Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved sections around

I moved some of the sections around because I believe it flows better and makes more sense the way I have put it. If you don't like it then feel free to rev it back, just please have a good reason for it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)
The problem I had with the article was that all of Brett's records and awards come before his stats. It makes more sense to me that his stats come first to the reader, and then the records that come from those stats come after. The order does not make sense, as every website with his stats always show his career stats first, reference [1]. And saying that something should not be changed because it has been like that for a long time is anti-wikipedia. Wikipedia is based around evolution of an article.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
(Comment by banned user)
First and foremost, to say that the outline of an article is the "right way" extraordinarily subjective and could never be proven, it is your pov. Second of all, if you are citing the GB Packers website as your source, and say that we should follow their order, then the wikipedia page would look completely different. If you look at the page, there is very little in common, we would have to greatly change the layout and content to even get close to the gb page. I really don't care, I just thought the layout i did looked and flowed better for a reader. My main point to you is that changing a Wikipedians edits 5 minutes after they edit a page, without discussing or leaving a post on the talk page will make a lot of wikipedians angry, which goes against wikipedia. Next time just leave a message and discuss the problem, don't just revert back to the original, especially when the wikipedian doing the editing is a good member. Hopefully you learn these things.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I say go ahead and try the reorder you were thinking of. I saw it in the history, and it didn't look unreasonable. If nothing else, you're likely to get rational discussion on the talk page from other editors if there are concerns about it. I believe consensus has reached a firm point that User:800 Home Runs's opinion on your edit is no longer relevant. Skybunny 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, i'm just now finding out about User:800 Home Runs and that he is banned and all his edits, no matter their merit can be reverted. I just thought it looked better but i guess we can have a real discussion now, hopefully.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)

How hard is this to understand? It is no longer a matter of what your opinion is. You are BANNED. Which means that you cannot edit Wikipedia and any edits you do make can automatically be reverted. This is Wikipedia policy, and the community has identified you as a vandalizer and thus has banned you from editing. Getting new account names and then editing the pages is also against wikipedia policy, because YOU are banned, not your account. Please understand that. If you wouldve just discussed this first a couple of days ago on the talk page as wikipedia says we should, this wouldve all been diverted. Please understand that I will revert any edits by YOU on any page.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)

It would appear the person who has over 20 sockpuppets on a encyclopedia website just so they can edit one article about a football player is, the person who has got banned on many accounts and has angered many many people, that is what is sad and speaks for itself. The fact that your account is completely new and you just happened to step right into a debate and know all the ins and outs of the said debate gives you away. I truly hope you grow-up and learn understand that wikipedia is based around everyone, not only one. Please get a life or learn how to be productive on this website.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Did Sara Aulepp actually sign in as yet another sockpuppet in PackersMania, and sign the wrong name? Snowfire51 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Haha yeah :-) I sockpuppeted that account too.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
More apparent sockpuppetry about whether or not Favre holds the record for touchdown passes, or is a co-leader and should not be given credit for it. It appears to be being reverted by a new group of fresh editors. Snowfire51 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be semi-protected?

I think this page should be semi-protected. There has been multiple vandalizations and this whole thing with User:Starwars1955 makes this page an excellent candidate for protection. It would stop all the anonymous users from vandalizing and make anyone who wanted to edit it make an account and wait a couple of days. What do you guys think? --Josh Matthews (Talk ♦ Contribs) 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed all comments by our community banned user. Since being banned means having no voice on Wikipedia, this seems a more than reasonable thing to do. In this spirit, I might suggest that future edits placed here by them be removed without comment and not responded to in any way. Gonzo_fan2007, did you want to try your article reorder now? If it is undone as it has been in the past, it will be fairly obvious who's doing it anyway. Skybunny 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Umm it really doesn't matter to me. I just think this page really really needs to be semi-protected for the length of the season. There has been so much vandalism and edits by anonymous users, and with Brett about to break the TD record, the attempts record, and maybe later the yardage record it would make sense to protect this page so that people cannot just come on here and vandalize. I also think a checkuser would help for our favorite editor and maybe a rangeblock if possible. I think if we can do a checkuser, protect the page, and a rangeblock would cut down on the vandalism by an immense amount. I dont know much about requests for the preceding three items, so any help would be great. On the matter with my edits, it doesnt matter to me, if you feel like it you can look back in the history and revert back to my changes, but its no biggie. Thanks for everything. --Josh Matthews(Talk ♦ Contribs) 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Facts

In the first paragraph, it states: "He became the Packers starting quarterback in the third game of the 1992 NFL season."

In fact, he became the starter in the 4th game (VS Pittsburgh). The 3rd game was VS Cincinnati, a game in which he didn't start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and, fixed. Skybunny 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another record

Brett Favre is tied for Most Wins against one team: 22 against the Chicago Bears ( Dan Marino vs. the Indianapolis Colts ) (1981willy 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Get a reference and throw it in. NyyDave 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Full Protection? Preposterous.

The latest in a string of sockpuppets of Starwars1955 has figured out new avenues to screw with us. First, he keeps sending requests to wikipedia to change my password (a claim I can corroborate with evidence), and next, he has figured out that if he asks for page protection and lists a complete bullshit reason, the admins will give it to him because no one can be arsed to actually investigate a claim before thinking it is true.

Can we get an admin who will watch this page closely, and just block sockpuppets as they arise instead of fulfilling every request they have? –King Bee (τ • γ) 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the latest round (I think... Brandi, Brandon, 4Brett... let me know if I missed one). The thing is, even when I'm around more, I'm not on the clock 24/7... no admin is. I'm leaving this protected for now whilst I dig a bit to see if I can shut some more doors on our tenacious friend.--Isotope23 talk 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that no one's going to be around 24/7, but this nonsense of him cajoling naive admins into doing his bidding is getting on my nerves. Maybe that's a problem that goes deeper than just this article, but whatever. Thanks for your help.
P.S. Did you get User:Teri Kosman? –King Bee (τ • γ) 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I got him. Thanks for pointing it out. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I dropped the protection down to semi... let me know if socks become a problem again and I can adjust accordingly.--Isotope23 talk 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I got a password change request by SW1955 as well, in the same way I'm sure that King Bee did, and the ultimate result is that it was changed.
I also received a password change request last night from the same IP address. Apparently making six new sockpuppets a day (by his own admission) isn't enough for him, now he wants our accounts, too. If anything can be done, please let me know. Snowfire51 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Two dozen sockpuppets, a 3RR admin noticeboard post, password changes, and heaven knows what else over how many yards Dan Marino had in his career. It would be funny if the whole thing weren't so damaging. Can someone else take this and take care of it? Skybunny 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it.--Isotope23 talk 13:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you suppose he's Dan Marino? 'Cause that would be funny. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be absolutely hilarious... actually, I think Marino has a home somewhere near San Fran... and the underlying IP range is very, very close to that area.--Isotope23 talk 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So, the 3RR violation submitted by now-banned User:Brandon Gibson came back as 'malformed request'. So, knowing the history of the editor, do I 'fix the malformed request', so an actual decision comes back, or let it go? This is about the fourth time this community banned editor has tried to make a claim of a violation of 3RR, which doesn't even apply to reverting banned users. I haven't decided yet whether a 3RR written decision is a useful data point, or even further waste of everyone's time. (I'm also internally debating whether our editor will just come back and attempt to resubmit it every night for the next week, so the question is if one 'good' submission is better than eight 'bad' ones.) Skybunny 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Wolf was not the GM of the Jets.

He was an assistant to Dick Steinberg who was the GM as it states in the referenced article. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpaw330 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New Table for Statistics

I created two new tables for his statistics. I think it is more eye appealing but everyone can check it out and see what they think.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nice, but I think it's a little too... decorative. The dark green on black doesn't really work.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you like it if the colors were changed, say to some neutral colors, see Ted Williams for an example. I'll wait until there are more responses but that is a possibility.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I would think neutral colors might be best, with alternating rows. Maybe light blue and white or something.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good, I really don't mind either way, I like the table format better than the other though. I'll wait for more consensus on what to do. Did you look at Ted Williams because that's where I "borrowed" the formatting from. Those colors are neutral, although I am sad because I thought the "Green and Gold" looked cool... :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and if we do go with neutral colors, we have to use really neutral colors, blue doesnt work, cuz thats the color of the Detroit Lions, that just gives off the wrong vibe :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I meant like a really light blue, just to distinguish it from the white. One could argue the Ted Williams' colors would be Oakland's. A very light blue wouldn't make anyone think Lions.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I understand you, I guess that was just a lame excuse for a joke on my part, haha. Ill give it a little bit and maybe tomorrow work a little bit to see what it looks like and see if anyone else has an opinion on it. If you feel like messing around with the tables, just click here. Feel free to play around with it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the table itself, but I like the idea of the colors being something neutral (the blue and white idea was a good one.) Skybunny 03:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
How bout this (when i wrote this post i had only finished the regular season table, but you get the picture). The blue just looked weird, so i decided to go with the always neutral gray. Tell me what you think. I also was contemplating, when I get these tables done, to create a {{Template:Brett Favre Regular Season Stats}} and a {{Template:Brett Favre Playoff Stats}} since the article is huge with the tables. Tell me what you think, remembering that these templates would have to be protected also because of our o so favorite editor :-).
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was Bold and did what I said above. I created both templates and think that they should be semi-protected since they were under the Brett Favre article but are no longer protected. I think it looks good now. :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Looking for a record

I realize this is discussion about the article, but I can not find my answer anywhere on the net.

What is Brett's record for throwing yardage in a single game?

If you could answer me, or forward me, I would appreciate it, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.110.145 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe his most passing yards for a single game was at Chicago on Dec. 5, 1993 (36-54, 402 yards, 2 touchdowns, 3 interceptions) http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/favre/milestones.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 

    Confirmed, Favre has the 3rd highest passing yards in a single game by a Packer with 402 at Chicago in 1993

http://www.packers.com/history/record_book/individual_records/passing/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Cool, thank you very much. In fact, he has the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th most passing yards in a single game. I asked that question on Sunday, because he had about 240 at the half, and I thought he might be on pace for a record. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLinden16 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet Possibility

User: 500 Touchdowns has popped up, with no edits except to Brett Favre and requests to revoke Page protection on Favre. Snowfire51 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned editor)

You also have the same sig problem the last sockpuppets did. Looks pretty obvious now. Wizardman 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The other two that showed up tonight are obvious socks as well. I'd fully protect the page but it may be a detriment to other editors. Wizardman 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would endorse a full protect on game days each week, extreme I know but this would stop any and all vandalism on the most busy day, which is Sunday. We could just get a trusted admin to update the regular season stats each Sunday and then un-protect it for the week until the end of the season. Then after the season is over the stats should be settled and there would be very little to dispute. I dont know if this is a viable option but it would definitely help. Just my 2 cents.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Got one more sock, User:Jurassic Park 1993; tagged and reverted edits.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
...and one more, User:Sncwfire51. This is very close to trusted User:Snowfire51 so watch out and look closely.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if this user is ever going to figure out that the only thing they accomplish, as a community banned editor, by trying to update the page every week is automatically ensure that the statistics won't be updated for days, while a) we are forced to tag, block, and deliberately see that things aren't updated as long as they are around because automatic reversions come into play, and b) wait several days to eventually get around to updating them. My money is on "no", because they are more interested in causing disruption than actually seeing the page updated by editors that are actually allowed to edit the page, while they are not. It's been six regular season games, and almost a year of being blocked. It's sad, but more or less established fact at this point.
I can bet even more predictably that this will garner a response from said editor, despite the fact that they do not have the right to make one on this page. Skybunny 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tactic

Just to let everyone know, there is been a request for full-protection from one of the socks here. Thought everyone should know.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

*Comment by banned editor*

*Deleted comment by banned editor*
I have to go, but will someone please just update the stats, if they arent done by tomorrow i will work on them, but I have to get back to hw.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed a few statistic claims as OR

I removed a couple statistics from the main page. They were aggregates of statements made on websites (which is okay), but combined with mathematical figuring to figure out "where Brett Favre is now". Example: for stadium passing yards, there is a reference that states that Favre is second in that record category, and that he was just over 25,000 yards at the end of 2006. However, there is no source which says that his current total is 26,662 (which was put in by User:Larkworb). To arrive at a total like this requires a synthesis, and has already been established by consensus here, this is original research.

A significant percentage of this article is becoming statements of statistics. Are we reaching a point where we are treading into what what Wikipedia is not, including "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? Is it worth considering trimming the records section down to say, a dozen of the most significant ones? Doing so would make the list a lot more compact, and probably more meaningful to a casual reader of Wikipedia. Skybunny 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point on the statistics. I'd be in favor of paring it down to the really important, relevant stats. Anything more is overload. Snowfire51 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact a source which states: "Need one TD pass at Lambeau Field to extend the league's single-stadium passing record to 200" and "Needs 1,228 passing yards at Lambeau Field to surpass John Elway (27,889 at Mile High Stadium) for the single-stadium record. Farve has 26,662." These statements are contained in the weekly updated bio at the second source I added: http://www.packers.com/team/players/favre_brett/. However, considering the length of the page, it would be a good idea to list the major records and but not every years statistics. Those are widely available on sites like nfl.com and they don't need to be repeated here. Larkworb 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the deletion of some of the repeated stats and statements would be good, but Larkworb, you stated that the stats "are widely available on sites like nfl.com and they don't need to be repeated here." Isnt that what wikipedia is, I mean all the info in all of these pages can be easily read on multiple websites. Thats what wikipedia is. I mean I could go to 4-5 sites and find all the info on Brett Favre, the point of wikipedia is to bring all this info together to form one complete page about a person, so someone doesnt have to hunt around the internet looking for info, they can just come here. Of course I oppose deleting the Career Stats section (since i created it :P) but it is more than that, I agree that repeated stats and statements and less important records or stats can be deleted but many people look for career stats, they are basically the definition of what a football player is. Any site that is supposed to be a biography of a sports player should include his career stats, thats just a basic ideal of a sports player. Just my two-cents, hope it helps.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Painkillers

Shouldn't this article say something about Favre's painkiller addiction in 1996? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.37.3 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It does. See the "Beginnings in Green Bay" section, or just search for "vicodin". Skybunny 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ties the 2nd longest touchdown overtime pass in NFL history

10/29/2007 Monday Night Football vs. Denver Broncos. make it happen?

source? Zervas 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is ESPN on tonight's broadcast. They said it. I second it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Mike Tirico, if you wanna get specific.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pleas Note

Note that the photo has "fudge packers" under it. Article protected so I can't change it.


(removed comments by sockpuppet of banned editor)

Another New Sockpuppet Possibility

User: Packers1992 has popped up, with no edits except to Brett Favre, and made the exact same edits that a banned user has made. He denies it, but has exactly the same style and difficulty signing his name that the banned user did. Any thoughts? I'll defer to your judgement. Snowfire51 07:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite skeptical of the legitimacy of this new user. I suppose we should WP:AGF for the time being, however, and see what happens. –King Bee (τ • γ) 15:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(removed comments by sockpuppet of banned editor)

3rd quaterback to have beaten 31 teams

I'm questioning the validity of the statement "he became only the 3rd quarterback in NFL history to have won a game against every single team in the NFL." There is no citation for this claim. It's my understanding that he's the 3rd quarterback to have beaten 31 teams, not the 3rd to have beaten every team in the NFL. This assertion can be misleading for two reasons; one, I'm pretty sure other quarterbacks have beaten all their opponents before the NFL expanded to 32 teams and two, Favre hasn't beaten every team in the NFL as he has never beaten the packers. Any thoughts on whether this should be removed or clarified? Zervas 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement was made by Joe Buck during the broadcast of the game on November 4, 2007, where the Packers beat the Chiefs. Buck and Troy Aikman mentioned it several times, so that's where all of this is probably coming from. I noticed it's mentioned twice in the article, but only properly referenced once so I added it to both. I guess to be accurate, it should say he's the third quarterback to have beaten all 31 other current NFL teams. With everything else Favre has done and as long as he's played, this individual factoid isn't really the top of his hitlist to me, what do you guys think? Snowfire51 08:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not. With the proper source, maybe it could be mentioned somewhere, but it's completely inconsequential in my opinion. –King Bee (τ • γ) 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Its probably notable if it was any other QB other than Favre, Manning, or Brady. I think this article is getting very listy and way too statistical, I wish there was some way to place his records and stats in some sort of a table. It doesn't really look like an article right now. Just my two cents.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been following the article and discussion here on the talk page. I think I might have a suggestion to offer... How about spinning off the records into a separate article, a List of Brett Favre records or somesuch, and just include the biggest/greatest/best in the main article? Imzadi1979 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Our banned editor's latest edit summary, 'they are Brett Favre stats so they belong on the page' gets me thinking; I'm not convinced that's true at all, and Brett Favre statistics wouldn't be inherently notable by WP:NOTABLE standards, would it (looking at WP:NOT#INFO, statistics)? Wikipedia is not meant to be a regurgitation of statistics, I believe, but here's another suggestion; what if we cut out of the article records that are merely copies of lists of records? In other words, the career touchdowns record is likely to make the cut of 'notable', because you could find discussion of the record itself in a newspaper, but 'consecutive 20 touchdown seasons' is less likely, and at best I've only seen it on pages with large lists of 'career achievements'. Thoughts? Skybunny 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2 comments by banned user

I think only the top stats for Favre should be shown on his page. His numbers are so great that they threaten to overwhelm the entire article, and wikipedia is not just for stats and lists. I'd suppor cutting it down to the top 6-8 stats, whatever seems right, and just dropping the others. His legacy won't be his stats. Snowfire51 05:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by banned user

Favre's Stats, And The Shortening Thereof

I like what Skybunny has done with the stats, reducing them to their top achievements for the sake of brevity. With a career like Favre's, it would be easy to overwhelm his career and accomplishments with all of his statistics. What do you guys think? Snowfire51 05:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by banned user

Ditto the above.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Much more succinct, has all the important ones. –King Bee (τ • γ) 12:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Larkworb 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit, I am a big Brett Favre fan (growing up in Wisconsin). I really liked the long list of records, not just the highlights. Is there any other site that has the full list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briturner (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. If it's an article about Brett Favre, then his accomplishments should be listed. Take a look at Peyton Manning or Dan Marino's wiki, they are comparable players in terms of setting records, and they have everything listed. The fact that Favre set so many records is important to know about players and should be detailed. If I am using wiki to find out about an athlete this is information that i want to know. Jabbathenut 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read bullet 4 of WP:NOT#INFO which states that Wikipedia is not a sprawling list of statistics. This debate has already been brought up by a notorious banned user (who seems to be the only person who takes this side in this debate) and has been solved, consensus has been reached so this debate needs to be done. Could you imagine if we listed every single piece of information attributed to a person. The article would be never-ending list of his accomplishments. That is why Wikipedia has an external links section, so if you want that extreme detail you can go to that source and find it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a stat book or football almanac. As such it only gives an overall coverage on the subject, not a super in-depth biography and stat book about a subject.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, why dont you just make a separate page with all of Favre's records and stats. Football fans would appreciate it, I promise. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.20.224 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • See the Category:Career achievements of sportspeople articles for a template for this. Probably a good idea to do this after the season, as the records are falling left and right. By the way, both this and the Favre Watch page seem to be wrong about this one: "Second in career consecutive starts by an NFL player: 248 (Jim Marshall, 270)". It looks like Jeff Feagles has this record with over 300, assuming "starts" is a legit category for a punter. Can anybody confirm this independently?--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I would endorse creating List of career achievements by Brett Favre but the page is SALTed right now, due to SW1955, but I think waiting until the end of the season, or probably the end of the post-season would be best. Maybe someone could create a subpage and we can all work on it, so at the end of the season it would only need a few fixes and would look good right from the start, just a thought though.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The games started statistic is not counted for punters. See Jeff Feagles NFL.com page. The GS for every season is 0, compared to Brett Favre's NFL.com page, in which the GS is credited. However, Feagles does hold the record for Most Consecutive Games Played. I also think a separate page with all of Favre's records is a good idea. Larkworb (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's pretty silly, given that every game is actually started by a kick (not a punt, I know, but still). But if that's how it's done, that's how it's done. (Though on Sportscenter last night, they did list Feagles first, but they call it "games played," which is clearly different than starts.)--Mike Selinker 15:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Error in one statistic: In the intro paragraph, his new NFL record is expressed as "most career passing yards (61,405)," should be "most NFL career passing yards (61,405)," The recordholder for passing in professional football is Damon Allen with 70,596 yards See [2] My apologies for poor formatting; I'm a n00b. Im dan rydell (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)im_dan_rydell 2007-12-16

 Done Good catch, I fixed it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to list in the records the record for most 3 touchdown games, you should also list his nfl record for most career touchdown passes over 80 yards. His touchdown pass to Greg Jennings last week was his ninth such pass which broke the old record of 8. Here is a link http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/PKR01/71213047/1058/PKRFeatures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.165.175 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, sports is ALL about statistics. It's said in Kevin Costner's 'For Love of the Game' "We count everything in baseball...". - football is no different. If you love football, it is a source of pride to know more stats than the other guy. While the Wiki isn't just a stats list, when it comes to sports articles, they are extremely important, as are any records, major or minor, a particular player has broken.

It would become endlessly hard to maintain the stats on every player now listed in the Wiki, as some people have made it their life's ambition to record the existance of every person to ever play a sport from Pop Warner/Little League on. Those who do rise to the very top, like cream on frozen milk, do deserve to have their accomplishments in their Wiki bios though. After all, if it wasn't for those stats and records and awards, nobody would even remember their names. Wiki is a continual source of knowledge to settle arguments, win bets, and to source articles written about the people contained herein. Why Wiki would limit itself to "general" knowledge about a player, if someone is interested in maintaining the stuff, really shouldn't be an issue.

Is bandwidth or storage space becoming an issue? These articles are certainly shorter than those on people like Bush & Clinton, and in some people's opinion, more important in their lives, regardless of other people's OPINION that world leaders and events are more important than sports. Not everyone feels that way, in fact, Joe Sixpack probably is more common than Percival the Policy Wonk any day, and sports minutia affect his life much more immediately than some witless idiot running the world - at least in his eyes. Isn't Wiki here for him too? Or has it now become the domain of the effete and Elite who decide what we all should or should not know? I say error on the side of inclusion, if at all possible. You serve more people that way.i4 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, I've noticed an error on Favre's stats. He currently has 40 fourth-quarter comeback wins, as noted by www.packers.com in their "Dope Sheet" for this week's game against the Lions. Someone wrote on the Wiki page that he has 39. Please fix. Also, I am very much in support of re-instating the extra stats that used to be on here. His numbers receive a LOT of attention from the media, so they are significant. As well, other quarterbacks have more details on their accomplishments (esp. Peyton Manning). Cheers from a non-member devotee.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.51.232 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The number of "come-from-behind" wins in the fourth quarter are not an "officially" tracked NFL statistic. In the past I have had a deal of difficulty in figuring out exactly how many Favre does have, and the best count I can find is he was at 37, (some versions in the main stream press saying 36, but I'll explain that in a second), BEFORE the Denver 2007 game. He won that in OT, which is a bit different statistic, that of "come-back-to-win" in the fouth quarter OR Over Time - therein lies the confusion and why this stat is not tracked by the NFL, there are two competing definitions of "come-from-behind 4th quarter wins" and "come-from-behind-or-tied" 4th quarter or OT wins. Favre was involved in one other OT win at Minnesota, Nov. 6, 2000 - Green Bay 26, Minnesota 20, at Green Bay. This is now the most famous catch of all time in the NFL, where Antonio Freeman fell down - or laid out, depending on how you see it - and the ball bounced up off his leg, over his back and he was astute enough to roll over and grab it, then get up and run it into the endzone for the winning TD. Favre followed the Denver win in OT up with another legit one in K.C the following week to go ahead, but Crosby tacked on 3 more afterwards. By all accounts that would be 38 under the 4th quarter definition and 40 under the 4th Quarter OR OT definition. I will edit the entry to clarify it a bit, since Elway's record also contains 4th quarter OR OT wins in getting to 47. I will NOT, however, be editing Elway's page to change what is listed there, the record of 47 game-winning OR game tying 4th quarter scores. Obviously this whole issue needs standardization, but by greater minds than myself. Wikipedia could become instrumental in formalizing the definition and thereby convincing the NFL to look at keeping an "official" record in the future, but as it stands, the "Come-back Kid" moniker, for Elway, is predicated on HIS standard, not the differentiated one we are discussing now.i4 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok people here it is from an official Wikipedia policy found here.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
#4Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
We do not and should not add any more than the most important records, awards and stats in an article about Brett Favre. Now if an article titled List of career achievements by Brett Favre is ever created, than by all means we can add any random little stats like Favre is the has the most career victories at home when the temperature is below 40 degrees, while playing a team that has purple in their uniforms, when the game time starts at 1pm, and it rains on two separate occasions (that was sarcasm if you didnt catch it). Random stats like these undermine the really important stats and make the whole article look like a clutter of random facts. Yes they are official stats and yes it is true that Favre has a lot of them, but that doesnt mean that this article should become a list of all his stats. This is an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac or record book. Please lets stop debating this issue until the season is over and we can come together and create a separate list for his records. Heres a great example for everyone. I think we can all agree that Michael Jordan would be a good equivalent to Favre in basketball. Look at his article. There are no lists of stats!! There is the separate article List of career achievements by Michael Jordan that serves the purpose for his stats. Lets take this example of a Featured Article and use it as a basis for the Favre article. Please, please lets put this to rest that the article on Brett Favre should not have every single stats this man has accrued in his life, rather there should be a thorough overview of his awards, records and important stats, and a link to a separate article that goes more in depth on all his stats.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 08:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Gonzo. Any stat we have to explain just undermines the achievments of Favre. I'm all for giving his stats and achievments their own page, but let's wait until after the season is over and wrap them all up. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Gonzo, for the simple fact that this article will never be a featured article with dozens of statistics in a list. (It's likely to, in fact, be an automatic rejection.) I might actually suggest going a step further, and saying that a statistics page should be created after Favre retires, so that there isn't an unreasonable amount of maintenance to do every time a game is played after this statistics page is created. Let the sports almanacs do their job, and we can catch up when it all ends. (I could also discuss the fact that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are both likely to eclipse many of these numbers in the next several years, which could make the actual facts in such a page questionable if not meticulously maintained, but...) Skybunny (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree somewhat - Official NFL milestones are one thing, and official Packer or other team records something else. There are too many individual team records to start lising them for every Tom, Dick, and Bebe Rebozo in the NFL. However certain ones, such as the Packer record for 20 consecutive completions, IS a pretty big one due to the rarity of it being beaten on ANY team, so a modicum of judgement must be used in listing individual team records. I think the current NFL record for consecutive completions is only 24, (Donovan McNabb in 2004 - against the NY Giants & the Favre-led Packers, coincidentally - but took two games to get it done). The single game record is 22, jointly held by Mark Brunell of Washington at Houston & David Carr in Houston v Buffalo (2006). Joe Montana also did in across 2 games, Cleveland & Green Bay, (again - LOL - GB seems to have a hand in QBs getting a lot of consecutive passes), in 1987. The previous single game record was Oakland's Rich Gannon - 21 - at Denver, (2002). Favre's "20" was a near miss and qualifies as a pretty amazing stat in any case, since only 5 people have ever completed 20 or more consecutive passes in all of NFL history, but not necessarily worthy of inclusion for all that. Considering the rule changes since Montana & Gannon did their's, I would say they are still the most amazing since liberalised contact penalties have made completions easier to come by since 2004.i4 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Playoffs fumbles?

Does anyone have a link to Brett's career playoff fumbles and fumbles lost. I added his fumbles to his career regular season stats but cannot seem to find a source for his playoff fumbles.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They are listed on the Game Logs tab of his player page on NFL.com. You have to look at each year individually, but it does have the total for each game and season. Larkworb 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How is Favre pronounced again?

Everyone says it's "farv," but not only is it spelled like "fav-ruh," every single other person I've known with that last name has also pronounced it "fav-ruh." I suspect our good man Brett just got tired of correcting people and said "Fine, FARVE it is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.122.77 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is pronounced "farv". I guess people who don't see the games regularly, where they say it all the time, could be confused because of the spelling. Google "favre pronounced" and you will find some places which indicate how it is pronounced. Maybe it has something to do with the French origin, or being from the South, or one of his ancestors decided to pronounce that way. No matter what, it's his name, he can pronounce it however he wants. Larkworb 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, can you guys say anything without being smarmy? A lot of people pronounce nuclear as "nucular," too; that doesn't mean it isn't wrong as all get-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.122.77 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the etimology of Favre, it would be pronounced Fahv-rah, (tongue roll on the "r"), in any known dialect of French ever spoken, and he's from Cajun Bayou country - which was originally settled by exiles from French Quebec. However, just as many people choose to insist their name is vocalized in a different fashion than the ordinary or accepted, (Steven Colbert, anyone?), Favre has chosen to have his pronounced Far-veh. Who is anyone to dispute a man's choice as to how his name will be spoken? For all anyone knows, it's not a pronounciation error but a spelling one and used to be spelled F A R V E.

My own feeling is it is a Regionalism and the way Southerners tend to soften "r"s to non-existance. Fav-rah became Favr with a very very soft "r' and no tongue roll, then dropped the "r" altogether - fahv - until people became confused over the speaking not sounding like the spelling should and adding back the "r" in the wrong place - farv. I'm willing to bet back home in Mississippi, people still say it faaahv(silent "r") - but close their mouths while mouth-shaping but not actually SAYING the "r" on the end.It's when a person sees the name in print the "r" creeps back in - and in the wrong place now.i4 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Acting credits?

Is it appropriate to add his imdb profile as a link, or has that already been done and undone? Archie935 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If he has one, which he does, it's definitely OK.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive starts section

I elaborated on the consecutive starts streak by Brett Favre by indicating that he has started well over 200 straight games as a QB whereas only four other QB's have ever started more than 100 with Favre being nearly 100 straight games ahead of second place (which happens to be Peyton Manning).

User Skybunny removed the reference as to how "good" it is. I think it should be noted as to how good it is (albeit in a neutral context). Why have a separate section regarding him being the ironman of football if it isn't indicated as being a good accomplishment? The way Skybunny put it, Favre merely has a long streak because Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have also started over 100 games. But when you consider Brett Favre's sreak, it is a really really "good" accomplishment.

There is a reason why there is a separate reference point on his consecutive starts. I believe an encyclopedia (or in this case wikipedia) would reference this significant gap of Favre's 200+ starts, only four others have started 100+ and Favre is ahead of 2nd place by nearly 100 starts. Brett Farve isn't only "currently" in first place on the consecutive starts list, he's likely to own that record forever. I'm not just talking here as a Favre fan.

Perhaps my initial revision was not neutral enough, but the significance of the streak should be enhanced in my humble opinion.

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if my edit didn't make sense. If you can find a respected commentator in the field who has said that he's the "Iron Man of the NFL", by all means please put it in there. I don't have any problem with quotable lauded accomplishment, but if it's not referenced, it's basically "the encyclopedia" saying it, which isn't a neutral point of view. Let me try to explain what I mean with an example:
OK: On the November 22, 2006 episode of NFL Primetime <url ref here which shows the quote>, NFL commentator Chris Berman, on Favre reaching his 250th straight game, called him the Iron Man of the NFL.
Not OK: Favre is considered the Iron Man of the NFL, and his streak is far and above notable.
In the first example, we have an "expert in the field" who has called out this particular accomplishment and provided context. In the second, it's basically Wikipedia itself that is calling the streak notable.
The way Skybunny put it, Favre merely has a long streak because Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have also started over 100 games. But when you consider Brett Favre's sreak, it is a really really "good" accomplishment.
See, my take on it is that from a purely statistical point of view, it is only a very long streak. I didn't remove the quote because I had any problem with your personal opinion; personally, I believe the streak is significant too! I'm sure a quote could be found from a respected commentator or individual in football concerning Favre's streak. If that can be referenced, it can be placed in this section with no problem at all. I hope this helps... Skybunny (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Will these references work?:
Comments from this week in anticipation of this Thursday's game comparisons to Cal Ripken's Baseball ironman streak...
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7496422
Comments from the pro football hall of fame from 2004 after Favre's 200th straight start including the jersey worn by Favre after he surpassed the previous record-holder Ron Jaworski. Favre's more than doubled the previous record since then. Amazing! (Sorry for the non-neutral amazement in my voice ;) )...
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/release.jsp?release_id=1345
Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've renamed the section "Iron Man of the NFL (Consecutive Starts streak)". If someone could review for neutrality purposes that would be great. I removed the references to Manning and Brady for clutter reasons. I also referenced Jim Marshall as it pertains to his iron man status as well as Cal Ripkin Jr.
I don't know how to add references for the articles I've listed above. If someone could cross-reference this for me that would be great. Thanks!
Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, someone else just reversed what I did with the new title as being inappropriate. I think it is appropriate because I found two web sites, one being the pro football hall of fame which indicates him as such. But maybe that isn't neutral enough? Who knows, I'm just trying to contribute something worthwhile. *sigh*. If someone reading this agrees with me, please re-install the comments, if not, I'll go with whatever. Favre is the Iron Man of the NFL, I found a legit site in the pro football hall of fame that agrees with the title. Thanks!
Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added what the Pro Football Hall of Fame had to say, since that's a fairly notable source. I took two pieces from it: that Favre was called an "Iron Man", as per the title on that page, and that his jersey is on display. Neither of these introduces any editorialism from a Wikipedia editor, and it is properly referenced within the article now with a reference (take a look at the article, and you'll see what I mean!) I agree with the reversion of the title as being a little editorial, but I hope you'll find the latest edit to your liking? I have no problem with saying within the paragraph that the hall of fame calls him an Iron Man. Thanks for editing! Skybunny (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Hey, I'm still a rookie at this. Thanks! Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having problems fixing the link for the update of the QB's that have started since Favre's streak began. Perhaps someone can look at it for me. Thanks. The source site is the following:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3134342

The reference is #61 on the page. Stylteralmaldo 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because the original linky was to a sidebar which listed his number of competators incorrectly to start with. I have added a NEW linky to the "Favre Watch" site which updates many of his statistics weekly. QB changes, such as Kyle Orton going in the past 2 weeks for Chicago, do NOT count as Orton had previously started for Chicago in the past. Currently, the number of DIFFERENT QBs to have started in the NFL since Favre started in the 4th week of 1992 is 408. As of Thursday leading up to the last week of the season, no QB changes have been announced. That 408 will likely stand until 2008 - unless someone starts a rookie/untested backup in the playoffs. At the beginning of the 2007 season it was still in the high 300s, 381 or something if I remember corectly. There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL each opening game of the season. In 2007, after week 15, there have been 60 players who started a game for an NFL franchise at the QB position, up 10 from 2006's 50 total. We still have 1 more week to go in regular season. That 60 statistic does NOT reflect number of DIFFERENT QBs, only switches that occured during the 2007 season, Kyle Orton being an example as well. He adds to the 60 total because he hadn't previously started in 2007, but not to the 408 total since he had started in the past for Chicago, (21 QBs and counting. LOL) i4 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, I also edited the number of consecutive games to include the final week of the season - 253 - and the first playoff game in the division round was added to the parens comment about the number of additional playoff games he has started following that. I know he will start both those games, barring he gets injured during week 17, which has the sort of odds - by now - that people desperate enough to commit financial suicide put money on long-shot on race horces for. In one week the streak will be accurate for another 9 months, and the following week the number of playoff games will need adjusting if he wins the divisional round. I left a temporary comment below to that effect with a *, which should be removed following correction for Favre's eventual loss in a playoff game or winning of the Super Bowl - +1 or +2. If people aren't too picky, in 5 weeks, it's be done for the year. Hmm, now that I think about it, perhaps the playoff count should remain accurate to date. I will fix that.i4 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SI's 2007 Sportsman of the Year

Hi, Could someone please add this accolade. [[3]] Thanks! Sappysap 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been added and sourced, thanks for the link!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Make A Wish Foundation Award

I added an award Favre recently won from the Make-A-Wish foundation. I wasn't exactly sure how to describe the award and why he got it so I directly quoted the article. The direct quote however sounds over-the-top in it's description of the award. I left it in as is, but if someone could review what I added and modify it if need be if it doesn't seem neutral enough. Thanks! Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You did just fine. There were actually 9 recipients this year, and Favre got the major one. Make-A-Wish is hyphenated, but other than that, you did fine, IMHO. I'm getting lazy, and it's your addition. You may add the hyphens if you wish.i4 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Strahan Sack?

I question the necessity- the long-term relevance - of the Strahan paragraph. I mean really - this is a ridiculous addition to the overall article. I vote to eliminate it. 63.3.13.131 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google.com search of "Michael Strahan Brett Favre sack controversy" and "Michael Strahan Brett Favre controvery (which is a very concise search) gave 885 results and gave 609 results, including articles from ESPN, the New York Times, Fox, Sportingnews, local newspapers, among many many others. This is a pretty legitimate criticism of Favre, and considering it involves one of the best Quarterbacks ever, one of the best Defensive linemen ever, and a major NFL record (Sacks in a season), I think it is notable enough to be mentioned as a criticism in Favres article. Hope this helps!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, nobody remembers it at all, nor does it have any lasting impact on his career. Try searching for other football controversies; under 1000 results is not enough to make this notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.177.152 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with this last comment. I don't think there should be a specific section dedicated to the Michael Strahan controvercy. However, there is merit to having a section related to his overall controversies. I did a google search on "Brett Favre controversy" and if the Michael Strahan controversy was that important, I would have seen it as more prominent in a google search than what came up: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Brett+Favre+controversy&btnG=Google+Search. The only reference to the Michael Strahan controversy on the first several pages of the search was wikipedia itself.
I propose a more general controversy section since that seems more relavent. From his vicadin controversy, to the Michael Strahan controversy to his wanting to be traded controversy. (I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind just off the top of my head). This way, the Strahan reference isn't ignored, but isn't given such "elite status" for the article itself. It seems odd to me that there is a specific section for Strahan but none for the Vicatin situation.Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to second the motion to remove the affore mentioned section due to lack of permanent importance. The whole section sounds more like a Tuesday Morning Quarterback review than an encyclopedia entry. Many of the Google searches mentioned above returned results that had nothing to do with the "incident" but were pages that happened to have Farve's and Strahan's name listed toghether. This page was returned as a hit on the above Google search but it is simply an article debating the best NFL players at their respective positions and was even published before the incident. The results of the Google search are, therefore, inconclusive. I also question the assertion of importance because of the fact that it "involves one of the best Quarterbacks ever" for the simple reason that the whole article in which the section is contained is about said quarterback. My conclusion is that this section is an editorial and is no more important to Farve's career than any other play he ever made that resulted in a sack except it is worded to sound more important. SWik78 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, I have been outside of internet access for a week now. Personally I feel the info should stay in the article. Just because an event isn't remembered as well as other info about the same subject does not mean it should be removed. Whether or not this info should have its own section or not is debatable and I would probably stay neutral on that debate of just making a "Controversies" section. My main point here is we probably shouldn't fix something that isn't broken, and the fact is that removing well sourced info because the event happened a while ago is of poor taste. Why not try and make the article better instead of just going through and removing paragraphs that are well-written and sourced? If someone wants to go and combine info into a section about controversies, then feel free. But just removing this info will not help the article in anyway. Just my two-cents.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The point trying to be made here has nothing to do with the event being well sourced. It has to do with notability as per the following Wikipedia guidelines:
  • WP:N#TEMP: A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability..
  • WP:NOT#NEWS: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article.
The Strahan sack is described by both of these guidelines as non-notable because the coverage of the event was definitely a short burst of coverage at the time it happened and has not been discussed widely since as well as the initial coverage (more specifically, the result of the affore mentioned Google search on the topic) being nothing more than routine news coverage, no different than post game analysis of any football game. In my mind, this event is completely non-notable and non-deserving of a separate subtitle in the article. If anything, it should be a single sentence somewhere else in the article but even that can be questioned. I vote to have the section removed. SWik78 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Vicodin, definately true, as are some assertions about Favre's wilder days hanging with Chewy, Frankie, and the boys in clubs in the "up nort" country, but the Strahan thing is conjecture, nobody has given it an ounce of legitimacy on either team. Ditto for the "Wanting to be traded" story. That was refuted by all parties concerned, Favre, his agent, and the Packer organization. The whole thing was probably made up in the fervor over the press blowup resulting from Favre playing games and not talking to the press. That entire off-season became "Favre rumour central" to sell newspaper because they had no REAL information to deliver. On occassion a reporter or two admittted to making a conjecture and it becoming a story about nothing of substance just because the press was so eager for any Favre news at all. No proof to this, just my opinions as a Wisconsin resident, all you have is the weak Strahan controversy, the rest of it is a lot of nonsense and as such, doesn't merit a seperate section.i4 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm kinda bored with this debate. I will recuse myself from anything that includes the Strahan sack, which means I will not make any changes myself, nor will I outright revert someone who edits the occurence out. I will suggest though that outright deletion probably isnt the answer, and that a simple sentence in his career overview about the controversy would suffice, allowing someone who is interested in what happened to find more info about it. Good luck with the changes.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 08:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section and condensed the description of the event. Everyone, please let me know what you think. SWik78 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. :) RC-0722 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, when updating stats...

Please, if you are going to update Favres stats after a game, then update every stat. This includes all the stats in the intro, the "Record Books" section, and the "Career Stats" section. When another editor sees someone update the stats, they (at least I) dont want to have to go and check to make sure every stat is updated. If you arent sure about one stats, then either dont update the page (as it is a guarantee that someone will update it) or make note on the talk page which one wasnt updated. This just makes life easier. Thanks everyone!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I not only second that, but I'd move to leave the stats alone until the end of a game. When editors are changing stats during a game, it makes for a lot of confusion. It should be done at the end of the game, and all at once to make certain everything is handled and nothing slips through the cracks. Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? Snowfire51 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the only applicable policies are WP:V and WP:OR because I know for a fact that they dont officially update that stats right after the game finishes, so it is probably someone doing their own math and cannot be verifiable by and outside source.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Favre's status as top vote-getter in Pro Bowl balloting by the fans wiki-worthy?

Here's the story:

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d80513551&template=without-video&confirm=true

Favre led all fans who voted for pro bowl balloting among fans. I'm not sure if this is wikipedia-worthy material or not. Comments? Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would wait until the teams are announced and say something like Favre was voted as the starting QB (he probably will be) for the NFC team, where he received the more votes from the fans than any other player. I think the fact that he garnered the most votes would be better suited in the same section where we say that Favre made the Pro-bowl.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Official Website

It is listed as www.brettfavre.com on the page but that is a fan site. The official one is www.officialbrettfavre.com

Thedarkknightsn (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the sites and changed the link to www.officialbrettfavre.com since that is his official site. Larkworb (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Famously pronounced Farv

Previously, I added 'famously pronounced farv' (which wasn't in the article at all at the time) and the word 'famously' was removed. I think it belongs and added it back in. What does everyone think? The pronunciation of Brett Favre's name seems to be the most known thing about him, from my experience. They even joked about it in 'There's Something About Mary' and (I think) The Simpsons. --Jperlin (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this assertion as subjective. The pronunciation of Favre's name is an absolute, in any event; "famously" is a peacock term that should be avoided in Wikipedia as per its manual of style. Skybunny (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we're discussing any longer. Favre pronounces his name the way he does, and I support Skybunny's removal of the word "famously" from his page. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My fault. I got confused and went on a rant for no real good reason over somethng that never happened all because I can't read. Sorry. LOLi4 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad link

As of this writing, this is source number 4: "^ a b c Brett Favre - Career Statistics. NFL.com. Retrieved on 2007-02-14." The link is outdated, and therefore this source should be removed. Also, it's stated in the article (and sourced through this link) that Favre threw four passes in 1991. For some reason, some sources do say that, but the truth is he threw five passes in 1991. 68.254.161.57 (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...the link in question is proably the most reliable source on this page, that of NFL.com. It is almost constantly updated so I have no clue what you mean except for maybe thinking that "2007-02-14" is the last time that this link was updated. It probably just means that that was the first date that someone used that source to update his page. Whether or not that date should change every time we update the page is debatable, but the link is nowhere close to being outdated. To address the "4 or 5 passes," NFL.com says he threw 4, thus we will say he threw 4. Hope this addresses your concerns.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
NFL.com is a pretty reliable source, so if you say it's the truth that he threw five passes, you'll need to find that somewhere as a proper reference. I can't find that he threw five passes in 1991. Snowfire51 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where's the "Personal Life" section? / Brett Favre's Steakhouse / Brett's nickname was "Country"

As good as this wiki article is, there is no personal life section included in it. If you look at several of the quarterbacks listed on wikipedia, there is almost always a personal life section. I noticed this glaring error when I happened across the web site of Brett Favre's Steakhouse. I've actually been to one when they had a location in Milwaukee. Is there a reason why there isn't a personal section? Is it because the article is so huge already? Is it perhaps because his personal life is so intertwined with his professional life? Comments?

There is one in Green Bay Wisconsin as indicated by the web site: http://www.brettfavressteakhouse.com/

Actually, that web site has a great bio of Favre, who's nickname was "Country". Perhaps some of this information can be used to enhance the overall article about Favre. The Brett Favre Steakhouse is owned by the Favre family. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

His personal info is intertwined throughout the article, because as you said, his personal life is intertwined with his professional career as a football player. Length should never be a reason for any lack of inclusion of relevant info. If there is more info you want to add about his personal life, feel free to add it. I would just add the information in the relevant section about his life. One main reason that it may seem like this article features more or his career than his personal life is because he is known mostly for his pro career, not his personal life. For Favre it would make sense that we focus on that which he is known for, while also giving a complete, yet broader overview of his life and other less known facts. I would doubt that http://www.brettfavressteakhouse.com/ would be a terribly great source for this article, due to the fact that the restaurant, and thus the website, are owned by Favre, thus sort of being a personal website. If Brett Favre's Steakhouse ever gets blue-linked, that website would of course be a great source for that article. If The Steakhouse even deserves inclusion, it would only be like one sentence mentioning that he has a steakhouse. See Jerome Bettis under the "After Retirement" section where it just mentions he opened up a restaurant. I hope this helps.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

About his name (pronounciation)

I really don't think "Miss-Pronounciation" is a credible source for the pronounciation of his name. The correct pronounciation of his French/Cajun name is with the V before the R, as it is spelled. A relative of Brett (a newspaper editor) has argued this case online ( http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=71&aid=124160 )

"Yes, there is another pronunciation. The right one. Favre, the "v" before the "r." This version rhymes with suave.

How do I know? I have been saying my name from the time I could first talk until now, and I have passed my 72nd birthday.

But Golic ignored the Kenny error and got it right. After all, it is only five letters and he did graduate from Notre Dame.

And I really can't blame Kenny. People were struggling with Favre long before Brett turned it into a household name, including many in the family. As a kid you learned to answer to almost any way it was pronounced. I will always remember our son, Jeff, calling with glee the day Brett was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons. "Dad," he exclaimed, "at long last, everyone will know how to pronounce our name." Little did we know." 154.20.52.37 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Comment added March 7th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.52.37 (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to break apart the "Recent Years" section?

The section called "Recent Years" covers the period following the 2003 Oakland Raiders game through the present. In my opinion, the 2007 season represents a new chapter in the Brett Favre story, and as a result it should be a new section in the Brett Favre article. I think the "Recent Years" section should be broken into two sections: "Tragedies & Talk of Retirement" and "Return To Old Form" or something to that effect. Perhaps the titles of those two sections could be improved from what I have initially put forth. One thing that is clear though is that the times of tragedies and the back and forth retirement talk "era" has concluded. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree they should be broken up, and while I don't have any better suggestions at the moment I do feel the proposed titles might not be totally neutral.►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd say "Tragedies & Talk of Retirement" (or maybe Personal Tragedy & Talk of Retirement) is fairly neutral and suiting, but a name for the section starting with the '07 season might be a little more carefully worded? Maybe "Resurgence"? It seems apt, considering Favre's 4000+ passing yards, the best season completion rate of his career, and his best QB rating since 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.249.203 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody should get on that. I would, but bad things happen when I try to edit wikipedia. -FreebirdTuesdaysGone (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. QBs have up and down years, Favre had a couple bad ones and now he's having a couple nice ones. There is really no point in dissecting a QB's playing career until it is OVER completely. In 2009, the Wiki would look pretty silly calling 2007 a "resurgence" if Favre were to fall apart again in 2008. If someone wants to summarize each year, that's sounds fine, but labeling particular parts seems rather foolish at this point. i4 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that personally, "Resurgence" or "Return to Old Form" would both be very apt descriptions. Something that I feel is an interesting tidbit, is on the play he broke the TD record, it was designed as a run play. There was no audible and he nodded his head to Greg Jennings signaling the pass was going to him. Grant ran the play like normal, as he was out of the loop and you could clearly tell from watching the replays that it(the touchdown) was a Favre to Jennings production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.12.29 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Headings such as "resurgence" or "return to old form" are inherently POV and should be avoided. We should simply provide dates and relevant facts (ie, a particular game or achievement). --ZimZalaBim talk 13:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

6 attempts behind marino

"He is currently six passing attempts behind Dan Marino for second in playoff passing yards as well." This sentence doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.175.58 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I can't remember my password or I'd fix that (page protection, etc...), along a 2007 heading to the playoffs section and tossing the stats from the Seahawks game in there. EDIT: Errr, nevermind, looks like someone did it while I was reading the talk page.

Featured as himself in movie There's Something About Mary (1998)

Shouldn't this be on the page somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.67.172 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a big deal? Not about football or his personal life, really, and that's the focus here. -FreebirdTuesdaysGone (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh yes, it's relevant. I'm adding it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive Starts or Total Starts?

Favre also continues to close in on the NFL career record for starts by a player at any position. After completion of the 2007 NFL regular season, Favre stands at 253, behind only Jim Marshall, who started 270 straight games.[1]

Is Favre closing in on the record for number of starts or record number of *consecutive* starts? What about all of These guys? I know they didn't all start all of these games but, for example, Darrell Green had 258 total starts for the Redskins.

According to the cited reference, it's total *consecutive* starts.Originalname37 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the change. Originalname37 (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait!! I take it back. The real record is, unbelievably, ... unknown. Originalname37 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I pretty sure it's consecutive starts. Burner0718 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The record is for CONSECUTIVE REGULAR SEASON STARTS, Jim Marshall currently holds that at 270, though he played some 300+ games in total in his career & started in 283??? of them.

The kicker, Jeff Feagles, has 320 consecutive games PLAYED, as a kicker, but who cares if a kicker starts or not? I mean there are some games where the PUNTER, which is the type of kicker Feagles is, never sets a foot on the field. i4 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) There has only been ONE game in all of NFL history where the ball was NEVER punted. Only one Sir. You stand corrected.71.191.151.141 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the change here and in the below-mentioned Favre Achievements section.Originalname37 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A phrasing suggestion. "Favre holds the record for consecutive starts by a quarterback with 253. His streak ranks behind only Jim Marshall, who started 270 straight games." The second sentence would be less ambiguous if it read, "Among players at all positions, his streak ranks behind only Jim Marshall, who started 270 straight games." (Add any disqualfiers about kickers not included or whatever, of course.) Morvandium (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

List of career achievements by Brett Favre

I just wanted to let everyone know that List of career achievements by Brett Favre is now created. It's basically just his stats copied over there, and it needs a lot of work, but I just wanted to let everyone know that it is now created and needs some work!! Thanks.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Brett also be listed under "Cajuns" and "Cajun-Americans"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.114.58.46 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Right or wrong, he is listed under List of Cajuns. Kermit814 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

Before we go and make any drastic changes to the page, I suggest we wait for Favre, the Packers or at least the NFL to announce his retirement. So far all we have is the FOX News report. I've made a note of it in the "2007 season" section, but let's hold off on making the changes to the intro, infobox, etc. faithless (speak) 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well NFL.com is reporting it now, but it seems that they're just reporting what Glazer reported. faithless (speak) 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Article should be reverted to show him as a current player until we have more than just rumors. Currently, no one who would legitimately have a right to announce this has. Therefore, it is original research and/or speculation. Morte42 (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the reference? Check out the Green Bay website. BlueAg09 (Talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
ESPN and many others announcing it, I think we can consider it official. Wizardman 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the guy's own agent is even announcing it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, a guy is not officially retired until he files retirement papers with the league. Favre probably won't do this any time soon. Jake Plummer, for example, technically has yet to retire. He's still a Buccaneer. So really, Favre should not have a retire infobox. But most people don't understand this, so I'm not going to bother.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Thank you. Morte42 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, he could a vinny and come out of it every year. Then what do we do? RC-0722 communicator/kills 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the only difference is Favre is property of the Packers and will continue to be until he plays out his contract. Vinny's been a free agent each time.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Three Time MVP

Why do people keep saying Brett Favre is the only 3 time MVP? Jim Brown won it 3 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.13.14 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports, due (IMO) to the fact that there have been several different awards given over the years. The one usually discussed is the AP award, which Brown won in '56, '57 and '65. The Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes Brown as a three-time AP NFL MVP. Usually, however, Favre is called the only three-time MVP. Indeed, even this article from the AP calls Favre the only three-time winner. My theory (and this is totally off-the-cuff, mind you) is that the year that Brown won one of his AP in a year in which the NFL considered one of the other awards as "official." Whether this is actually the case, I don't know. But again, while Brown won three awards, both the NFL and the AP recognize Favre as the only three-time winner. faithless (speak) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it from reading this article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Most_Valuable_Player_Award#As_awarded_by_the_Associated_Press

Jim Brown was also a 3 time MVP ('57,'58,'65) The confusion is regarding Gino Marchetti who won AP NFL Lineman of the year in '58 (an award no longer given by AP)(Scroll down to page footnotes for more info), and some sports outlets confused his award with the overall MVP award won by Jim Brown. --Clabozzett (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Affiliation

Nobody cares about affiliation. Next you'll have a tick box for 'circumcised'. This is a big site for everyone on the planet. Most people think you are being ridiculous - and oppressive. Time to stop and grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.136.204 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this make sense to anyone? faithless (speak) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Idk but I am thinking about creating Category:People who are circumcised, anyone wanna help me find sources and populate the category?</sarcasm> :P « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well quite frankly it's about time! faithless (speak) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
=D Hahahah « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Former" quarterback?

He's not technically retired as he has yet to fill out the paperwork. I believe the opening paragraph should say he is still a current quarterback until the time he files the papers. While he's likely 90% retired, he's still not officially retired. crassic![talk] 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's really more of a technicality; few players file their papers immediately upon retiring. After all, since nearly every one of them retire as multi-millionaires, why would they bother with annoying paper work? :-P Barry Sanders, for instance, waited several years after his retirement. Favre says he's retired, and he's pretty much the ultimate authority. faithless (speak) 03:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
But for now, Favre still counts against the Packers' cap. He is very much not retired. The only difference between his current state and say, Peyton Manning's, is that Favre has said he doesn't intend to play in 2008. But both are equally not retired.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link to Current News, Videos, Photos, Blogs for Brett Favre

In addition to the links for Brett Favre to NFL.com and ESPN we should add a link to PlayerSearch.com. PlayerSearch includes recent news, videos, blog commentary, photos, stats, etc. from around the web (major media, local newspapers, top sports bloggers, AOL Video, YouTube, Flickr, etc.) focused on professional athletes. The video links are great as they link users to properly copyrighted material of game clips from the NFL Network, press conferences from local TV stations, SportsCenter highlights on ESPN and user tribute videos for Favre from YouTube (some great tributes!). It is an excellent supplement to the content on Wikipedia as it includes current news and stats that are updated frequently but may not be groundbreaking enough to keep permanently in this Wiki.

Here is the link to Brett Favre on PlayerSearch.com: http://www.playersearch.com/Search.aspx?q=Brett%20Favre


Full Disclosure: I am the founder of playersearch.com... I am also from Wisconsin and a huge Brett Favre and Packers fan!

Please take a look at the link above and consider adding it to the external links at the bottom of Favre's page.

Lets hope he comes back for one more year!! At least!!

Thank you,

TedKasten (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Link used in Note #54 is dead...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8006630?MSNHPHMA

This link is used in note #54 but the article is no longer live. I am surprised that MSNBC has already taken the article down as it was posted to this site on April 10th...but the article may have been in reference to the April 1st Fools joke about Favre coming back to the Packers or another team? TedKasten (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that link no longer works, but I've replaced it with another. The story broke more than a week after April Fools' Day, so it certainly wasn't a joke. Cheers, faithless (speak) 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not retired

I've re-added the current player infobox because Favre is no more retired than any other player on the Packers. It's true. Favre is no more retired than Aaron Rodgers, Ryan Grant, Aaron Kampman or any of them. He is still on the Packers' active roster (and counting MILLIONS toward the cap). The only difference between him and Rodgers is Favre has said he's not going to play in 2008. But this is not technically retirement, and until he files paperwork with the league he is not a retired football player - he's an active one who has said he's not going to play this year.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Favre is retired. The fact that he hasn't filed retirement papers is a inconsequential. The only reason to file retirement papers is so that he can draw his pension; needless to say, Favre has done quite well for himself financially, and is in no great rush as far as his pension goes. He is not on the Packers' roster and the NFL lists him as a 'historical' rather than a 'current' player. faithless (speak) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well he's also not on the reserve/retired list. He IS on the active roster in real life, and he IS counting millions of dollars toward their cap. Until he is off the roster and not counting toward the cap, he is NOT retired whether he intends to play or not.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The most important thing here, regardless of who is right, is to not let ourselves get hung up on technicalities. When someone comes to this article and sees that Wikipedia still lists him as a current player, it only reflects poorly on our reputation and makes us look either out-of-date, incompetent or both. He's announced his retirement, the Packers and NFL refer to him as being retired, every media outlet in the country ran a story about his retirement, Green Bay is retiring his jersey during the first game of the season - he's retired. When Green Bay needs his cap space they'll move him to the reserved/retired list. Deion Sanders was in the CBS booth for a few years and still counting against Washington's cap, but I can't imagine you would say he wasn't retired. Even if he is technically on the active roster, insisting on describing him as active when everyone know he's retired is counterintuitive and only does damage to the encyclopedia, which makes this a prime example of when to invoke WP:IAR. faithless (speak) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but how the official website and NFl.com do it (both run by non-football people) is quite irrelevant. It is a complete and undeniable fact that Favre is not retired in ANY way except for the fact that he said he was. As I've said repeatedly, he is no more retired than Aaron Rodgers. So we should be inaccurate on purpose for the ignorant people out there? I'm not saying we should just make it look like he's a current player and leave it at that. We should tell the WHOLE story. That he has announced his retirement, but that he is still on the active roster.
And there is a difference between a player causing a cap penalty and a player counting toward the cap because he's on the ACTIVE roster. Once Favre is moved to the Reserve/Retired list, he won't be counting ANY toward the cap. So the situations have no similarities.
It's just a simple fact - he's not retired. You know what happens if Favre decides he wants to play tomorrow? Nothing. Nothing changed when he announced his retirement and nothing would change if he wanted to come back. He is an active roster player today and he would be tomorrow if he felt like playing. He is not retired, but rather an active NFL player, and that's all there is to it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Call him Semi-retired? idk, sounds like a good idea to me >.> 72.74.232.198 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Bay has put him on the reserved/retired list, so no need for that; but thanks for the suggestion! faithless (speak) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This all sounds like Original Research to me. Our interpretations of his status vis a vis the various roster regulations are quite irrelvant. Calling him an active player is unacceptable unless we can find a reliable source to back it up, i.e. a newspaper article that says he's not really retired. Wikipedia is not a forum for advancing novel theories or interpretations. --Beaker342 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's not a really an issue anymore, but you are 100% wrong.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Brett should also be listed under "Cajuns"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.114.58.46 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    • My OPINION here, why not leave the infobox up, but make a prominent display of the fact he announced he is retired but has not "officially" retired or turned in his papers?
      Technically Chris Nelson IS correct and Favre is no more retired, according to the official NFL, than I am - and I never played in the dang league! He is currently an active player, whether the Packers moved him to the Reserve/Retired list to close the salary cap deficit they would have taken or whether they left him on their active roster.


Wikipedia strives to be FACTUAL, above all else. For people to say the Wiki should announce he is retired, when he is not, would be no different than saying the Earth is flat. There are people who insist it is, in spite of overwhelming evidence it is not. Too bad if you hold the opinion he IS retired and feel the Wiki should properly say so, it's UNTRUE - & until he does turn in his papers, he can walk onto the frozen tundra at any time and continue exactly where he left off...or, he can get traded to another team and play for them, (though I doubt that particular scenario is any more likely than me getting the call to play QB if Rodgers goes down). LMAO


As far as avoiding the "original research" aspect of this opinion, here is a news source describing the results of Ricky Williams filing official retirement papers.

Running back Ricky Williams, who informed the Miami Dolphins last month that he was retiring, has filed the necessary paperwork with the NFL Management Council. The filing will mean that he cannot play this season if he chooses to return to football.

David Cornwell, general counsel to sports agent Leigh Steinberg, filed Williams' retirement papers late last week with the NFL Management Council. It was necessary for Williams to file such papers because he was in the NFL substance-abuse program. He filed as a way to tell the league officially that he no longer would be subject to random drug testing.

Under league rules, if a player in its substance-abuse program files retirement papers, he cannot unretire for a year without penalty. If he unretires in less than a year, it's counted as a positive drug test in the NFL program -- which, in Williams' case, would be his fourth positive test and would result in an indefinite suspension.

If Williams unretires after a year, he still would be facing a four-game suspension, having now, according to him, recently tested positive for marijuana for a third time under the NFL's testing program. A third positive test brings with it a mandatory four-game suspension.


Now, I understand this particular item is in regard to the drug testing program Williams was a part of, but it seems sound that any filing of official retirement papers would have a similar consequence - the player could not come back and play for at least 1 year. In the case of Warren Moon and Reggie White, that is exactly what happened - both were out of football for one year before "un-retiring" and playing again.
Here is another source detailing the situation of Bryant Young in San Francisco, who - like Favre - could step onto the field at any moment and play again, until he files those papers.

Everyone around San Francisco expected Bryant Young, the 49ers' all-time sack leader, to retire this offseason. But for whatever reason, months after it was assumed he would step away from the game, Young still has not filed his retirement papers with the NFL.

Chances are it is nothing more than a formality, an oversight that Young has not addressed. But athletes have been known to unretire in the past. The 49ers would be fortunate if the leader who spent 14 seasons with them could be swayed back to camp.

It still is considered an outside shot that the 36-year-old Young could be persuaded to play again. But until he files the papers, the door will remain open and speculation will continue.

I found plenty of refences that seem to point to the distinction between "saying" you are retired and actually finalizing the official papers to lock yourself into the one year suspension of eligibility as a consequence of doing so, such as this article on Tennessee's OT, Jason Mathews', hesitancy to file while he considers his options of playing one more year for the Titans.
So long as Wiki makes it clear he is both "personally" retired & still available as an active player, should he change his mind, I see no harm in leaving the infobox up and carrying the clarification disclosure - unless Wiki is suddenly short of spinning electrons or something.[/End comment] IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the assertion that "Wikipedia strives to be FACTUAL, above all else." is patently false. As this policy states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." There is no shortage of reliable sources reporting that Favre had retired, and not one (that I saw) stating anything else. Therefore, as an editor pointed out before, it would be original research to try to insist that he was somehow not retired, when every media outlet in the country was saying otherwise. This whole conversation was ridiculous - he was retired as soon as he announced his retirement. To try to argue otherwise is not only completely counterintuitive, but downright silly. Regardless, this is all moot, as Green Bay placed Favre on the reserved/retired list two months ago. faithless (speak) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it is moot. So why post on this topic now? After all, no one was discussing it anymore, as when I originally started the topic he was still on the active roster. It may have been a lost cause to try and keep Wikipedia accurate in this case, but your contention that Favre was retired when he said so is completely false.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor brought up a topic, I responded to inform him that said topic is dead, that no further discussion is needed, and explained why. Are you suggesting that we should just ignore his post? faithless (speak) 03:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Favre/Archive_4&oldid=1160840187"