From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject National Football League / Patriots  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Patriots task force.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an image or photograph to be included to improve its quality.

NPOV edits[edit]

I just reverted a pair of large edits (somewhat discussed above), which I feel strongly violate WP:NPOV. Please discuss them here, per WP:BRD, after reading WP:NPOV. The changes made were loaded with non-neutral opinions, that cannot stand. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please also read WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL. I feel many of the assertions made were improperly inflated (sic), and insufficiently established. The phrases "is based solely on" and "is well known to be" are notable phrases suggesting problematic text. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I support your removal; I warned the IP user about NPOV above. The sources offered by the IP user seem to be blogs and opinion pieces without editorial control. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I also support your removal of these edits.Ebw343 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Very clearly the arcane definition of "neutral" that's ostensibly being asserted here has extraordinarily little to do with the common definition thereof; so, go ahead and slavishly shill for the NFL if you must, but the rampant intellectual bankruptcy being subscribed to in so doing is nevertheless put on broad display... A TRULY neutral article would dispassionately report ALL relevant information, especially taking pains to demonstrate that while the NFL certainly pushes a very specific narrative, actual facts, and numerous problems with that narrative exist such that it's veracity is VERY VERY VERY far from having been demonstrated.

Your witless, credulous, sycophantic subscription and promulgation of the NFL's narrative and consequent desire to censor the MANY MANY MANY valid criticisms thereof, while blithely allowing pejorative phrases as demonstrated below, amply demonstrates that promulgating genuine "neutrality" has nothing at all whatsoever to do with your agenda here.

To wit...

"The Exponent science report concluded that no credible environmental or physical factors within the game characteristics fully explain the additional loss of pressure in the Patriots footballs relative to the Colts footballs"

This, being a crafted paraphrasing of less than HALF of the referenced paragraph, quite UN-NEUTRALLY and deliberately selected to omit the opening sentence: "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain". This is CLEARLY an example of a NON-NEUTRAL presentation of the factual content of the referenced subject matter in order to substantiate a specific, predetermined narrative, and yet, you're all here witlessly arguing that black is white, and down is up and that a statement that's all but an editorial IS actually "neutral", but a sentence that more fully AND ACCURATELY incorporates the entirety of the referenced source material is not.

"Following the release of the report many commentators[who?] in other markets said it proved its case.[citation needed]"

Cripes, Wikipedia editors YEARS ago took the time to point out that this assertion is (and remains) unsubstantiated, but, apparently because YOU arbiters of some arcane flavour of "Neutrality" don't have any problem with it's vapid promulgation of the desired narrative, it has somehow been allowed to stand unchallenged.

"On the other hand Patriots fans, and New England media, tore into the report for various reasons including phrases like "more probable than not" and "generally aware" in relation to Tom Brady's knowledge of the situation"

Really? was it genuinely ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans" that tore into the report? Even the few contrary links that you've let through (though endeavoured to bury) demonstrate that this is a false claim, and yet, you assessors of "Neutrality" apparently don't have any problem at all with leaving in an ENTIRELY unsubstantiated, factually contradicted, phrase whose effect is to minimizes any apparent criticism of the report while also serving to denigrate any subsequent such valid criticisms as essentially being nothing more than, prejudiced, biased and therefore perfectly dismissable whinges of irrational fans and local media. But, again, you've genuinely attempted to claim that this article yet remains more "neutral" as it is?!?

"New England fans were furious at ESPN, especially at Chris Mortensen, for broadcasting news stories that were seen as painting the Patriots in a negative light"

Again, "New England fans"? Were they the only ones? Where's the substantiation for this prejudicial qualification? ...and how EXACTLY, especially without any substantiation whatsoever, is that phrasing "neutral"? Furthermore, the phrase, "that were seen as" is PURE EDITORIALISATION!! (Weasel words!!) The referenced tweets and articles ABSOLUTELY painted the Patriots in a negative light, but Mortensen nevertheless ultimately ended up deleting those tweets and ESPN even issued apologies and acknowledged their having failed numerous journalistic and editorial responsibilities in relation to their coverage during that time. ...all of which is incontrovertible fact, and yet the "neutral" article lets this minimized, milquetoasty, clearly biased editorialization stand wholly unchallenged, with you EVEN defending the unclarified use of interviews with Jerome Bettis and Mark Brunell, speaking ON ESPN, as PAID commentators, within days of the ACCUSATIONS being made, then relating their opinions [!!!!!!] that were based ENTIRELY on the limited, and now known-to-be-inaccurate, ESPN-reports as additional support for what is now-proven-to-be-incorrect information! AND AGAIN, YOU STILL CLAIM THAT THIS IS A *MORE* NEUTRAL DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO THE INCIDENT!!??! Also, you dismissively and derisively (and ignorantly!) dismissed ALL of my references as being "opinion based", well HOW THE EFF are the UNINFORMED *OPINIONS* of Bettis and Brunell NOT "opinion based" FFS?!!

"On May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote an article titled "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure"

How about you actually go and READ the article! If you bother, you'll find out that it NEVER USES the word(s) "cheat", "cheater" or "cheated" ANYWHERE, which means that the author's deliberate insertion of such a vitriolic and perjorative characterisation is, AGAIN, PURE, BIASED, EDITORIALISATION. Furthermore the section where this "summary" references the articles' conclusion is ACTUALLY only a reference to where it's QUOTING the Wells Report! The author of the piece didn't do his own investigation and draw a parallel conclusions independently (which is implied by the summary), they merely wrote an article reporting on the findings of the Wells Report and including this heavily slanted and inaccurate "summary" in this skewed form only serves to promulgate the NFL's narrative and appears to re-inforce that position with a 3rd party independent concurrence, when the referenced article DOES NO SUCH THING! Cripes, the article even goes to lengths to point out that the NFL's attorneys prevented the scientists who conducted the study from talking about it and that such an estoppel is somewhat suspicious and "generally a no-no in a field where transparency builds credibility." But somehow, in this purportedly "NEUTRAL" article, ALL of that context was deliberately omitted (and has now been censored) so that the actual content of the source material remains wholly misrepresented as independently supporting the established, NFL-friendly story.

"On May 14, attorney Daniel L. Goldberg prepared a document rebutting specific charges made in the Wells Report,[48] citing Nobel Prize winning scientist Roderick MacKinnon, who has financial ties to Robert Kraft.[49] Goldberg has represented the Patriots and was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.[50]"

Weird how, here, in THIS case, including the clauses, "who has financial ties to Robert Kraft.[49]" and "Goldberg has represented the Patriots and was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.[50]" to demonstrate a potential conflict of interest in this instance is a "neutral" argument (since you high-and-mighty arbiters of neutrality have clearly neither objected to nor removed it), but that every/any attempt to insert substantiated references that call into question the neutrality / partiality of Exponent or Wells are somehow, obviously "non-neutral"...

As I've demonstrated, there are NUMEROUS examples of such NON-NEUTRALITY throughout the article, and yet, here were are, with y'all patting each other on the back in a hypocritical, cognitively-derelict, fit of mental-masturbation and bald-faced doublethink. Odd how people ostensibly dedicated to erudition, "neutrality", and an unbiased presentation of fact have wantonly abandoned all of the above in order to polish and maintain the fictional integrity of the NFL's demonstrably corrupt narrative. Given the blatant and obvious hypocrisies and intellectual bankruptcy being demonstrated here, one can't help but wonder just how much the League donate(s/d) to Wikimedia Foundation... (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. A lot of the above seems to be about hostility to Wikipedia rather than about the article. I'll get back to this later. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to the IP user that you not make accusations you cannot prove. If you have evidence of the NFL paying off Wikipedia, let's see it. As Tarl N. states, you seem to have issue with the manner in which Wikipedia operates. If you want to go on an anti-NFL tirade, go start your own blog where you can post what you want. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I just reverted a pair of edits to this talk page, which did more than just add new text. Please read WP:TALK - if you want to add new comments, that's proper. If you want to delete old comments you've made, that can sometimes be acceptable, but it's generally preferred you don't until the discussion is over. But the only proper way to change comments earlier placed in a talk page is to strike out the previous comments, as in strikeout, and add a brief comment explaining why they are struck out. Adding new comments in the middle of older text is generally deprecated, because readers won't even see those change. Generally, if you change your mind about something you wrote, you strike out the earlier comments, and add new comments in a new paragraph at the bottom of the discussion. And above all, do not add comments in the middle of text other people wrote, because it looks like they wrote it. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── O.k. - Let me go through the above comments. I commented on WP:WALLOFTEXT, because I don't have infinite time. So I'll go through your comments paragraph at a time:

  • Very clearly the arcane definition of "neutral" that's ostensibly being asserted... Like it or not, Wikipedia has standards which must be followed. Being aggressively insulting merely irritates the people to whom you are directing the comments. Note that while Wikipedia allows anyone to make edits, it does not allow all edits to be made. And when people are actively disruptive, they will be barred from editing Wikipedia. Yes, we can track you even though you edit logged out.
Wtf do I care about "tracking"? Here's news for you: As far as I'm aware, I don't HAVE an account here to "log out" from. In fact, I don't think I've EVER had an account here, and I can assure you that I genuinely have no intention of ever creating/using one. I've made some occasional edits from this IP address since 2010 but I don't come here often and I sincerely couldn't care less if you can or can't "track me", because I'm not trying to hide.
The article, as it stands, is rampantly NON-neutral and basically carries the NFL's water for them by promulgating and reinforcing their chosen narrative while dismissing, minimising, omitting and mischaracterising actual facts. You keep spouting about Wikipedia's rules, but you don't seem to have any problem with ignoring them here (except to silence criticism). (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Your witless, credulous, sycophantic ... Repetitive. You might read WP:NPA.
You may be surprised to learn that neither "witless" nor "credulous" NOR "sycophantic" are actual synonyms! It turns out that they're actually, genuinely, disparate, standalone adjectives with entirely different definitions and meanings! All of which makes it pretty difficult to reasonably assert a cogent argument for "repetition" (without redefining the word, of course). You might want to read the the dictionary?
Furthermore, since posting this is really nothing more than an expression of petulance, why don't we save a bit of time, agree to quit whinging, and just stick to discussing relevant facts that pertain to the article going forward? (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This, being a crafted paraphrasing of less than HALF of the referenced paragraph.... That's known as summarizing. It is not necessary to copy every word. Indeed, it's prohibited.
  1. This is kind of a double-edged sword: The paragraph itself does not actually present the text as a verbatim quote, but it nevertheless clearly is quoting from a portion of the section of the referenced Exponent Conclusion. Setting that tricky problem aside for now, going on the basis that this isn't being presented as a quote at all, your comment vis-à-vis "copying quotes in their entirety being prohibited" is a (wait for it!) red herring. Nevertheless, the paragraph definitely should have properly put quotes around the actually-quoted portions of text lest there be an appearance of plagiarism (but hey, we already know that you don't GAF about little things like that!)
  2. For your edification, what THIS little rhetorical trick is actually called is "Cherry Picking".
  3. Oh, and what YOU just tried to do is called "mischaracterization".
Soo, do you have some kind of inherent cognitive malfunction that prevents you from being able to distinguish an obviously-selective, slanted editorialization from a genuinely accurate summarization? Because if you do, well that explains quite a lot, but if you don't, then this again starts to look like you're being pretty significantly disingenuous. Personally, MY professors would've been pretty damn critical of me if I'd ever handed them a purported "summary" of something that intentionally and deliberately chose to selectively omit salient information so as to produce a narrative that was, as a result of my intentional omissions, substantively unrepresentative of the source material's actual content. (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia editors YEARS ago took the time to point out that this assertion is (and remains) unsubstantiated,... Which assertion are you referring to? Which editors are you referring to?
Uh, back to wondering about your genuine interest in resolving these issues... Are you somehow being prevented from SEEING the bloody [who?] and [citation needed] references that were added as criticisms of that line MORE THAN 2.5 YEARS AGO?! >> Reactions to the Report First damn Sentence!! (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Really? was it genuinely ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans... The sentence does not say ONLY. That's your invention.
The sentence purposely does NOT reference the existence of any OTHER distinguishable audience that shares the ascribed characteristics, and deliberately choosing to call out ONLY ONE very specific demographic and not referencing any others that may be included as well, is a literary device that serves to make it LOOK like that's the only group subscribing to the content of the claim. THIS IS A BASIC PROPAGANDIC TECHNIQUE FFS! If the group genuinely extends beyond the particularly named, subgroup, then it's being intentionally misleading, inflammatory, disingenuous, and unclear to only reference that one specific subgroup! Let's go at it another way: If they're NOT the only group that felt that way, then what actual purpose does specifically identifying ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans" serve, in this context, OTHER THAN to facilitate an implied delegitimization of the conclusion? An overt decision which is itself intellectually dishonest!! (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • How about you actually go and READ the article! I reside in the Boston area, I read everything that came out on the subject, including the Wells report (in detail, the entire thing). I came to the conclusion that the referees were so sloppy that nobody can tell exactly what happened. I can also assert that partisans who assert they know exactly what happened are simply being ideologues who promulgate belief without reason. But those are personal opinions, which don't go into an article.
I never said that anything was definitive, and as it so happens, the conclusion that you've reached is, in fact, the only legitimate one that anyone can reasonably reach with the available information! So why isn't that the overall stance of the Article then?! As I've already pointed out, Exponent even admits that very same thing in their own conclusion! Unfortunately though, the Article, as is stands, goes to great lengths to obfuscate that rational conclusion and does significant work to provide an appearance of legitimacy and substantiation to the NFL's argument instead despite the fact that, as you yourself have just acknowledged, the veracity of such an argument is not even remotely close to being demonstrated by actual facts. Also, your insipid, smart-assed comment that you "read everything that came out on the subject", glibly overlooks the obvious fact that you are obviously not aware of the significant compositional differences that exist between the cited news article, and the egregiously misrepresented summary of it that's been included here. (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weird how, here, in THIS case... Again, declaratory condemnation. I'm simply not interested in polemics. If you think there are specifics that are incorrect, and can provide reliable sources to that effect, we can work on that. But hysterical declarations of wrongdoing simply get you ignored.
If you're not interested in polemics, then why do you keep spouting them? Seriously I know that this might make you sad to hear, but it's just that whatever your feelings are, hurt or otherwise, they're simply just so indescribably-far beyond meaningless to me that I can't even really describe to you how little I care; fortunately, since they are wholly and utterly irrelevant anyway, not least to the task of correcting this article, perhaps we can just quit pouting and get over it? You've acted rashly, impertinently and irrationally, and I've certainly responded to that behaviour accordingly, but that's all in the past now, so, as I've already suggested, let's just try to stick to the task of addressing facts and mitigating the monumental amount of NNPOV content that's currently polluting the article, mmmkay? (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've demonstrated, there are NUMEROUS examples of such NON-NEUTRALITY throughout the article... I don't work on "throughout the article". I work on specifics. Offer specifics (again, reliable sources), we can work on them. But given your history, we're going to have to go baby steps, item by item, because any massive edit to change the tone is simply going to get reverted.
Oh ffs! -- I've given you NUMEROUS specifics, already, as well as reputable substantiation, of course, you prefer to delete them rather than read them, so I guess you're now stuck with having to ask me to give them to you again, but hey, they say that repetition is good for the soul, and in the interest of advancing our newly minted objective to work on this goal, if you want to go through them again, Let's go! (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If there was most stuff that you want addressed that got removed by undoing your damage to the talk page, please add them below. But again, we do this as volunteers, we don't take kindly to threats, screaming or insults. Neither do the administrators. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

[*yawn*] - (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's go!![edit]

  1. Investigation(Somewhere in here?): Roger Goodell's decision to personally intervene and oversee an appeal of his own initial ruling, combined with the numerous leaks, and falsities (lies) that he subsequently was admonished for[1][2][3], calls the League's integrity into serious question.[4][5] Then VP of Officiating, Dean Blandino's statements and actions also cast doubt on the NFL's credibility.[6]
  2. Main Article:To date, in the nearly 100 year long history of the NFL, no player, coach or staff member has ever before, or since, been penalised simply for possibly having knowledge of another person's purported malfeasance. This is extraordinarily peculiar! Think of the ramifications if the League suddenly not only penalised players who were caught taking performance enhancing drugs, but also starting giving out equivalent suspensions/fines etc. to every other player, coach and/or team employee who could be loosely described as being "more probably than not at least generally aware" of those players actions? They've NEVER, EVER assigned such a penalty before, or since; only just this ONE SINGULAR TIME, in relation to the Patriots and Tom Brady. That's unquestionably noteworthy, but, apparently, for some reason not here?![7]
  3. Wells Report(First Paragraph):

    Many, especially the New England media, questioned exactly how "independent" Wells could truly be, as a result of his history with the NFL. Rather they, the naysayers, wanted to see a truly independent investigator, someone without ties to the NFL, to investigate this scandal as they felt the Patriots were at a disadvantage with the hiring of Wells.[citation needed]

    Again, 2.5 years ago this statement's claims were called out for needing citations, but that never happened; so YTF is it still here? Beyond THAT, how do you rationally justify asserting that using the unsubstantiated, NNPOV, pejorative weasel words: "the naysayers" and another instance of employing the unsubstantiated call-out "especially the New England media" (as a means of tacitly undermining the subsequent comment) are representative of a "neutral" POV?!
  4. Exponent Inc. has significant and substantial credibility problems, and if mentioning credibility issues is relevant, that should definitely be acknowledged, but it's not, then the credibility comments in the quote referencing Roderick MacKinnon's relationship to Robert Kraft and the Patriot organisation ALSO has to go. You don't get to play both sides to suit a singular narrative and call yourself "neutral".[8][9][10][11] See also: Reactions to the Report Paragraph 5;
  5. Wells Report(Last Paragraph):

    This analysis concluded that no studied factors accounted for the loss of air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls.

    Another cherry-picked pseudo quotation of just one selected element of the Exponent conclusion.
  6. Both of the editorialised bastardizations of Exponent's conclusion are decidedly non-neutral in their purposeful, intentioned omission of the critical line that substantially undermines their entire argument: "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain.". Excluding this significant admission, which IS absolutely a part and parcel of the section that is being referenced, results in an unquestionably "non-neutral" biased presentation of the underlying paragraph. My now deleted correction simply added the missing portion alongside the extant on and certainly didn't quote the paragraph in its entirety, but, again, you declared it to somehow be a non-neutral addition while you then dishonestly referred the Wikipedia policy regarding avoiding quoting the full text.
  7. Physics Argument(First Paragraph):

    The Wells report's physics argument, based on multiple experiments as well as theoretical modeling

    No, it isn't: It relies solely upon a single report produced by a commissioned consulting agency with demonstrable credibility issues. This is a conflation that, again, only serves to create additional validation of the Well's report while efficiently glossing over the inherent problems that have already been identified. It's another example of an author specifically crafting language in a way to disingenuously advance a selected narrative that isn't fully representative of the underlying problems.
  8. Physics Argument(First Paragraph): This entire paragraph is, again, heavily editorialised. It doesn't contain any actual, significant quotations, and so only genuinely represents the personal, individual, viewpoint of the original author. That being the case, it wholly neglects to mention or even reference any of the numerous noted problems around the employed methodologies, including, for example, the decision to baselessly declare which gauge was used at the start of the game. It also makes no reference to the fact that Exponent and Wells have been shown to have purposely and selectively altered their reports to mislead the reader. These things raise significant questions of credibility, were widely reported, and deliberately omitting them from this paragraph continues to lend it a false credibility that's not unwarranted by the facts.[12][13](this last link/article appears to have been removed, or at least, I am unable to load it properly, but the citation comes from directly the Article itself.)
  9. Reactions to the Report(Paragraph 2):

    On May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote an article titled "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure.[42]

    Yet another cherry-picked, editorialised misrepresentation. The article never even uses the word "cheat" in any form, anywhere in it! That's clearly a massively pejorative, NNPOV insertion! Furthermore, the article includes NO original research, and so has absolutely no "conclusions" of its own whatsoever! It's simply a news article that reports what the then-recently-released Wells Report says! Even more illuminatingly, it actually goes out of its way to highlight that the NFL's attorneys took specific measures to prevent the scientists who conducted the study from talking about it publicly and they even went so far as to note that such an estoppel is a somewhat suspicious act and "generally a no-no in a field where transparency builds credibility." The summary painted here by the OP completely ignores this! and has been slanted to far afield that it is practically a fiction at this point!![14]

There, that's 9 to get us started, with citations! ... so where shall we begin? (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks later and not a whisper of follow-up or indication of actual interest in cleaning up this abomination of an article. I suppose, when you've been schooled six-ways-to-Sunday, have absolutely nothing in the way of an erudite rebuttal, but are desperate to protect the skewed narrative of a multi-billion-dollar corporation, quietly slinking away into the dark is one of the few options left... (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't gone anywhere, but I choose not to get into the trenches with someone who has already made up their mind and is engaging in unfounded accusations and attacks. I've said what I care to say and stand by it. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Your petulance remains utterly meaningless to me. I've presented FACTUAL, SUBSTANTIATED arguments that demonstrate the inherent biases expressed by the article, and all you've got to come back with is the monumentally hypocritical pout about choosing "not to get into the trenches with someone who has already made up their mind". How about, instead of endlessly dissembling, and avoiding addressing the facts by every/any means possible, you actually man up, show a scintilla of integrity, and genuinely address the pertinent facts/points that have been raised, for once? I've taken your assertion that you were willing to address specific criticisms at face value and gave you NINE points to choose from, and then you suddenly disappeared into the night. Pick a point and let's hash it out, but if you're not even willing to debate the problem, then your biases and petulance render you entirely worthless to the effort, in which case, send in someone who actually GAF about putting forward an article that is genuinely both comprehensive and (just as importantly) actually NEUTRAL (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't recall stating that I wanted to argue your points with you; I invited you to offer what it was that you wanted to do, and you have. The community thus far doesn't seem receptive to it as of now, but that can change any time, and if it does, I can accept that. I urge you to take what has been said to you on this page about this to heart. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the lack of reaction is due to WP:WALLOFTEXT. Earlier I said "baby steps", but the above tremendous wall is unreadable. I also note that in spite of my earlier warning, is continuing to violate WP:TALK policies by changing text after other people have read and responded. That's tantamount to forging the record; the replies were to different text than is currently in the talk page. I simply won't participate in a discussion given that behaviour. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
331dot: "The community thus far doesn't seem receptive to it" -- what effing "community" are you talking about?! So far, other than a pair of witless, self-congratulatory, "me too" comments when you and Ebw343 sought to get each other off in a mutual-masturbation-fest over redacting my original changes, all that's appearing here from "the community" is a light smattering of more (mostly-bureaucratic) offal from yourself and, of course, the ongoing, endless obstruction of Tarl N. who's by-now-well-demonstrated intent is simply to stonewall, whine incessantly, and, most importantly, do everything possible to prevent any kind or form of fixing the article itself.
Given the sheer number of Wikipedia users in "the community", that's not what any reasonable person would deem to represent a substantive-enough sample size to be labelled as a meaningful expression of the overall communities' general perspectives on the subject. Furthermore, to date, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS actually, specifically, addressed ANY of the FACTS or POINTS ( Let's go ) that I've raised!! Instead, it's been nothing but an endless wall of impenetrable obstructionism and bullshit! (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Tarl N.: Wow, there really is no bottom in your well of petulance is there? You're pulling-out every pathetic excuse in the book to avoid addressing the issues here. Grow up already! Are you really, genuinely, actually complaining about having to READ when editing an ENCYCLOPAEDIA FFS?!
Per your request, I provided you with a succinct summary of nine preliminary issues including references to main article paragraphs AND relevant citations to reputable outside sources. I gathered them together in a single, specifically-identified section ( Let's go ), and I invited you to "pick ONE" for us to start on. To which your utterly facile response, is, apparently, "there's just no possible way that I can be bothered to read even one paragraph, from just one page of text, merely to facilitate upholding Wikipedia's purported intellectual standards!"
Also, given your propensity to continually throw it up as though it was some kind of legitimate excuse for choosing not to read content, I'll pass along this little quote from the 3rd-from-last paragraph of the page that you're so fond of using to validate your own apparently-overwhelming laziness: "Pointing out to someone that they're text-walling only shows that you don't care for their opinion, or that you're averse to nuance. Similarly, linking to this page in response to a massive wall of text is just a cudgel to use against your opponents." (WoT:Cudgel)
Futhermore, I didn't change ANY of your comments! I only REPLIED to each of them, in turn, and I made such replies by properly employing both indentation AND signatures for each! I neither deleted any of your content, nor did I leave any of mine unattributed. Also, with regard to the asininely absurd comment, "That's tantamount to forging the record" -- Please tell us exactly WTF is the purpose of the HISTORY PAGE if NOT for maintaining a perfect copy of "the record"?!?! I mean, with it being there, available to every/any one at any time, how exactly can I (or anyone!) manage to "forge the record" ffs?! Seriously, unless there's some pseudo-magical way to go in and alter the contents of a document's History without leaving a trace, how is what you've so fecklessly asserted even possible!? Spouting out such a feebleminded and utterly worthless comment really only further serves to illustrate the ongoing monumental bankruptcy of your seemingly endless, increasingly worthless, and I daresay, intentionally-obstructionist posts.
To wit, at this point it's become pretty obvious/evident that your primary objective here has NOTHING at all to do with maintaining a base level of intellectual rigor or journalistic standards and EVERYTHING to do with employing every possible means to obfuscate, stonewall, dodge, avoid, and delay, in every/any way imaginable, doing ANYTHING that might compromise the extant, horrifically-non-neutral and intellectually-bankrupt, nearly-fictitious narrative of the NFL that's currently posted. It's time for someone with at least an iota of genuine integrity to step in here because, at this point, it's clear that you, sir, HAVEN'T got ANY.
Look, ALL I WANT TO DO IS FIX THE BLOODY ARTICLE!! So please just stop with incessantly wasting everyone's time with all of this completely worthless stonewalling, whining, whinging, bitching, moaning and bureaucratizing and Let's go already!! (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It is disappointing that you are not heeding the advice given to you. You are driving people from this discussion with the battleground attitude and declining to collaborate with others here. I'm not sure what to tell you other than that the changes you want aren't going to be accepted as things stand now. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"So far, other than a pair of witless, self-congratulatory, 'me too' comments when you and Ebw343 sought to get each other off in a mutual-masturbation-fest over redacting my original changes" Wow, irate Pats fan is really irate. IMO, the article is neutral now (see, e.g., "Reactions to the report").Ebw343 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
331dot OMG!?! Are you kidding me?! After all of that, all you've got is yet even MORE effing whining?!?! FFS, could you at least try to grow up already and focus whatever intellect you've got on simply addressing the significant and now-well-demonstrated actual problems with the article?!? >> Let's go
"declining to collaborate with others here"??! Are you freaking serious?! I can't believe the amount of unmitigated hypocrisy you're espousing!! The ONLY "collaborating" that the "others here" are showing ANY indication of being interested in is incessantly whining about having their bottomless petulance and innate intransigence called out onto the carpet -- *I* AM THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO'S CONSTANTLY CRYING Let's go and who's making constant efforts to try and cajole a tiny cadre of apparently witless, intransigent crybabies into actually doing *something* useful for once! If you don't want to keep being called "petulant", "puerile", and/or "crybabies", just stop all of the whining/obstructionism and move on to actually addressing the problems in the article itself! >> Let's go
"the changes you want aren't going to be accepted as things stand now" -- So why don't you tell us upon what basis, exactly, each of them would not "be accepted" (other than out of monumental sheer hubristic petulance, of course)?
Ebw343 "Wow, irate Pats fan is really irate" ..and that bit of stupidity is what's known as an Ad Hominem Fallacy; As anyone (well, anyone apparently smarter than yourself, I suppose) could tell you: facts either stand or fall on their own merits, so how about you try to actually address THOSE for once, you know, in lieu of wasting everyone's time making worthless comments like that one? >> Let's go
"IMO, the article is neutral now" -- I've already preliminarily illustrated at least NINE circumstances where particular language is used, or information is omitted for the sole purpose of slanting the article to more positively reflect/uphold the NFL's preferred (nearly-fictitious) narrative. This includes examples of selectively edited (and editorialised!) comments and other misrepresented information in the aforementioned "Reactions to the Report" section! Yet here you are, having apparently done EXACTLY NOTHING to investigate (or even address!) ANY of those indicated problems, but nevertheless still feeling bold enough to simply declare, upon no more reasoned basis than sanctimonious fiat, that "the article is neutral now" (in your entirely fact-free, and therefore worthless opinion)... >> Let's go
Furthermore, given your choice to apply the witless, pejorative, and argumentatively useless ad hominem comment, all you've actually accomplished is demonstrating that YOU are just as biased on this subject as the article currently is; a circumstance that hardly makes it revelatory when you then go on to ignorantly align yourself with its NNPOV perspective and show no interest whatsoever in working to un-slant the skewed narrative that it currently promulgates. Again, FACTS are true from all perspectives, so why are all of you working so very, very, very hard to avoid even acknowledging any of the substantiated (with references!) points that I've raised?! >> Let's go
Seriously, ALL I WANT TO DO IS FIX THE BLOODY ARTICLE!! So stop whining and Let's go already!! (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt this page with your rants and battleground attitude, I will request another administrator take action. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Seriously dude? Look, either STEP UP and participate in fixing the article or just go away: Stop the obstructionism!!!!! >> Let's go already!! (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
You have been told why your proposed edits have not gained consensus. Until you can convince others to agree with you, there is nothing else you can do. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
If by being "told", you mean that you and these other two have arbitrarily decided that you're simply not going to allow any edits, for any reason, at any time, simply because you're happier with the existing, biased, corrupt and slanted tenor of the article, then yes, I've had THAT sad fact amply demonstrated many, many times over. Of course, I was kind of hoping for an intellectually honest dialogue, but, as you've all made very, very clear, you have absolutely no interest in that whatsoever and therefore are going to do everything in your power to prevent it... (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

This page has been submitted for formal Dispute Resolution - Resolution Noticeboard#Talk:Deflategate

As per the Dispute Resolution guidelines, you are hereby notified: 331dot, Ebw343, Tarl N. (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
"IP user wants to turn the currently neutral article into an anti-NFL hit piece loaded with various theories and analysis about the Deflategate matter that are not appropriate for a neutral article" -331dot
You do know that just proclaiming something, without an iota of substantiation, is a wholly worthless exercise right? I mean, if you genuinely believe that that statement is true, why wouldn't you just go ahead and demonstrate it, and be done? Instead of doing that, though, you continue to prefer simply making broad, baseless, unsubstantiated and grandiose proclamations of personal opinion and then just hope that such worthless efforts will nevertheless be somehow accepted as being true (despite being based on nothing more than you having proclaimed it)!
>> Look up Hitchens’ Razor ffs...
The ironic part is that, although you almost certainly didn't intend it, your posted argument on the dispute page actually demonstrates both your intellectual bankruptcy and baseless intransigent refusal to engage eruditely on this matter; so uh, thanks, I guess, for substantiating my complaint!
"if they canned the attitude and honestly engaged other interested editors in good faith" -331dot
Uhh, as anyone who reads this page can plainly see, I am the only person here who's endeavouring to try and have a discussion on the FACTS and merits of proposed fixes to this hideous article and in such pursuit, I'm still waiting for some "interested" (and intellectually ept!) editors to show up. Do you even understand what "good faith" actually means? I have implored you DOZENS of times to quit pouting and just focus on addressing the FACTS here, but you've steadfastly refused to even acknowledge them! Dude, this is (at least ostensibly) an ENCYCLOPAEDIA FFS! -- ONLY ACTUAL *FACTS* MATTER, your feelings DON'T!
Speaking of which, why is it that you still haven't offered up any justified rationale for your now-clearly-outlined position that indisputable, widely-published, factual information should necessarily be excluded from an article, but unsubstantiated, false, misleading, editorialized and/or mischaracterized information should be enshrined in it? Shouldn't an ostensibly NEUTRAL article just present ALL of the facts, while striving to avoid editorialization to the greatest degree achievable? (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Since you have gone to DR, nothing more needs to be said here. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ McCann, Michael (August 19, 2015). "What to make of judge's criticisms of NFL's case against Tom Brady". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  2. ^ Neumeister, Larry; Hays, Tom (September 3, 2015). "Judge nullifies Tom Brady's four-game suspension in 'Deflategate' case; NFL will appeal". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  3. ^ Unattributed (September 3, 2015). "Tom Brady ruling: 'Deflategate' ban overturned by judge -- District Judge claimed the ban threatened the NFL's integrity". The Independent. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  4. ^ Chase, Chris (May 15, 2015). ""How is Roger Goodell allowed to hear the Tom Brady Appeal?". USA Today. Retrieved 2018-08-16.
  5. ^ Allen, Bruce (March 30, 2016). "56 lies the NFL told during Deflategate". Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  6. ^ Hurley, Michael (May 11, 2015). "Dean Blandino, NFL's Officiating VP, Lied About DeflateGate Knowledge". CBS Boston. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  7. ^ Campbell, Braden (May 11, 2015). "Here is how Roger Goodell punished other NFL teams, players". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  8. ^ Levin, Myron; Feldman, Paul (December 13, 2016). "They're Everywhere! -- Big Companies in Legal Scrapes Turn to Science-for-Hire Giant Exponent". Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  9. ^ Bensinger, Ken; Vartabedian, Ralph (February 18, 2010). "Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. as hired gun". The LA Times. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  10. ^ Ward Jr., Ken (July 13, 2011). "Coal industry calls in controversial 'hired gun' to take on mountaintop removal-birth defects study". The Center for Biological Diversity. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  11. ^ "Exponent Consulting Firm Neutrality".
  12. ^ Florio, Mike (May 10, 2015). "Pressure gauge discrepancies undermine Wells report". NBC Sports. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  13. ^ Rohrbach, Ben (2015-12-18). "N.Y. law professor files deflate-gate brief accusing NFL of fraud | Shutdown Corner - Yahoo Sports". Retrieved 2016-03-02.
  14. ^ Glanz, James (May 6, 2015). "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-08-19.