, and I propose again that someone with more experience than I take charge of a major, collaborative edit for week 17. I don't think the game warrants its own page - we have more than enough room here, as long as the section is cleaned up.The freddinator (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the article is fine the way it is. It gives good detail on every aspect of the season. If you try to shorten it you may end up taking away some important stuff. I say just leave it alone or make a few minor changes. Happy New Year!! KingsOfHearts (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose I should've looked at the status of the article before going straight to the talk page (I assumed with all the talk activity, edits were gridlocked). I just read the section and like where it is now. Sorry about that, I'm running on two hours of sleep :D The freddinator (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope noone objects to me changing the three drives prior to the drive resulting in the Brady-Moss record-breaking pass. The only item of any potential significance in those sentences was Manning recovering his own fumble, which really isn't that significant at all. The drives are mentioned, but do not go into detail.The freddinator (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the sack was a bit noteworthy (14 yards, knocked the Giants back), but in the grand scheme of things it didn't mean much. Pats1 T/C 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, do what you want with this article. And, unless called upon, I shall not edit this page any further. Thank You. RC-0722 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anything wrong...? Pats1 T/C 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm new here and you guys know how you like stuff written and I don't so I'm leaving it alone. RC-0722 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I share RC's frustration. Certain editors (one really) has ownership issues and seems content on reverting other people's edits and not allowing others to contribute. It's very frustrating. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to name me. I won't be offended and have no reason to be. RC-0722 blanked certain portions of the article, which is considered vandalism and was therefore reverted. I assumed good faith until RC-0722 ignored a warning. I think your perception is way off base, and would appreciate you providing examples for what I see as an unfounded accusation. Pats1 T/C 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is very frustrating. The most frustrating part is that you have to add things to articles for the edits to be constructive. I blanked the portions that were not encyclopedic. I mean, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. You wouldn't see a play-by-play call in the Britannica now would you. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and the articles need to be encyclopedic! And, for those of you who are wondering, yes I did say that I would not edit this page any further. But by "this page", I meant the main article. You will be hearing a lot more from me in the future. RC-0722 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The game summary present is worlds away from copying and pasting a play-by-play and using that instead. Deleting that would be fine, as that isn't encylcopedic (rather, something you'd fine in an almanac). Deleting neutral, encyclopedic prose is a whole other subject. It appears your only disagreement with the portions you deleted (Weeks 17 and 9) was that you felt they went too in-depth. And that would be a valid argument to bring up in a talk page discussion like this. However, just flat-out removing content like that, even after warnings were issued, before even attempting a discussion is frowned upon here. Pats1 T/C 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
But what I deleted was not "neutral, encyclopedic prose" It was a play-by-play call that is not encyclopedic. And I ignored the warning because my edits were not vandalism. Why was it my job to bring this subject up. After I made my edit why couldn't you (Pats1) have posted something on the talk page instead of reverting mine and Edward Morgan Blake's edits. RC-0722 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, what you deleted was the Colts' game summary, which wasn't being discussed at all here. On Wikipedia, you simply cannot make a wholesale deletion of something that does not blatantly violate any rules or guidelines. Your first course of action should have been to revise the summary as you felt fit, or better yet, start a discussion on this talk page before making your edits. But just wiping the entire thing off the page, and then ignoring two administrator warnings about it without starting a talk page discussion is not good. I'm not going to argue with you here. Pats1 T/C 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second, I didn't delete the colts game summary. You've mistaken me for another user. RC-0722 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What game you deleted doesn't matter, but yes, you did delete the Colts summary. Pats1 T/C 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you that, but my account is shared with my brother. All I know is that I did not blank the colts summary. All I did was shorten the giants game summary to make it sound more encylopedic and less of a play-by-play. RC-0722 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get back to the matter at hand. This isn't about who deleted what. This is about whether the Giants game summary is too long, and if it need rewriting. I say we vote. RC-0722 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if you are going to bicker, take it to somebody's talk page. This page is not for handling interpersonal disputes, its purpose is to increase conversation and enhance coordination for the benefit of the article. The freddinator (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that we can do away with some of the nonscoring drives, big plays, and penalties. Thoughts? RC-0722 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey people, if you look at the game summary for the Cowbows/Packers game in the 2007 Green Bay Packers season article for example, it keeps certain necessary details about the game w/out giving a near play by play like week 17 here. I agree with RC and Edward Morgan Blake think it needs to be shortened alot. Just because someone repeatedly removes stuff from a article doesn't mean they are vandalizing, although usually it does. I believe RC wasn't doing anything wrong. Thanks, and Happy New Year everyone. Burner0718 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. "Can't nobody tell me nothin'." - Vince Young

Avoid wikilinking bold title words[edit]

See Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title, which recommends avoiding wikilinks in bold title words. I've tried to remove them several times here, with reversions from Pats1. The links here offer no benefit -- the 2007 NFL season is already linked in See also; Patriots could be linked there as well or from any of the other instances of "Patriots" in the article, or the second sentence in the intro could be rephrased (without redundancy) to include it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By nature, wikilinks provide easy access to related pages. That guideline recommends it only as a style issue. And at that, it's a very minor style issue. WP:IGNORE says to ignore any rules that prevent Wikipedia from being improved. Linking the title of the article (2007 NFL season and New England Patriots) provides the reader with links to the two subjects the article is synthesized from. Pats1 T/C 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And makes the lead paragraph unappealing and somewhat confusing, since it appears to link to "2007 New England Patriots". So ignoring the guideline is itself preventing Wikipedia from being improved. The readers here are unlikely to find this article without first finding 2007 NFL season or New England Patriots. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Bold or not, it appears to link to "2007 New England Patriots." Any two wikilinks next to each other will. And if they find one, they're unlikely to find the other before coming to this article, hence the two wikilinks. As far as your ref edits go, I have no idea why you said "punctuation in front of ref since there is no consistent use yet established in this article." They were all before punctuation (i.e. consistent), so there was no point or reason provided by a Wikipedia guideline to change them. Pats1 T/C 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to agree with JHunterJ, and initially did. But after looking at the other 2007 <insert team name here> season articles, and even previous seasons, they seem to either bold simply the year, which, in my opinion looks goofy, or bold year and team name, as is the case here. Both sides offer compelling arguments, but I think that for consistency's sake, it is best to keep it as is with the year and team name bolded. However, if it is a serious problem (which I don't think it is), then it would be best to bring it up in a relevant WikiProject.The freddinator (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Week 17 Edit[edit]

New section - the last one was too long

I tried to make what I felt was a fair edit based upon the items discussed in the prior discussion topic (Week 17 rewrite). Because it was a very significant game, one in which many records were tied and broken, it is still pretty lengthy. I tried to keep all major plays (those breaking or tying records) in tact while eliminating those detailing specific drives culminating in points gained. My reason for this is, as has been brought up several times on this discussion page, this page should not serve as a play-by-play. The previous incarnation, while not a play-by-play by definition, incorporated a lot of irrelevant details (please do not cite other sections on this page as an argument because, as far as I can see, they have predominantly been written by Pats1, who was also responsible, and still is responsible, for the bulk of this section) detailing how teams got to their touchdown/field goal play. While this would fit well on a page detailing this game, this article is about the season with a summary of each game. The net character loss is approx -500, making the entire section viewable on my monitor (1280*1024 19" screen). Also, it is now more comprobable in size to the other sections on this page. Please feel free to edit it, but if you want to revert it, please discuss here first. If you feel contentious sections are missing, please bring your argument here before you post, as well. The freddinator (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! There are a few thing that might need rewording, but I can do that if anybody wants. RC-0722 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! :-) Burner0718 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just corrected the date of the Pats' first playoff game for the 2007 seasons (it's in 2008 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedTaterExplosion (talkcontribs) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Off-Season Moves[edit]

Tully Banta-Cain was not a starter. He only started if one of the other linebackers was injured. 65.174.54.231 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Starter" meaning he started in a game or two - which he did. Many in fact. Pats1 T/C 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Misusing Video Taping Priveledges[edit]

I want to be upfront here with everyone before I begin.

  1. . I am a Giants fan.
  2. . I am also a Patriots and Tom Brady fan.
  3. . I personally don't understand why there was such a ruccus about videotaping since most teams use extensive video anyway.
  4. . I personally don't think it was an issue because Eric Mangini was a Patriots coach during their Super Bowl wins and he would have brought it out in the 2006 season when both the Jets and Pats played 3 times.
  5. . I think it is worth noting due to the extensive coverage.
  6. . It should be written in strict NPOV.
  7. . There have been allegations that it was done in Super Bowl XXXVI against the Rams as well...possibly making this more common place with the organization.

With all that said, I am going to write in a section. In it I will include

  1. What the Patriots have been accused of doing against the Jets.
  2. What the NFL did to address the situation...$750,000 fine and loss of 1st rd draft pick.
  3. Allegations of misuse against the Rams that appeared before the Super Bowl with the Giants

If you have any issues, I think we should go to mediation cabal and possibly arbitration afterwards. Arnabdas (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Super Bowl XLII. It has nothing to do with the 2007 New England Patriots season. It deals with Spygate, and is properly addressed there. Simple as that. Sticky-noting it to everything even remotely relating to the "scandal" violates WP:NPOV. Pats1 T/C 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right about a lot of it, but the alleged incident was uncovered Super Bowl weekend. Because it was uncovered THIS season, during the weekend of the Super Bowl nonetheless, it should be included here.
Whether it was "uncovered" Super Bowl weekend has no bearing on anything. It's completely irrelevant. By WP:NPOV, the two events taking place contemporaneously is a complete coincidence. Of course it wasn't (John Tomase took a ton of slack for reporting on it the day before the game, but methinks he got it from Walsh, whose story hit the mainstream the day before in the NY Times Specter article - but of course any such assertion would violate NPOV). So again, the only way it could be included here would be if it had an effect on the game, and any attempt to make such a connection would violate NPOV since there's no reliable sources to prove that. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the story is as irrelevant to the game as any other news story that came out that weekend. Pats1 T/C 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As said before, I am not trying to be biased here. Tho I am a Giants fan first, I like the Pats too and think the reaction to this whole incident is ridiculous. That still doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning. I agree with you on all counts, but only disagree about not putting it in here because of the timing of when it was uncovered...Super Bowl weekend. Arnabdas (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination[edit]

Thanks for all the work on this article. Unfortunately, I think it has a ways to go before reaching GA status; it is not technically a "quick-fail," but in my view fairly close. I'll outline my initial concerns below, but this is not yet the result of a comprehensive reading of the article; these are simply the most obvious problems I see.

  • The article relies too heavily on a single source, the "Reiss's Pieces" column.
    • The pieces of information that use that source are almost exclusively transactions and other factual information. Reiss' Pieces is the Boston Globe football blog, and definitely not a column. It's more of a serious of press releases and stats that you'll find in the same format no matter what the source. Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem with this source, as I understand it, is that there's no clear editorial process, as there would be for, say, the newspaper's Sports section. Blogs like this are generally a place for a reporter to keep his notes, and if there's a mistake, there's no copy editor checking up on them. That's not to say that the source can't be used, but I see it as a problem that literally over half the article's citations (63 of them) are to this source. More significant transactions could surely be cited to an actual article.
        • Again, these are transactions, not opinion or commentary. They're black and white no matter the source, as long as it is reliable. I think the Boston Globe is reliable. Not that it has any bearing, but I know Mike Reiss pretty well, and his blog isn't a rumor mill. In fact, for transactions like this, I would consider references in most cases a marginal necessity. Ray Ventrone being activated from the practice squad falls loosely into the same category as plays made during a game. Pats1 T/C 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The footnotes of that column are not complete, most notably lacking publication date.
    • On the list of to-do's. References were first upgraded to cite web, they can take the next step to cite news. Obviously, with 100+ references, it will take a little while to go through each and convert. Not a major deal, though - not anything that I would consider to be solely preventing a GA. Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I do consider the lack of the author's name and the lack of a date to be significant omissions. If it were the only issue, and if you were making progress on it, I'd be happy to keep the article "on hold" until you were finished; but neither of those is the case.
        • It's an issue of how much of {{citeweb}} is filled out; not an issue of whether the references are verifiable or not. That is not significant. Pats1 T/C 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Much of the article appears to be well-sourced, but much of it is not; there are entire game summaries without a single citation.
    • The citations are essentially the game recap links in the schedule section (which then link to gamebook and stats). I (who did most of the summaries) made painstakingly sure that each was completely neutral and contained pure "facts" from the game. Therefore, almost all the material is "4th and 4, X threw to Y for 10 yards" etc. I think providing a source for that material would be rather unnecessary. However, for less concrete things like injuries and records and such, all are properly sourced. Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I would agree that it's not necessary to cite every single play, where there is no controversy; however, entire sections without a single citation are a problem. One important role of an encyclopedia is to serve as a directory to published information. There's no shortage of game writeups; each section should be sourced to at least one newspaper/magazine article. (Note: I see that the NFL.com recaps are listed in the chart, and were authored by the Associated Press. These could be used for section citations.)
        • Sorry, I'm not following the logic here. The summaries themselves are just sequences of actions/plays in a game. They don't need to sourced by any means, thus by extension many of them in a row wouldn't need to be either. The game recaps are provided for that purpose, but I don't believe it's necessary to put them as a reference to the fact that Brady threw an incomplete pass to Moss, for example. Pats1 T/C 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose is too broken up with charts and lists. This may be typical of "season" articles, but I find it makes the article difficult to read. Spinning off an article on detailed lists might be one way to address this.
    • That's something I took a good look at one night a few weeks ago. The charts/lists are numerous, but I found it difficult to break them up. First off, most of the prose in the article comes from the game summaries, so throwing charts in the middle of that isn't really possible. Probably the biggest "ugly" I found was the three roster (which ironically I put there in the first place) stacked on top of each other. However, the rosters were meant more for comparative purposes, and are contained within one "rosters" section, so breaking those up was a difficult proposition as well. That leaves the standings, which do include a detailed breakdown which also takes up a lot of space. As far as having a separate article for them, I think the same problem is still presented - you'd just have a list of lists broken apart from where they'd fit and make more sense. Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I see the best approach, but I still think this is a problem. One thing you could do would be to prosify the awards that are for a specific game, including them in the relevant section instead of the chart. Some of the chart info (such as the running tally of 1-0, 2-0, 3-0... record) is not really necessary, and could be removed. Charts could be redesigned to make more use of horizontal space. The season schedule is almost entirely redundant of the info in the game recaps, and could be removed. Exhaustive detail is not necessary in an encyclopedia article; I'd rather see a short prose section on the most notable draft picks, providing some context, than a chart that lists every name and every detail. Some of these might be considered navigation templates, in which case, per WP:MOS, they should be at the very end of the article.
        • As far as the running record tally, that's something that can't be found anywhere else in the article (at least consistently). It serves its purpose for quick access of the team's record at any point during the season. I think removing the season schedule would be of serious detriment to the article, but I've heard this theory when I nominated 2006's article for GA. One can look around at any other season article and find a schedule table. The schedule is the season. The schedule and recaps serve to compliment each other; one doesn't replace the other. Further, I believe just listing "the most notable draft picks" would be of serious detriment. It isn't exhaustive detail, it doesn't take up excessive room. Besides, picking and choosing which draft picks are "notable" would be arbitrary. I don't see the point behind leaving out parts of the article like that when it only serves to improve Wikipedia. That's like saying the 2007 NFL Draft list shouldn't be a list of every single draft pick, but rather just some prose about which picks were notable. The goal for years has been to complete those lists with every single pick - not regress and provide less content. As far as nav boxes go, I think for offseason signings and other changes prose is much preferred. It allows for additional content (such as the Todd Sauerbrun situation) where needed, and gives the article a bit more beef. Even if any such nav boxes (I don't see where you'd want to make them either)/charts did exist, they would serve no purpose at the end of the article. A navbox to other seasons, sure. But not for that type of material. Pats1 T/C 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The writing quality is good in many places, but inconsistent. For instance, Marquise Hill and Bill Belichick are discussed without any prefatory mention of who they are.
    • Yes check.svg Done Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for fixing that.
  • More photos, better distributed throughout the article, would be good. Some of those presently used could benefit from judicious cropping.
    • I introduced three photos into the article yesterday (and another user the rest a week or two ago), and don't have much experience with photos on Wiki. So any cropping suggestions would be appreciated. Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think this is holding it back from GA. But I'll make a couple edits myself, which I think would be an improvement.
  • This is a very recent event, much of the work has been done in the last few days, by a small number of editors, and the article is semi-protected. I would feel more comfortable that all points of view are adequately represented after some time has passed, and broader participation. This especially applies to Spygate, discussed immediately above; I'd like a little more assurance that the issue has been resolved to several editors' satisfaction, in the interest of stability.
    • Well, in terms of new information to be added to this article, none will be had - 2008 New England Patriots season is now what is in focus. Spygate is its own separate article and issue which theoretically started and ended in a week-long time period in September. Any residual developments would have a very, very minor effect here. As far as the latest development (being the Super Bowl XXXVI allegations), that's an issue of something that occurred in 2001 New England Patriots season and thus wouldn't have any affect on this article whatsoever. The issue there is whether those allegations should be included in the Super Bowl game summary since they happened to come to light during the Super Bowl week. But no matter what (if anything) comes about from those, it will have zero effect on Super Bowl XLII or anything else to do with 2007 NEP season -- only Spygate. Pats1 T/C 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • New information is not so much the concern, as article stability as other editors have time to reflect. There have been some substantive points raised, below, since my initial reaction (among many non-substantive points, I'll grant), which I believe illustrates this point.
        • Certainly a very minor point, at best. I'm just failing to see where there could be objections with the presentation of the article, aside from a style point or two. Pats1 T/C 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, good work on the article. I'll leave the nomination open for now, and check back in a couple days; I won't pass the article unless a great deal of work is done, but it is conceivable that could happen on a short time frame, so I'm holding off on making a decision. -Pete (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to fail the article as GA, but am generally impressed with the amount of work you've put in; I'd say this is a very strong B article. I think with some more work, and hopefully a bit of constructive input from other editors, it could certainly get to GA. Also, I apologize for the length time before completing my review, and hope it has not been too discouraging. -Pete (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, it's points 1(b), 2(b), and 5 of the Good Article criteria that are standing in the way of promotion to GA. -Pete (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I tend to disagree strongly with many of the requests/comments made in the review. I'm not saying this because I think the article is perfect, but rather because I either feel the comments are (a) minor style points indifferent to the article's class or (b) invalid criticisms that question the style of season-review articles in general and do not address this specific article based on its merits. This is a good article. Pats1 T/C 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize my blow-by-blow retorts may sound stubborn and counter-productive, but I truly believe many of the review points are inherently invalid:
1(b): I'm assuming this is the argument concerning nav boxes/prose. I feel that is a greater argument rooted in the nature of season-by-season articles. I fail to see where this article does not meet WP:MOS.
2(b): All points in this article needing references have been painstakingly sourced. The objections raised in the review do not fall under, in any way, the "likely challenged" or "counter-intuitive" portion of this criterion.
5: There is certainly no ongoing content dispute or edit war going on in this article, and based on the fact that nothing will change on this article's subject for the rest of time, I don't anticipate there being any.
I'm not sure if this article is still being actively watched, but if there isn't any more activity, reassessment does remain an option. Pats1 T/C 00:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To Pats1: Just how boring do we want to get?[edit]

Okay, you're right, my opening was OR. But that is true only because I didn't get the cites that—if I really cared about this topic—would be pretty darn easy to come across. Yes, we do have an obligation to avoid OR, simply because of the unique nature of our project, and I stand corrected on that point.

However, I vehemently disagree with your characterization of "just short of perfection" as being POV. The 2007 Pats are the only team in over 50 years to go to the championship game undefeated and yet fall short in that championship. If you don't recognize that that is "just short of perfection", then you'd probably be one of the people that would say that Wikipedia shouldn't call this guy or this woman "controversial", because that would be "POV".

It's best to completely avoid any POV descriptors like that and instead use how "actually close" they were - one game, three games, etc. Pats1 T/C 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider our current opening to this article:

  • The 2007 New England Patriots season was the 38th season for the team in the National Football League and 48th season overall.

I haven't looked at the article for the 2006 season, but I wouldn't be surprised if it starts out

  • The 2006 New England Patriots season was the 37th season for the team in the National Football League and 47th season overall.

And if it does, that's a real shame. I guarantee you that most publications, including most encyclopedias (if they actually had articles on individual seasons), would not open an article on the 2006 season with the same words as they would open an article on the 2007 season. To do so is just piss poor writing, and completely unnecessary. Yes, there is something to be said for having certain facts expressed identically from article to article—but that's why we have infoboxes. Writing should be something richer, whenever possible.

That's nice. Those are publications. This is an encylopedia. We have no obligation to place a tag on each season - dramatic, boring, exciting, disappointing, etc. Just the facts. Pats1 T/C 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything informational that is well-written starts off with what is most significant about the subject. Is the most significant thing about the 2007 Pats season the fact that it was the 48th season? Of course not. I know that some people seem to think that an encyclopedia has to be sterile. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Look, the language we speak (assuming you're a native English speaker) is a full and rich language, and we should use it. An encyclopedia does not have to read like an abstract written by a grad student—and most of them don't. Unschool (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just confirmed that this pattern goes back as far as 2001. Is there a writer in the house? Unschool (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What was significant about the subject is contained within the other 10+ lines in the intro. Such significance is provided in the form of facts (mainly records). No conclusions are drawn from these records, as again, that would be original research. The first line of the article specifically identifies the subject. Pats1 T/C 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence does not identify the subject. The subject is a season which had the attention of football fans like no other in recent memory. Even the broadcast of the AFC championship game was the subject of unique negotiations—and was the first playoff game shown on multiple networks since Super Bowl I due to the national interest generated. This past year's season for the Pats was historical in a manner far different than most years. To acknowledge these things is not POV, it's good writing. Yet you defend the sterile intro for this year's season that simply mirrors the intro used in other seasons? Unschool (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's "good writing" or not, this isn't a novel. Overly creative writing or picking and choosing between descriptors of a subject isn't good Wikiwriting. The intro is "sterile" because its the most neutral and facts-intensive version, and thus the best in Wikipedia's eyes. Rather than saying "historical" or "captivating", it is preferred that actual facts are used. The reader can generate their own opinion on the subject in that regard. Also, the record-breaking TV game was in Week 17 against the Giants, not the AFC Championship. It has its own article, too. Pats1 T/C 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't read an encyclopedia, Wikipedia or Britanica, for dramatic prose. You read it for facts and for research. It should also be consistent which is why the first sentence of the lead is similar to the other season articles. I think the lead in its current form puts the Superbowl loss in adequate context with its relevance with the rest of the season. Eleven Special (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at other sequential subjects like US Presidents. For example, the article for Richard Nixon begins, "Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the thirty-seventh President of the United States from 1969 to 1974." It would be inconsistent with other POTUS articles to begin the lead with the Watergate scandal or that he was the first president to resign, even though it might be more colorful. Eleven Special (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read almost any other encyclopedia, you will find that they do NOT begin each presidential article the same way. To use your specific example, the first sentence of the 1970 edition of the World Book encyclopedia started off the article on Richard Nixon noting that his election as President capped one of the greatest political comebacks of all time. The first sentence of the Nixon article in the 1973 edition of the World Book began by noting that with his re-election, he became the first president in the history of the United States to be elected twice without either time having his party control a majority of either house of Congress (obscure, I know, but that's what they put), and the first sentence of Nixon's article in the 1976 edition (and all subsequent editions that I have seen), starts off the article by noting that Nixon is the only President of the US to ever resign. This is called writing.
And no, I am not saying that we need dramatic prose—none of the above examples hardly qualifies as "dramatic", nor are they trying to be. But writing is something done by humans for humans. The insistence on writing these articles in the "style" which they currently use is something that could almost be done by a computer program. And pointing to other Wikipedia articles to make your point is like using a word to define itself. It's not proof of anything, if other Wikipedia articles have adopted the same unfortunate habits. Unschool (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What you're talking about is style. Publications strive for a consistency of style. So it's entirely appropriate to look at other subjects within Wikipedia and attempt to be consistent with the application of style. This may be "boring" but is important, especially when you're dealing with a project that is open source. So the Nixon article in our encyclopedia states the bare facts. If you want to find out why his presidency was remarkable you'll have to read further.
And in this article, the first sentence states the bare facts. To find out why it was more remarkable than most you'll have to read on, and that can demonstrate compelling prose. It may be more interesting to write, "The 2007 New England Patriots season was the one where they won every game but blew the Superbowl in the fourth quarter by going for it when they were at 4th and 13." but that would be inconsistent with how we cover every other season and how we cover other sequential subjects. Eleven Special (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
But as Wikipedia:LEAD points out, the lead should "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" and "invite a reading of the full article". It does NOT say that the opening sentence needs to be a sterile clone of all other related articles. You brought up what other encyclopedias do. Well, Britannica's online article on Nixon mentions his resignation in the opening sentence, and the article on Gerald Ford mentions in the first sentence that he was the only President not elected by the people. This is not POV, OR, or anything else banned on Wikipedia. It is simply expected that in good writing, you lead off with what is most notable, and that lets the reader know what to expect, and helps him make a judgement on whether this is what he is looking for or not, whether or not he should continue. He shouldn't have to get to the end of a long paragraph to find out what made this season unique. My gosh, the reader is provided with a summary of how the 2006 season ended before he learns about the result of the historic 2007 season! That is simply not good writing. Unschool (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And one of the more important points of style when writing on Wikipedia is chronology. The intro progresses from the beginning of the season to the end, in order. Also, what Britannica or Americana does has absolutely zero bearing on what we do here. We are not those encyclopedias. They are not our manuals of style. We don't try to emulate what they do. In this discussion, it really doesn't matter what they do -- what matters is adherence to the principles of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia only. A lead of an article on Wikipedia is not just the introductory sentence. It's the entire opening paragraphs of the article. And in this case, the lead does explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and doesn't employ the use of an arbitrary "fast fact" in order to to so. It first sets the scene of the season within Patriots history, then gives a brief summary and assertion of significance. Pats1 T/C 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not the one who brought up other encyclopedias for comparison (see above), I merely ran with it. I would agree, that we need not do what others do. On the other hand, neither do we need to avoid what others do. What we need to do is simply provide the best articles possible. That means they need to be factual, but factual does not mean that they need to be sterile, either. Your elevation of chronology to something that must be protected at all costs is, as far as I know, not a requirement of articles here or elsewhere.
Question: Let us imagine that the Pats had won the SuperBowl this past year. Is there anything, in your opinion, that would be demonstrably anti-Wikipedian in starting the article on such a 2007 season as follows: "The 2007 season of the New England Patriots was the first in the history of the NFL in which a team completed a perfect 19-0 season."? What say you? Unschool (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a record. Just like Brady's 50 touchdown passes, just like the 16-0 regular season, etc, etc. It would be POV to put one in a more significant position. Pats1 T/C 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A machine could not have said it better. Unschool (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A machine is neutral. I envy the machine. Pats1 T/C 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because of WP:AGF, but your latest edits on 2002 New England Patriots season seemed to fall into WP:POINT. Pats1 T/C 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the AGF, because, yes, it was actually an honest mistake. It only occurred to me after I read what I had done that I realized that I had picked the wrong season. And only then did it occur to me how well it illustrated my point. Pats, these articles do not need to be so bland. It is simply not a requirement of Wikipedia, and it is a violation of good writing. Unschool (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see them as bland. I see them as factual, neutral, and informative. There doesn't have to be an interesting tidbit or record or opinionated prose (I raise a red flag whenever "arguably" is used, as it was here) for it to be good writing. Pats1 T/C 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

POV vs. Sterility[edit]

I just wanted to separate more clearly the issue upon which we disagree, Pats1. You say that it is POV to elevate one fact above others, that chronology trumps the perception of significance, is that correct? So then you would be happy with this opening but would think that this one and this one and this one and this one and this one are marred by POV?

But what is the purpose of the NPOV policy? NPOV is very correctly seen as one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia; this project would never have grown into the important site that it is without NPOV. But NPOV does not equal nor require flavorlessness. What it requires is that we be sensitive to all points of view and to not try to impose one point of view over others. NPOV does not require that writing be sterilized of all that makes it interesting.

What we should do is to write well. Pretty much any writing instructor would look at the seven articles on the Patriots' 21st century seasons and tell you that they fail flat-out because of their openings. An expository article on the 2001 season should not begin with the same verbiage as the article on the 2000 season, because they were very, very different in their totality. To argue that an article on a 19-0 season should not identify that fact in its opening sentence is to not understand the difference between sterility and NPOV. A 19-0 season would be unique, and that acknowledging that uniqueness is not POV, it is the obligation of a good writer.

Well, I'm just repeating myself now. Unschool (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Qui tacet consentit? Unschool (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Busy day, I'll get to responding ASAP. Most likely tomorrow sometime. Sorry. Pats1 T/C 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No hurry. No time limits on getting this right, right? And I may be taking a week off myself. Unschool (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. First of all, I feel the election comparison is flawed. First off, a US presidential election is general knowledge. A specific season of an American football team isn't. Almost all readers can go directly to a US presidential election article and immediately know what it's referring to. I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion for these season-specific articles. There is no "New England Patriots season" (besides New England Patriots seasons, which is a list) article like there is a United States presidential election article. I feel that you do need to both identify the subject of the article and set it in context in the initial line(s). Then, and only then, can you assert why it is significant. Chronology is important here. I believe that the intro flows very smoothly, and gives the season its due. It begins with a line identifying (via links) the team involved (the Patriots), the league involved (the NFL), the season involved (2007), and where that season falls within Patriots history. It then progresses to a summary of the background for the season - what occurred in 2006 to set-up 2007. From there we go to the records set as the Patriots went through the season - AFC East division title, 16-0 record, playoff wins, and ultimately That Dark Day. In between are records attached to assert significance and establish the season's notability. You can't tell me this is a worse-off option than going straight to "The 2007 New England Patriots season was arguably their most dramatic" or "...set numerous NFL records," or, more dramatically, "took off then crashed and burned, giving all passengers a slow and bloody death on a dismal February night." Those are blanket statements. Why not just say what actually happened? A novel idea? Give tangible facts on what the team accomplished. But there's no reason to expound on them by way of blanket statements and opinion. Let the reader form their own opinions on how great the accomplishments were. Pats1 T/C 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper tone lies somewhere between the extremes each of you endorse. For instance, the pursuit of the "perfect season" was the focus of an enormous amount of coverage in reliable sources, which are our only guide in writing encyclopedia articles. The lead should reflect this. It could be stated as "one game short of a perfect season" instead of "just short of perfection." That would be more descriptive and more accurate. I would encourage both of you to focus more improving specific sections of text, and less on these theoretical debates on the talk page, which really don't serve to advance the article. I'll try to work on it myself too. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pure POV?[edit]

Another thought just occurred to me. So you say you think that Wikipedia should be completely NPOV, and not display any hint that one fact regarding a group be more important than any other. Remember how you corrected my error, pointing out that the game I was referring to was the Week 17 game, not the AFC championship? (Thank you for correcting me on that, btw) Well, isn't it POV to have an article on the Week 17 Giants-Pats game but not on every other game of the season? Is there an article on every game from Week 17? I'm guessing not. And why not? Because some things are simply recognized as being more significant than others. Such as the 2001 Pats season, which is significant for the fact that it was the Pats' first ever SuperBowl win. That is simply more important to recognize than the fact that it was the team's 32nd season. Unschool (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's in the realm of WP:NOTABLE. I'd love to create an article for every game. But, quite simply, there's a great fluctuation of the amount of content between notable and non-notable games. That is what should establish significance for an article - not what blanket statement can be conjured up to describe an entire article in one sentence. Most of the times one doesn't exist, and oftentimes finding one constitutes original research. So if one subject or article is more significant than another, make it known the amount of well-sourced material and other content in it. Pats1 T/C 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarize Week 17 & Super Bowl[edit]

The Week 17 and Super Bowl sections are WAY too long - they're virtually a copy of the actual article sections. Summarize it, it doesn't need to be that long. JAF1970 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Week 17, yes. But all the playoff game summaries and the Super Bowl summary are direct copies, and should stay that way. The Super Bowl article has a lot more than just the summary. A reader going to the Super Bowl article from this article won't find a duplicate. Pats1 T/C 12:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The Super Bowl article is too long for this article. Honestly, you don't need a blow-by-blow account in this article. Perhaps content not in the SB42 article should be moved there, but this is just a season summary of the Pats. I'm not saying "Giants 17, Patriots 14, end of section", but it should be a 3-4 paragraph section, not article-sized. See the SB42 summary at 2007 New York Giants season. JAF1970 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Burress sb42 td.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Burress sb42 td.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Season pictures[edit]

Seeing as this article is about the Patriots' season, not the Giants', it seems more than a little odd that the only plays illustrated are the ones from the Giants' final drive in SB42. While I understand their notability, it seems bizarre. Couldn't it at least be balanced out with, say, a photo (I assume one exists) of the record-setting Brady-to-Moss pass? Samer (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are from the Super Bowl article, and they were just copied in since I copied the game summary. Pats1 T/C 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another record[edit]

The 2007 Pats are the only team to win 18 games in a row in a full season. JAF1970 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)