Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 5

Pronouncing his name

I realize most people pronounce his name as if it were spelled FARV, but in fact it is a French name and should be pronounced FAVRE, just as nuclear is not pronounced nukular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.7.77 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

I know this is small, but the second sentence says "Favre started at the quarterback position for The University of Southern Mississippi for four years before being selected in the second round of the 1991 NFL Draft by the Atlanta Falcons(33rd Overall)." Could someone put a space between Atlant Falcons and (33rd overall) (note capitalization of overall). Thank you.The Original Editor (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the requested changes to the article Jons63 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!The Original Editor (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST:
The (2) cites for number of QBs that have started for other teams since Brett Favre started for Green Bay against Pittsburgh has been tampered with a number of times since I started visiting this page and made the first verifiable cite for that number. According to the USA Today "[1] Favre Tracker]" website, the number stands at 409, not the 212 that someone most recently substituted after my 3rd or 4th correction of it.
It's been 409 for more than a while and was adjusted last season upwards from the previous 376 or whatever it stood at in 2006, so the page IS active, and being overseen and corrected. Since Favre is no longer a Packer, that figure, 409, should be pretty much set in stone by now and it would please me if someone could LOCK it down so we don't have any more of this 212 nonsense.
The 212 number was from a no longer present entry at Packers.com, the official Green Bay Packer website. It had been there since around 2004 - and should NOT be credited as a reliable "source" any longer. Nobody at the Packer organization had ever bothered to correct that number to reflect the continuing increase in the "starting QBs since" totals after it was first put up on the official Packer "Favre Bio" page, though the most recent revision appears to have finally deleted that entry entirely. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Asks For Release

Searched the obvious sites, nothing, so I won't add it, but it's all over YES Network and ESPN. Just a matter of time. J-Dog (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just updated the article with a source from ESPN. J-Dog (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a new section, seperate from the "Retirement" section. Hope this doesn't tick anyone off... I simply felt that this new info stands alone from his retirement, as it may eventually morph into a section titled "Unretirement." More will be revealed I guess, eh? J-Dog (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Releasing Him

The Packers are not going to release Brett. And He is not going to be the starting quarterback. Here Is The link I found. IM A BEAST http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ak7Mbx2Uc8Rh9eiYJo5SmJpDubYF?slug=ap-packers-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns and also here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8335678/Sources:-Packers-won%27t-release-Favre?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=5

Chose which one you want. The Yahoo seems more reliable and has more information Albokid2468 (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the most recent condensed version in the article works best; let's leave it as it is for now. J-Dog (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't wikinews

This is an encyclopedia article, not a news summary. We don't need to have extensive coverage of every single detail of the current news surrounding Favre. We're ending up with much too much coverage of every news release and ESPN quote about this event. LEt's try to cut it back a bit, shall we? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, kudos to Gonzo for making necessary changes, and better articulating my concern below. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the quotes and summations from Favre's interview with Greta Van Susteren could and should be more condense and concise. A little trimming is in order, no doubt, but this has also been the dominant story in sports for the past month and it should be given due space. I also believe strongly that it should contain short sub-subs on the tampering allegations and the reaction to the standoff (perhaps including among fans), as these have become central elements of the saga. As the issue reaches a resolution, one way or another, it will become easier to separate the wheat from the chaff and bring the subject into better proportion with the rest of the article. Certainly, blanking entire, well-cited sections of information is not the answer.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"but this has also been the dominant story in sports for the past month and it should be given due space" - well, as the dominant news story, it should go on wikinews. this much detail for something that is ongoing is inappropriate in a biographical encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I'm not suggesting no mention of these events, merely proportional mention. Just because it happens to be a "big" story in the media doesn't mean every detail needs to be covered in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jeez, dude you just explained exactly why I remove content. If I wanted to, I could write pages upon pages upon pages about Brett Favre, summaries of every game, of every little saga, but this is not a news source. You stated it is the "dominant story in sports for the past month and it should be given due space" Please read Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS You know what, when Brett Favre won the Super Bowl, what do you think was the dominant story? When he was addicted to vicotin, what was the biggest story, and so on and so forth. But we are an encyclopedia, which means we give an overview of a subject based on the entirety, not just recent events. In the scheme of things, Brett could just retire and end all this. Overall, this little episode is small in comparison to the big picture of Favre's whole amazing career. Try and think about the big picture. You state "become central elements of the saga." This isn't a story book, we don't report sagas, we create articles about subjects. You state "As the issue reaches a resolution, one way or another, it will become easier to separate the wheat from the chaff and bring the subject into better proportion with the rest of the article." No! we cannot sacrifice quality and then find the right way to do something. We need to do it now. You state "blanking entire, well-cited sections of information is not the answer" Yes it is, cutting and trimming down, and then slowly expanding to meet the needs of the article is exactly how things should be done. I could source and cite the most random aspects of Brett Favre, but you would certainly remove them because they have no place in the article. I mean seriously, a "Player reaction" section. Who cares what one or two random players have to say about this "saga?" It has nothing to do with the subject of this article. The content I removed was pointless to explaining the subject of this article. I ask that you revert your revert, and then we start working on the article instead of debating this stupid dispute. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is happening "now" doesn't mean that it can't be included in a Wikipedia entry. It's the content of the information that matters, as well as its verifiability (remember, Wikinews allows OR, Wikipedia does not -- precisely for reasons of reliability), not it's status as a current event. I haven't heard any objections to the verifiability or reliability of the information included. If you have a problem with the notability of certain information, then please, by all means, voice it, so that we discuss it and come to some resolution.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing the addition of the news, just the huge coverage it has gained in this article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel as if we're speaking past each other here. I resent you characterizing this as a "stupid" dispute (both here and on the page requesting protection for this article), just because we happen to disagree about something. I also don't appreciate your tendency to interject your comments above comments of mine that preceded yours in chronology. Doing so gives a misleading account of this discussion. I've said from the beginning that I'm in favor of condensing this section. What I am against is the wholesale blanking of well-cited information without raising specific objections to specific pieces of information other than to nakedly assert, unhelpfully, "this section is too long" or "we don't report sagas." Rather, let's collaborate here constructively and collectively decide which specific information should go (and why). Remember, the Wikipedia policy is to first attempt to fix problematic information; deletion is a last resort. I'm not wedded to the player reaction section; it's anecdotal, so I can see a legitimate basis for dumping it. But tampering charges are serious business, and I certainly believe that discussion is entitled to a sub-sub section, since it's essentially a branch of the larger unretirement story. Beyond that, what specifically do you object to?-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The "stupidity" of the debate has nothing to do with you or I. The stupidity is that we are arguing about the Brett Favre article while we could be improving it. I feel I am stupid for having this debate, nothing against you. The moving comments thing is due to the 7 or 8 edit conflicts I had while trying to post my reply. I tried my best to put them in the right order, but hell I am human and make mistakes. Again, no offense meant towards you. Blanking and deleting is never the last resort. The fact that this information is cited has no basis in this dispute. I could find a source that said that Brett Favre ate cereal on June 1 1996, the problem is that the information about cereal intake has little to no bearing on the article or its subject. The same thing applies here, the information is not relevant to the article. Starting over is the easiest way to fix a problem. I am not stating that the way I made it is anywhere close to right, I just stated that we need to cut some stuff out and then slowly expand and find a good level. Tampering charges are serious, in the business world or political world, but they again have very little basis in regards to Brett Favre. Those charges have to do with two organizations, it just happens that it involves Favre. I object to the content I removed, to state it simply. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have two admins who both have worked a hell of a lot on this article and Packers-related content for a long time both telling you that there is something wrong with these passages. Im not saying we are inherently right or anything, but at least give us the benefit of the doubt that we know what we are talking about. We have already had this debate about this article a while back, that this article contained every single statistic for Favre, and it was already decided that we need to keep this article from growing out of hand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you're raising a relevance objection. I don't have any problem with junking the player reaction section (as I said before, it was pretty arbitrary and anecdotal), but I do have a problem with regard to your deleting the information about the tampering charges. First, tampering is serious business in the NFL, as it can lead to a fine, and, more importantly, the loss of draft picks for the offending team. If true, it would also, in the eyes of some, reflect poorly on Favre's character. Second, I don't see how you can seriously contend that the Packers' tampering charges "have very little basis in regards to Brett Favre" -- Brett Favre is the very subject matter of the alleged tampering. By definition, it takes two to tamper, so if the Vikings did indeed tamper, it means Favre was complicit. The Packers are alleging that Favre plotted his return with the Vikings offensive coordinator, Bevell, who just happens to be a good friend of his; how does that not concern or involve Favre? Third, the information you deleted was not excessive, as the topic was dealt with in five relatively short and concise sentences. Fourth, the information clearly meets the notability standard. I really see no rational basis for your objection and believe wholeheartedly that the excised sentences on the tampering charges should be restored.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also dispute the notion that this is just some "news story" that doesn't deserve much attention in the context of a biographical article. A key subplot of this controversy is the effect it's having on Favre's legacy, particularly in Green Bay -- where he is/was revered.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the key dude, we dont know the impact of this saga. Let's wait until the end, and then expand the coverage if need be. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's like sticking your head in the sand and claiming ignorance. Do you honestly believe that when Favre is getting ready to give his Hall of Fame induction speech some years from now, that this is not going to be a topic of discussion in the larger Brett Favre-narrative? Like it or not, this issue has become a part of his legacy now, just like, as you pointed out, the Super Bowl victory, the 3 MVPs, the Vicodin addiction, and the Raiders game.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All that matters here is whether reliable sources claim this affects his legacy. Until that happens, your (or my) opinion on the matter is irrelevant. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, Im not debating the significance, I am saying, like Zim said, we need to wait until someone reliable tells us the affect it will have on his legacy. We cannot make a big deal about it (by writing paragraph after paragraph) until it has been solidified as a big deal by reliable sources. Tomorrow, Brett could say I want to retire, and this whole "saga" would have little to no bearing on him as a subject of public interest. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a plethora of reliable sources that discuss how this thing is damaging his legacy: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6], just to name a few. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I'm not suggesting no mention of these events, merely proportional mention. Just because it happens to be a "big" story in the media doesn't mean every detail needs to be covered in this encyclopedia. Further, your insinuation that there is an impact on Favre's legacy is your own POV, not itself a reason to include such volumous coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with ZimZalaBim. There shouldn't be paragraph beyond paragraph of one event in his career.-Inzweep (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a news website

Ok guys, I wasn't going to weigh in on this page, I was just hoping things was cool down, but this is getting ridiculous. I would like to point everyone to Wikinews, the site where people can freely update and create news articles. We need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news service where the most current events are covered in extremely precise detail and are updated with every minute fact. Currently, the retirement, return to football, accusations, and player reaction (seriously?) sections are about half as long as his whole career section. This is over the top, especially the player reaction and accusations sections. I have removed a lot of content and encourage everyone to slow down and keep the additions to a minimum. We do not need to add a whole paragraph every time Favre changes his mind, cause that is going to lead to a lot of paragraphs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, freaky edit conflict with ZimZalaBim regarding the same thing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the whole retirement, return to football, etc. sections covered like 2 months, while the whole career section, which was only twice as long, covered like 18 years. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

I concur. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'll point out that Favre's best years are folded into a three paragraph "Super Bowl years" section, while one game in 2003 is given 2 paragraphs and five paragraphs are spent dissecting the 2007 season on an almost weekly basis. There are a lot of problems with perspective in this article, but just because one subject has been given enough treatment doesn't mean other subjects should be trimmed down to compensate.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS focus on the dispute at hand. We all know that this is being to widely covered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anybody invoking the "other stuff exists" argument. Again, what SPECIFIC parts of the information you blanked do you object to? So far, your whole position has been (to paraphrase), "I deleted it because the section is too long." That's fine. Again, as I've stated ad nauseum, I agree with that assessment. But before we start trimming, there needs to be some discussion of what should be trimmed. You seem to want to trim just for trimming's sake.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He did proper condensing, not just blanking (note how mention of the tampering case remains in his condensing). Also, he did note in the section above some specific items that were particularly problematic, such as the (irrelevant) "Players reactions" section. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the sections

• Here is my problems with the sections as they read before I trimmed. First off I want to state that at this time none of these subjects deserves it's own sub-section or sub-sub-section. Please note the section names, and that this content is under the "Professional career" section.

Professional career

Retirement

This section may be a little long, and probably will have to be trimmed a little, but I did not do that at this time, because that will take some work.

Possible return to football

This whole section was full of padding, such as direct quotes that just fluffed up the content, and other details that although cited, served very little to help explain the subject of the article. All they did was created a dramatic storyline/saga/news story. We don't want this. This is the section I feel needs to be rewritten and worked on.

Accusations of tampering by the Minnesota Vikings

This of course deserves a mention in the article, but it does not deserve its own sub-section in the "Professional career" section for Brett Favre. This has nothing to do with Favre's career, at all. It deserves a mention because the debate is about Favre. Thus I removed the heading, and removed "According to ESPN's John Clayton, the Packers believe the Vikings' alleged contact with Favre was part of a plan "to cause chaos within the Packers family during the summer." Both the Vikings and the NFL have declined to publicly address the allegations." and combined two of the sentences. Again, this one I will object to the addition of a section for this event unless or until this becomes a major part in the career of Favre (say for instance he ended up going to the Viking, god forbid).

Player reaction

This section is utterly pointless. A whole section devoted to two players reactions to the above section! This has no bearing on the subject of the article. Thus I removed it in its entirety and will object to its addition in the future.

• Those are my problems, along with the fact that the sections were just too plain long. This story can be told in a lot shorter writing, and being concise is much better than being wordy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My reaction:

(1) Possible return to football - I agree that this section is a little long at the moment. Some of the stuff from the Greta Van Susteren interview was superfluous; there are opportunities to make that information more condense and concise. I disagree, however, about the quotes being "padding": they are not excessive and they are very much informative, as they are the first (and only) comments from Favre's mouth on the matter and give an unaltered account of his intentions and feelings. I find your attempts to remove them thinly-disguised censorship of anything that could even remotely be viewed as reflecting negatively on the Packers.

(2) Accusations of tampering by the Minnesota Vikings - As I stated in the discussion above, I find it ridiculous and untenable that you could seriously argue, "this has nothing to do with Favre's career." Tampering requires two; if the Packers are charging the Vikings with tampering, it means they're charging Favre was complicit. Being that (1) Favre was the subject matter of the alleged tampering, (2) the person who allegedly tampered with Favre was one of his close friends, (3) if true, Favre would have been complicit, and (4) if true, it could, in the eyes of some, reflect poorly on his character, I find your objections utterly frivolous and suppressive.

(3) Player reaction - In hindsight, I agree this section was selective, anecdotal, and added little to the article. I have no objections to its deletion.

-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually

You know what, this is why I took this page off my watchlist some months ago. It's off my watchlist again. I am tired of trying to keep this article clean. Do what you want with the article, it's not worth it to me anymore. Feel free to revert to any version you want. Good luck with the article and have a good night. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was hoping we could resolve our differences and find some common ground. I must say, however, that I feel you have exhibited an attitude of entitlement with respect to this article that is neither helpful nor constructive. You seem to think that just because you are a Packers fan, you can assert "ownership" of this article, suppress anything that could be viewed as reflecting negatively on the Packers, and bully all other editors into getting your way. When others object, you throw your hands up and storm off in a huff. I tried to approach our impasse with a spirit of compromise and collaboration; I wish you would have done the same. When you voiced valid objections to the "Player reaction" section, I recognized that you were correct and acquiesced to its deletion. Your first move was to engage in ad hominem attacks and call our dispute "stupid" and "idiotic," then remain intransigent throughout. Perhaps you were just acting defensively in light of how often this article probably gets vandalized by trolls. Ultimately, I believe we both had the same goal -- to create the best and most informative Brett Favre article possible. I wish you well.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Coverage of Current News re: Possible Return to Football

This section is for comments on how the article should cover the current news regarding Favre's possible return to football. Discussion has taken place above by a limited number of editors at Talk:Brett Favre#This isn't wikinews, Talk:Brett Favre#This is not a news website and Talk:Brett Favre#My problems with the sections. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this was the state of the article before I trimmed it down, this was the state of the article after I trimmed it down. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AP source for actual timeline of events that took place

Have come across original AP source for events concerning Brett Favre that has taken place in short, concise, and detailed. It's in most newsrooms and in newspapers. It's worth taking a good look at. A lot of stuff is being text messaged and very little spoken. How such good detailed event reporting ocurred, this is the best I've ever seen. Check it out. Part of the URL is Packers-detail-timeline-of-Favre. I put the whole link in below. If MSN and Fox can use AP as a source and it's in the public domain, I'm sure it can be put in a/the Retirement section with a SHOW parameter.

[7] 's-decisions (Apparently originally sourced from AP writer Chris Jenkins 07-14-08) JBretSimmons (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We usually don't hide text in an article with {{hidden}}, as it defeats the purpose of an article. I really think it is fine for now, and maybe later when the full story comes out and Favre has made a decision we can clear some things up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Favre's GPB "LIFETIME CONTRACT" of 3/1/2001

Gonzo, the article is missing a very important event that is not mentioned (or I may have overlooked it). On 3/1/2001, Favre signed a "LIFETIME CONTRACT" with the Green Bay Packers.

The GBP are unique in that it's a small town that has an NFL team that is owned by entirely by shareholders. No other NFL team has this setup. This is very significant and should be in the article. IMHO, had the 9/11/2001 event occured earlier than 3/1/2001, I doubt if he would have had this extremely rare opportunity to have a lifetime contract, and be the legend QB that he is today. it warrants insertion if not there. Thanks. JBretSimmons (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...what?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a clarification and a reference. The contract Favre signed was technically a 10-year contract extension which was in the article, it was just touted as lifetime because it was supposed to be so long that Favre would retire first. Anyone interested should read this (search for "retire" in the text, an interesting quote by Favre). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference to Favre's unique contract structure within the "Possible Return" section since it is relevent to the controversy that surrounds it. I added a recent reference from NFL.com regarding how it impacts the possible return to football situation. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the term "Lifetime Contract" around here, (Wisconsin), means a contract long enough that it should outlast the physical abilities of the player to continue in the NFL. What Green Bay did not know was that Brett Favre is not a typical NFL athlete, and the fact he is in his 17th season as a "starting QB" is nearly a record in and of itself, if you toss out that Raider freak, George Blanda. His contract has (2) more years on it and I believe (1) more extensible year - with a total payout of something like $25M/$39M, $12M in '08, $13M in '09, and $14M in '10 - if extended. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Chops to offer Favre Ice Hockey Contract

I respectfully request the inclusion of this information on this article:

On July 24, 2008, the American Hockey League's Iowa Chops President Steve Nitzel announced on the Chops website that the organization had offered Favre a contract to play for the team. The position and dollar amount was undisclosed, however, Nitzel said in the announcement that “We can offer him plenty of bone-crushing hits, read-and-react plays, and thousands of fans cheering for him, so what’s not to like about that? All we have to do is sharpen his skating skills and after that, his athletic instincts will take over and he’ll be one heck of a hockey player.” 75.152.139.164 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This joke is not worthy of inclusion. It's not relevant to his life.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is part of his history, like it or not. Maybe to you it's not relevant, but it should be in the article.75.152.139.164 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris is not saying it is not relevant to himself, he is saying it is not relevant to the article on Brett Favre. We cannot just add every single little fact about Favre on this page. This page is a summary and overview of his life, not a list of everything that has ever happened in his life. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke. How is this any different than me saying I'm offering Brett Favre a job mowing my lawn?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really a job that requires elite athleticism is it? Not worth a few hundred K a year is it?75.152.139.164 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's your only argument why my example differs from this story, you just proved why it's not notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This publicity stunt has no place in the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I just thought wikipedia was built on pure, unbiased facts, rather than elitest wikipedian opinions. My bad.75.152.139.164 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You're not going to get your way by trying to insult people. Grandmasterka 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When did I insult anyone? I'll leave this as is, because I don't care enough to pursue it if there is that much kickback and people don't want it, but please don't put words in my mouth. Elitest is not an insult. I do, however, take the remark about offering Favre a job lawnmowing as an insult. Just because I don't have some fancy colorful name and only an IP does not mean you should have a double standard. I don't want a message-board-esque flame war here, so I'm going to leave it at that.

e·lit·ism [i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-] noun

1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.75.152.139.164 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Grandmasterka 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could offer a chuckle.75.152.139.164 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say to at least be ready to include information if the story does actually go somewhere. Brokenyard (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ooohhh the tyranny of wikipedia. This is supposed to be a group effort and a 'complete' section of favre. Thus, the hockey stuff belongs here. If you ever want academics and other worthy individuals to take this 'resource' seriously you need to stop arguing and include everything. Don't pick and choose what facts are good enough - by doing this you distort the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.70.209 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

Can one obtain a better photograph? That could be anybody frankly. It's largely a photograph of a helmet.204.126.250.84 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do. WP rules dictate that it be a photo that is licensed properly for free use in WP, which essentially narrows it down to photos that normal people take and they release for public use. No commercial photos, no photos taken by pro photographers, etc. Adam Weeden 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have obtained a Nov. '06 picture of him that has the appropriate license and cropped his face out. Here is the result:

What do you guys think? Is it better than the current infobox picture to replace it? BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reinstatement

Favre has filed for reinstatement.[8] RC-0722 ^361.0/1 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reinstated Brett Favre on July 3, 2008.[9]Reservecops (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Balance

Just wondering how...

Section	Years	Number of Paragraphs
College	4 years	5 paragraphs
Atlanta Falcons	1 year	3 paragraphs
Beginnings in Green Bay	4 years	6 paragraphs
Super Bowl years	2 years	3 paragraphs
Post-Super Bowl seasons	5 years	6 paragraphs
2004-2006	3 years	5 paragraphs
2007	1 year	5 paragraphs

...how ONE YEAR gets five long paragraphs PLUS paragraphs on retirement, while his two years when they went to the Super Bowl gets 3 paragraphs? I remember when I renamed all the sections the first time, and I did it to prevent too much information on too little of time. But since, the section titles have been changed back to reflect the year he played his career in. A year as a section title does not give any information on what the section is going to be about. Hell, naming the sections "A", "B", "C", and "D" would probably be just as helpful.

So does anyone else think the 2007 section should be slimmed, renamed, or merged?-Inzweep (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem unbalanced. However, I do think the separate section for 2007 is warranted due to the significance of the resurgent season plus record-breaking season he experienced after his mid-career seasons. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"2004-2006" and "2007 season" sections

These two sections need to be renamed in my opinion. They aren't consistent with the other section titles. For example, the "early years" section isn't called "1992-1995" the "super bowls" section isn't called "1996-1997" and the "post super bowls" section isn't called "1998-2003". I'm not sure what they should be called, but they should be consistently referenced. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I was getting at in the above section. Naming by years doesn't tell the reader anything. If someone wanted to read about his trade to Green Bay, they'd skip to "Beginnings in Green Bay". If it was named 1992-1995, do you really think they would know what they were going to read about? Same thing with "2007". What should the title be? "Record breaking year", "Final year in Green Bay"? -Inzweep (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation of Favre

It is my understanding the correct pronunciation of Favre is NOT Favre as in carve BUT IS Favre as in suave. I read an article that explained Brett merely got tired of correcting people when they pronounced it incorrectly so the mispronunciation is now what people think is correct. Sml0s0 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)sml0s0Sml0s0 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If that was true, don't you think people would be calling him Fav-Ray? No source. -Inzweep (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, people! The "suave" is more correct. Even more correct is with a slight "r" at the end, like hors d'oeuvre.Bobopaedia (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? Didn't think so.-Inzweep (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal comment here, but Deanna Favre did an interview on 60 Minutes (or 20/20 or some newsmagazine show) a few years agao, and when asked about correct pronunciation she said "Favre rhymes with starve". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Favre retirement

I feel that a entire book could be written on the matter. Would anyone object to creating the article Brett Favre's retirement controversy? I think this is a major event with lots of information, with news being updated every day. Would include his initial retirement and news reports about him getting back to football. Journal Sentinel and ESPN have plenty of information on the matter. Or would that be a bad idea? -Inzweep (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After doing some investigation on the issue, I found literally thousands of sources on the same thing. It takes ten pages in Google News to go back only a day. Notability or lack of sources definitely aren't an issue. I created the page on my user-space here. I'll put it up when I'm done, or if someone wants to help with a section, that would be lovely. -Inzweep (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I only have two more sections left for a good start. Everything is completely sourced and it is fairly detailed. Once posted to article space, I will look at other sources and add some more information where needed. Again, see User:Inzweep/Brett_Favre's retirement controversy-Inzweep (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very much against this idea of creating a separate article on Favre's retirement and possible comeback. For one, it's simply not a notable enough issue to warrant its own article in a putative encyclopedia. What's next? Are we going to start creating separate articles about QB controversies and holdouts??? You don't see entire articles devoted to subsidiary issues like Ben Roethlisberger's motorcycle accident, Michael Jordan's gambling habit, or Alex Rodriguez's divorce. Those kind of issues are neither important nor noteworthy enough to stand alone. The proper places to address them are in the particular player's own article, and, if the issue impacts the team (like the Favre comeback may), the article devoted to the team's season (e.g., 2007 Green Bay Packers season). Documenting the excruciating minutiae of Favre's attempted comeback is a project better suited to Wikinews, not here at Wikipedia (see: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). I also object on the grounds that a separate article will be both an invitation to present speculation and rumor as fact and a magnet for trolls.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is notable enough. There are literally thousands of sources on the event. Not notable? There's a new article on the event literally every day. I'd like to see the article get deleted once I put it up. Every statement comes from reliable sources.-Inzweep (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And other articles have been made about sports controversies. The examples you listed were one-time event things, which don't have nearly enough sources. See Holyfield-Tyson II, Tuck Rule Game, The Heidi Game , 2002 Olympic Winter Games figure skating scandal, ect. Put it up for deletion. I think you should read the notability guidelines before you start saying un-notable.-Inzweep (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, first, existence of "thousands of sources" doesn't mean that it merits inclusion in an enyclopedia. This isn't a news summary site. Second, what exactly is the "controversy" that is to be detailed? Seems to simply be an employment dispute between an organization and a (former) employee. There is no scandal, nothing illegal, no controversy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Well maybe you should edit the notability guidelines? Also, the title can always be changed. Its been referenced as a controversy, but "Brett Favre's 2008 retirement" would suffice.-Inzweep (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As of August 3rd, 2008, the Packers have decided to have a competition between Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers for the starting QB position. Now, I have no idea what the outcome will be for the loser, but the winner will be the starting QB. This competition will take place on August 4, 2008.Coderz (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not put the article up until the issue resolves for the most part. Too hard to keep it properly updated.-Inzweep (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As of August 5th, 2008 there is a rumour that he might have signed with Tampa Bay... http://savebrett.net/home/brett-favre-traded-to-tampa-bay.html!! Anyone confirms or backs this? :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levifig (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Retirement just a blip - it shouldn't have it's own section - combine it perhaps with Return section?

Favre was retired for a grand total of five months. It seems to me that the "Retirement" section and "Return" section are two events that are so intermingled that they should be combined. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I doubt you'll find a bigger fan of Brett Favre than my own family, but 2007, and the retirement-unretirement controversy IS just another moment in time for this unusual man. Look back in 3 years, (especially if he does very well in New Jersey), and you'll hardly see why it was so relevent, other than destroying a couple myths about the Green Bay Packer organization's alleged "special" way of treating it's players - which is now as dead as a 4 day old stranded mackerel. Big picture folks, we don't need the intimate details of every moment the guy walked the Earth, just the gross coverage of momentous event for HIM, and perhaps the teams he played with. IF, he does extremly well in New Jersey, there will certainly be a more clear assessment of who, EXACTLY, was responsible for Green Bay's good fortunes while he was here and at that time perhaps it could be deliniated somewhere in the record, but not until the smoke clears and we see how well Green Bay does without Favre. (I point others toward assessing Holmgren's record of 82-62, (57%), in Seattle compared to the period while he had Favre - 63%)My own research tends to indicate Favre added about 2-3 extra wins per year to the Packers totals, and made them a more consistant winner, rather than the typical UP<->DOWN sort of performance Holmgren & the other coaches have had since leaving. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2007: A Career milestone season proposed revision

What do you all think:

Favre broke several quarterback records during the course of the 2007 regular season. These included wins by a starting quarterback, touchdown passes, pass attempts, interceptions thrown, and number of three-touchdown games. Of particular note was that in breaking the touchdown pass record, he received high praise from around the NFL, with congratulations coming from people such as NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, former Packers head coach Mike Holmgren, and colleague quarterbacks Steve Young and Joe Montana. Also, with a victory over the Kansas City Chiefs that season, Favre became only the 3rd quarterback to have defeated all thirty-one other current NFL teams joining Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as the only other quarterbacks in NFL history to do this, just the week after the two of them achieved the accomplishment. Favre led the Packers to a 13-3 regular season record, the NFC North championship, and the second seed in the NFC playoffs. The Packers' season extended as far as the NFC Championship Game where they lost to eventual Super Bowl Champion New York Giants. In the game, he amassed 236 passing yards and two touchdowns, but also threw an interception in overtime that setup the Giants' game-winning field goal. Favre's 90-yard touchdown pass to Donald Driver in the second quarter was the longest pass in Packers playoff history, and it extended Favre's NFL record for consecutive postseason games with a touchdown pass to 18. Favre's milestone 2007 season culminated with his selection to the 2008 Pro Bowl as the starting quarterback for the NFC although he withdrew from participation due to an ankle injury.

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (Let me know what you all think of the paring down of that section)

Brett Favre Retires During the offseason 2005-2008 Then eventually returned the following July every year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.151 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he only retired once. The other times he only contemplated it.-Inzweep (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Brett's a Jet

Brett Favre has been traded to the New York Jets.[10] RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:PassionoftheDemon needs to stop undoing these edits. This passes WP:VERIFY as it is being reported as fact by reputable sources. That is all that is needed for this encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

but is it official? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:VERIFY:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

It can be verified with sources, which is all that's relevant.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between having a trade announced and actually being on the team. He needs to (a) sign a deal, (b) pass a physical (formality), and (c) be added to their roster. Have these happened? No. So, we can state the trade has been announced, but he's not really on that team yet. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's false that he needs to sign a deal. He does not. He's under contract with the Packers, and that transfers to the Jets. His rights are held by the Jets, and that is a fact.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right on that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Favre is part of the Jets organization when the deal is closed "official" and the contract states he is now property of the New York Jets. Depending on the source, this deal might not be 100% complete yet. Looks like a done deal according to Jets CEO:[11] "Jets chairman and CEO Woody Johnson issued a statement early Thursday.

"I am looking forward to seeing Brett Favre in a New York Jets uniform," Johnson said. "He represents a significant addition to this franchise, and reflects our commitment to putting the best possible product on the field. Mike Tannenbaum and his football administration staff did a great job of navigating this complex process. I am excited about welcoming Brett, Deanna and their family to the Jets organization."

RyguyMN (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think that it would be suitable that we include that due to the trade, the Jets are releasing Chad Pennington? According to NFL.com, at 4:00 today, Chad will be out of there. Karrmann (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it deserves a mention. There was a quarterback competition going on with the team and Favre's arrival totally blew that out of the water. Plus, it's always interesting looking back and seeing who was on the other end of a transaction. (Who was picked with the draft pick used to acquire a star player, etc.).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Chad Pennington has much to do with Brett Favre. In the scheme of things, I don't think it's too important when focusing solely on Brett Favre.-Inzweep (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jersey number

I'm not an idiot and I know that it is essentially a lock Favre wears No. 4 for the Jets, but this is not verifiable yet and needs to be left out of the infobox until he's added to the active roster and receives a number.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait for the Jets to assign a number. RyguyMN (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On another note, will the Packers still retire the #4 jersey (as it says in the article) now that he's un-retired? OneGyT/T|C 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of trade

I think for clarification purposes, the date of the trade needs to be added to the section about Bret's trade. It simply states that the trade took place on "Wednesday" with no date. This is fine right now but could lead to confusion in the future (i.e. after next Wednesday). Xaples 07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Start?

Has there been any indication when he will play his first game as a Jet?WhoIsJohnGalt? 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New profile picture is a FAKE

First of all the guy that uploaded it says he was at a Jets news conference with his dad...OK...and this new picture looks a whole lot like this one, just with a Packers logo background. Here's the source picture: Favre news conference and here's the current profile picture on this article. I say delete this because obviously this is not real and clearly violates copyrights. conman33 (. . .talk) 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

7,000 #4 Jets Jerseys sold on Thursday on NFL web site - a record

I'm not sure if this is wikipedia material or not, but ESPN reported the Favre #4 jersey sales on Thursday as a new NFL record. Here's the reference and if someone thinks it worthy for inclusion, please add it. Thanks. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3527260&categoryId=2459789&n8pe6c=1

Add - in the score of the first 2008 NFL game

The text about Favre's first Jets game in 2008 currently is:

beating the Miami Dolphins 20 14.

This should be changed to 20-14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainhofer (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

75.9.86.15 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Where's the part where Favre gave Packer plays to their opponents? Very classy!

1st TD on 4th down over 10 yards

Favre's debut included a first: It was the first touchdown by him over 10 yards on a 4th down play. The score was from 22 yards out. Here's the source document discussing it on NFL Network: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80aaed6b  Not done

I thought perhaps it could be included along with the opening game comments against Miami. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think it is kind of trivial for this page. I would think that it may be better off over at List of career achievements by Brett Favre. Just my 2 cents. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In the scheme of things, it's pretty irrelevant. Just one touchdown pass of hundreds.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but Favre had a concussion against the New York Giants back in 2003 and threw a 20 some yard TD pass on a fourth down play (to Driver I recall) without getting clearance to return to the game from doctors. The one against Miami wasn't a first, despite what that article says. I'm not going to bother to prove it wrong since it has been decided not to include that piece of info, but just something to chew on. If anyone wants to look it up themselves thats up to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.5.211 (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked it up. You are right. There was a game in 2004 (not 2003) against the Giants where Favre suffered a concussion and then came back in to throw a touchdown. I remember that game. I just didn't recall that it was a 4th down TD pass. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/sports/football/04packers.html

Also, that game was noteworthy enough to include in the article. In the 2004-2006 section, there wasn't any mention of the the 2004 season (rather only personal tradegy info). So it helps to gain perspective of how Favre was performing on the field that season. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brett Favre picture

I don't know if this has been discussed, but if there is a picture of Brett Favre as a Jet available, can somebody put that up for the main profile image? --Reezy (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are currently no free images of Brett as a Jet, as no contributors have uploaded any. We will have to wait for some nice person to upload one until it can be used. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I was curious, so I did some searching on Flickr and found a few freely licensed photos as Favre as a Jet (Image:Brett Favre as Jet1-edit.JPG & Image:Favre as Jet1-edit.jpg) and I have added them. They aren't the best, but there definitely not the worst. Hope you guys like them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   This picture doesn't even show his face!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.103.191 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 

The picture in use at the moment (12/3/2008) is horrible. It shows the back of his body and helmet and could be a photo of any football player.Hanksummers (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We're gonna just change it back to a Packers one once he'd retired...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that since Mr. Favre has retired and the infobox has gone gray, the picture should of him as a member of a team that a majority of people know him from. That would necessitate a picture of him as a Packer. He was a member of that community for far longer than he was a Jet--we've even named a street after him.PTPLauthor (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since he spent the vast majority of his successful career as at Green Bay, the picture should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.34.35 (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since he is right now playing for the Minnesota Vikings, shouldn't the main picture be of him in a Vikings uniform?

I believe regardless of what team he's playing for now, the picture of him in the article should be whatever picture is most recent, whether he's wearing a jersey or not. 96.42.120.130 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to editing but perhaps one of these images from flickr would be better than the current picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81038714@N00/3893000897 or http://www.flickr.com/photos/puckster55pics/3987528746/ 70.75.189.37 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Both are copyrighted.--Giants27(c|s) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Bret Farve´s picture being one with the jets. He only played one season with the jets and it does not reflect neither his succesful past (green bay packers)nor it´s present (vikings). I also strongly believe it should be changed to a non jersey picture that is most recent, or one with the packers due to this past. Or the vikings which is his current team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.33.136.186 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur Almondwine (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares really? It's a photo, find a photo that is under either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA of him in a Vikings uniform or stop complaining.--Giants27(c|s) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS HIS PIC OF THE JETS! He only played on season with them! Change that picture to reflect ACCURATELY Brett Favre. I also concur with the guy above me! That pic does not show WERE HE IS AT. WERE HE HAD BEEN MOST OF HIS CAREER, NOR IT SHOWS A RECENT PIC OF A LIVING ACTIVE NFL PLAYER/PERSON. UPDATE PEOPLE UPDATE!!!--Nikosanchiz (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No! Until a free picture is found, it will stay as the Jets until he retires at which point the appropiate Packers photo is used. See WP:NFCC all of the pictures of him in a Vikings uniform are copyrighted. Also, do not scream, it will get you no where with people.--Giants27(c|s) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Aaron Rodgers to the list

I noticed that in the Consecutive starts streak section Aaron Rodgers was not listed as a back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmk2010 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Stylteralmaldo (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL Ya forgot to change the number 11 to 12 though. <snicker> Done now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Preceding QB

I'm noticing an edit war starting to erupt over whether Chad Pennington or Kellen Clemens was the last starting QB before Favre. Can each side explain why they're right on the talk page here? After checking the season game logs I'm pretty sure i have a definitive answer, but will hold off judgment. Wizardman 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chad Pennington wiki page says the following under "2007":

"Clemens replaced Pennington for the final game of the season against the Chiefs."

If that is in fact true, technically, Clemons was the last starter before Favre took over. The flip side is that Pennington was the starter most of the 2007 season. Clemons wasn't "ordained" the starter heading into the 2008 season as it was to be a competition until Favre was aquired. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To make it easier for everyone to understand, Pennington was traded to Miami simply to free up salary cap room to enable the Jets to afford to have Favre on their roster. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 05:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Football article?

i found this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20060409/ai_n16161474 which lists the author as Brett Favre. is this the same Favre that's in this article? Reply on my talk page please. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 04:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Use a picture of him as a Packer

The main picture of Favre should be a packer...that's the team that everyone associates him with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.108 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture thats there is most current. If he should be signed by the Minnesota Vikings and a free image could be found, it would be appropriate to use that image then. Just because he was a Packer for so long doesn't necessarily mean that thats the image that should be used. If fact, the best image that could be used would be of him not wearing a team jersey at all. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Revenge?

On the Jim Rome Show [12] today they were talking about an allegation that Favre gave the Detroit Lions some tips on how to defend against the Packers offense in their recent game on September 14th. Matt Millen supposedly was the go-between. Favre denies it, and regardless, the Lions still lost, and Millen was canned 10 days later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This story is gaining traction. The saga continues between Thompson and Favre aftermath. Here's some links discussing it. If this back and forth continues, it might need it's own section. But for now, I'll just include the links here so we can use them later if need be Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC):

NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80bd9fc1&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

NFL Network Video: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80bda97e

It will be interesting to see if this story picks up steam, like Spygate, or whether it withers and dies. It's not like Favre told the Lions how to beat the Jets or something. It seems unethical, though - but I wonder if there is a rule against it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

why would brett favre wanna be a packer??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverdcegirl14 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

UMMM FIX that his dad was NOT killed in a car crash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.28.48 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty must discredited now. Glazer got it WRONG this time and no, it happens all the time and the NFL has no rule against it - even if Favre had done it, which all parties EXCEPT Glazer insist he did not. I get suspicious of the fact there have been 3 attempts to villify Favre "post-Packers" with cell phone conversation allegations - seemingly eminating from the Packer head offices - all three of which have been demonstrated to be false. Minnesota did not tamper, Romo called Favre not the other way around, and Millen and Favre were thinking about sharing a hunting trip, which they often do. Sad, really, that the gullible are so quick to believe rumors, but that's the world today I guess. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the only 3 time MVP

Uh, two other little known players, Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas, are also 3 time AP MVP winners. Favre's distinction is that his are back to back to back, albeit the 3rd shared. This needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.198.173 (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The following link indicates that Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas only won it twice:

http://www.databasefootball.com/awards/award.htm?a=APMVP

 Not done Stylteralmaldo (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While Unitas and Jim Brown may have won 3, the article should state that Favre's were consecutive, something nobody else can claim as far as I know. PTPLauthor (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Ted Thompson made a smart move on getting rid of Brett Favre. When are we gonna get rid of Ted Thompson???

Well, i don't know about all of u, but i think the packers have made great progress since brett favre is a jet favre *wink wink* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverdcegirl14 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

this is not a forum. PLEASE DON'T USE IT LIKE IT IS70.245.254.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

Favre could set mark for wins in different stadiums this week or Dec. 21st

Here's the article:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-4-343/Favre-has-left-the-building--31-of-them--a-winner.html

If he wins at Tennessee or wins Dec. 21st at Seattle, he'll own that record. If he does it, it could be referenced in the article. Stay tuned... Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Brett Favre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is OK, a 7/10.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

The personal life section is too short and very messy. It should contain all relevent information written in encyclopedic paragraphs, not stubby individual sentences.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Tense correction

In the Jets section, "With the Jets, Favre plays for a coach (Eric Mangini) who is 15 months younger than he," should be changed to, "With the Jets, Favre played for a coach (Eric Mangini) who is 15 months younger than he," as Eric Mangini is no longer with the Jets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieRipper (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally Retired

Does anybody know if Brett Favre is really retiring or just trying a new position when he sai it's, "Time to look in a new direction", or do we not know? Anyway Farve is my favorite QB of all time. The K.O. King (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think Brett has at least two more weeks to have an answer, but I'm not sure absolutely sure about that.--Reezy (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Farve is really, really good, but needs to retire. The K.O. King (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The personal side of me wants him to come back next year to break the all-time starts record at any position. But that's just me. On the subject, I suspect we'll get an answer fairly soon after they announce who will replace Eric Mangini. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, when we get an answer will you tell me what he decides to do? Just in case I miss it. I would greatly appreciate it. The K.O. King (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Espn.com, yahoo.com, nfl.com, and every sports section of every major newspaper will report it when he decides. Try those outlets if you want up to the minute news regarding Favre. You can also watch this page and see any new updates of this page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The K.O. King (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Favre's First Pass

I know it's tedious, but I think it should be noted in the article that states that Favre had no completions on his first four attempts, that he did in fact complete a pass to himself, though not to a receiver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shacktasticness (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Already in there. The section regarding his time in Atlanta indicates he had four attempts of which none were completed and in the section regarding his time in Green Bay it indicates he completed his first pass to himself.  Done Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Film "Career"

The article could use a mention about his minor role in There's Something About Mary. I would do it, but I figure someone else who knew more about Brett would do a better job.--Ummel (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would do it, but you need a user name and i refuse to do that.71.255.74.226 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is messy. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at least one well organised paragraph describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. This information provided in this article is messy, appearing in a sequence of stubby unconnected sentences rather than properly organised paragraphs. As a result, it does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Add category:Native American sportspeople

Favre's already included in the "Choctaw People" category; how about adding him to the "Native American sportspeople" category as well? Migisi (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Favre was traded for a third rounder not fourth..someone fix

FAVRE WAS TRADED FOR A THIRD ROUNDER NOT FOURTH..SOMEONE FIX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.20.162 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't type in all caps; it is very rude. Second, as the article says, Favre was traded for a conditional fourth round pick. The pick turned into a third round pick due to Favre's good performance with the Jets. Also, Green Bay has to send their seventh round pick in 2010 to New York, since Favre retired after one season with New York. Read this. faithless (^speak) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Not done

Different Picture

The main picture of Favre has him on the JETS, but I'm pretty sure he is retired for good and will be remembered as a PACKER. I think the photo should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.13.59 (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing when I came to the talk page to make the request and saw that someone had alraedy done so. My reasons are the same. Since he is retired (again), lets make him a Packer forever.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The jets picture should stay in the infobox for 2 reasons: 1. It's a more recent picture. 2. It's more clear and better than the other pictures. maybe someone can crop this image to just Favre, since the image is him in neither a Jets or a Packers jersey, it's just neuteral. RF23 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised as well to see that Favre's main picture shows him as a Jet. Now that Favre is actually retired, there does not seem to be any major benefit to having the picture be slightly more recent. Also, unless he starts a commentator career or something, it seems to me that it would be silly for him to be in anything other than a football jersey, unless necessary. Favre will clearly be remembered as a Packer, and I agree that the photo should show him as one. For example, no one would consider using a picture of Babe Ruth as a Boston Brave, although maybe the 70 year gap means this is not a fair comparison. Itoaseik (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Or we can have him as just a picture without a jersey i want him to retire as a packer and i think that he should have a picture with a suit on a red carpet.--Cjm555 (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

that image was not licensed and was deleted. We need Free images, not copyright infringing ones. I'll probably crop the image i mentioned above tommorow and re-up it. Then put it in the infobox. RF23 (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here Here since his release by the jets this is only right. --Rulzar (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Vikings

Favre is in negotiations to come back with the Vikings, and there is no mention of that. What the fuck?

There is no verifiable source indicating there are "negotiations". There are merely media reports that he's meeting with them about that possibility. This isn't Wikinews (or Wikirumors). Wait until something actually happens that affects his biography, and then we can consider adding it here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ESPN reported that Favre is meeting with Brad Childress.stusutcliffe (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, ESPN reported only what anonymous sources told them. Nothing verifiable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Perhaps there will be something worthy of mention after such a meeting takes place. A meeting itself is not of encyclopedic value. See WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And to prove my point, there are conflicting stories, even from his own agent, so let's not put anything into the encyclopedia until there is a confirmed, verifiable, fact to report that is central to his life story. I've removed the link to other rumors from the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And again. This is why an encyclopedia doesn't report unconfirmed rumors in the news. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clearly relevant to mention he was released from the reserve/retired list. I still think the article should mention the ESPN report, it's a full ESPN Article, it would be different if it was an ESPN insider rumour, but it wasn't. Also, how about mentioning the Text to Trent Dilfer? Dilfer reported that Favre intends to stay retired after texting him. I think it's clearly relevant to the article to mention that fact that there were talks of a comeback, wether a comeback actually happens or not. RF23 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What's happened thus far is what should be in the article - the media have made constant connections between Favre and the Vikings since his release. Nothing more, nothing less.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add that Favre declared that he will stay retired on his personal life section, im not an established user so i can't--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the article attributes Favre's new contract correctly, the figure is wrong. He will be making $25 million over two years, rather than the $35 million that the article states. Juan the owl (talk)

uh, what's up with the "when the Vikings win the Super Bowl" comment? Shouldn't that "when" be "if" established users??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quorsav (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's called vandalism.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Stats

Howcome there is no like, year by year statistics for Favre? -Jdhannan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm geussing it's because this article is a good article and there is a policy against listing stats in articles, i'm not 100 percent sure on that though... RF23 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Within the article under achievements, the following is listed which is where you can obtain his year by year stats:

For a complete list, see List of career achievements by Brett Favre

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

@RF23 Check out WP:NOTSTATS.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mispronounced name

The dictionary pronounciation of Favre's name, shown at the very top of the article as "farv", is incorrect. His name is pronounced as it appears in French: "FAHV-ruh". The fact that most people, and even the media, misprounce it as "farv", is irrelevant (ref: http://californianewswire.com/2008/09/22/CNW1889_204631.php). Ironically, the footnote next to the misprounounced word points to a "Miss Pronounciation" link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

IF you had have clicked on the reference link, you would have realized that they pronounced it "Farv". RF23 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

64.252.23.219 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Is Brett Favre retired?

Brett Favre has always pronounced his name as if the "V" and the "R" were reversed. It's a similar situation with my surname, the "c" is usually pronounced, but our family doesn't pronounce it, my Grandpa went so far as to have it changed in the local phone directory.PTPLauthor (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

and he played for the minnosota vikings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh yankee (talk contribs) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop making false statements and learn to spell 67.173.48.211 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)67.173.48.211 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the name Favre is traditionally pronounced "fav-ruh," but Brett Favre and his family himself choose to pronounce the name "farv." Therefore, the pronunciation on the page specifying "farv" is appropriate, since it is the colloquially accepted pronunciation of his name. The case would be different for a person with the same last name who pronounces it differently.96.42.120.130 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1)"Ordeuvre" is a similar french word and "vre" is pronounced exactly the same way as in "Favre." 2) As stated before, however he pronounces his last name is how it should be pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Ivans (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

statistics

In the main article on top about him it says he is statistically one of the best QBs of all-time. Well, statistically he IS the best QB of all time. So take out the "one of" please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.61.65 (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. There are more statistics than just attempts, completions, yards, TDs and INTs. --Smk42 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And career wins. Yards, consecutive starts, etc? There is almost no meaningful statistic Favre doesn't have a wide advantage in over any other QB to ever play the game.

Vikings... again

Until it's confirmed, he's still retired. This is not official. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The keywords in every report for anyone who wants to make a change is "to sign" and "pending physical".--Giants27 (c|s) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Its confirmed, he's been signed, update the page

http://www.vikings.com/news/article-1/vikings-sign-brett-favre/b52a742d-ebfd-4eff-807b-ba1d8acef18c

Lol, just saw that.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonder what number Booty gets.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonder who gets the boot, Jackson?--Giants27 (c|s) 18:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) Back to semi-protection. Update away (with sources). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got this one...--Giants27 (c|s) 18:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG, DOES FARVE HAVE NO SHAME?! THERE IS A MNF GAME WITH GB VS. MIN, HES GOING TO GET EGGED!!!!!! (I can't wait for that one :D) Enryū6473 Talk 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Crave

In the following sentence, the last in the first paragraph, "crave" should be "craving". "Crave" is a verb. If you need a noun, its "craving". I'd fix it, except that the article is locked.

By the time Favre un-retired for the second time, many in the sports world were claiming his legacy as a football player had become overshadowed by his crave for attention. 98.229.96.168 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

correction in Vikings 2009 section

{{editsemiprotected}} It was a $25 million deal, not $35.

Fixed. GWST11 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Vikings Pic?

He's played one game now, so there should be pics floating around with him in a Vikings uniform now. Ctetc2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia only allows free images to be used, so if you take a picture of him then you can upload or if you find one under a Wikipedia compatible license of Flickr then it can be used.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, long-term, his main one should still be a Packers one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but while he is playing for the Vikings, his main picture should be a current one. After he retires for good, that can be decided then.--RLent (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

His main picture should be the best quality free image we have, regardless of uniform. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Records and milestones

In the records and milestones section could someone please change career starts from 269 to 270 and 291 including playoffs to 292 ----

correction

The consecutive games played record is held by Jeff Feagles not Brett Favre. Although I'm a Vikings fan I think this should be corrected. Feagles streak is at 336 and still active. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a record of consecutive starts, not consecutive games played. Jesse0986 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Favre was the first NFL player to win three AP MVP awards" is very misleading. Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas both won 3 AP Player of the Year awards, which is the same award other than in name.

Brett Favre is the only NFL quarterback to have defeated all 32 teams.

Section regarding Favre's reputation with players/coaches/media around the league

Favre is well respected around the NFL with players/coaches/media. It is also well-documented. It almost seems to me that there ought to be a section dedicated to this. The latest example is the following article regarding the upcoming Packers-Vikings game:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8131afa8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Check this quote for example:

"Favre is the type of guy you just feed off -- his energy and the passion he plays with and the way he plays the game," Peterson said. "You've seen him running down the field last week, going to block guys, blocking (San Francisco's) Patrick Willis. You see Patrick get up after the play and help him up. So that's the type of respect he's got, and just the way he plays the game, you've got to go out there and lay it on the line."

That's just one example. Former Jets coach Eric Mangini named his son after Brett. I'm sure we are all very aware of ESPN's lovefest with him as well. The list goes on and on. It's amazing how respected he is around the league - despite the controversy surrounding him. There ought (in my opinion) be a section regarding this phenomenon of his continued popularity and respect. Stylteralmaldo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

Did Brett defeat every team in the NFL besides Green Bay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.60.247 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

he is not a jet

get the photo out thnak god hes out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.41.213 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, photos are for visual identification of the person not to represent what team he's on.--Giants27(c|s) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

His photo is very relevant. He is currently a quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings. This is listed right underneath his picture, and I feel that it is a glaring contradiction to have a Vikings quarterback with a photo of him in a Jets uniform. SamKane1992 (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brett Favre is Brett Favre regardless of the uniform. Unless a better, and free image of him in a Vikings uniform is available, then the current image will suffice. — ℳℴℯ ε 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Add first QB to beat all 32 teams.

seriously

i second that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.98.3 (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he the first NFL player to win against every team? This seems like a better statistic to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarinchick (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As of 5 OCT 09 Brett is the only quarterback to have beaten each of the 32 teams in the league.

Hizzlebizzle (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling of Favre

Under Record's and Milestones, the name Favre is incorrectly spelled as 'Farve' in one sentence. "On Monday October 5, 2009 FarveBold text became the first quarterback in history to deafeat all 32 NFL teams, when he led the Minnesota Vikings to a 30-23 victory in his first game against the Green Bay Packers."

Y Fixed faithless (^speak) 05:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"affiliated with the Choctaw"

What does "a Native American affiliated with the Choctaw" mean? Does it mean he was an enrolled member of the Choctaw nation or something similar? Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"some in the sports world" ambiguity

"some in the sports world" - Either specify who or don't elude to such nonsense. Also, this athlete is renown for 16 seasons as a Packer. Either display his current team photo or use a Packer shot. A Jets photo is arbitrary. Finally, "statistically" greatest is unnecessary. It is safe to say that Favre is one of the best quarterbacks of all time and then support that assertion with the accomplishments as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.89.46 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Some in the sports world" seems to be a handful of columnists, judging from the cites. Yes, it may be a little undignified the way he keeps retiring and unretiring, apparently just as a ploy to get out of contracts, but he played very well for both the Jets and Vikings (and he is being paid a lot of money to do something he loves.) He is not "tarnishing" his "legacy". Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I might just add that his performance in the first 11 games of the 2009 season has been spectacular, even by his own high standards. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be mentioned that Brett Farve was only on the 2nd team of the 90s All-Decade Team, someone vandalized the 90s article like 9 months ago to say he was 1st team(instead of Elway) and no one noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.13.179 (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-adding note about defeating the other 31 teams

I noticed that the note about Favre leading one team to victory over the other 31 teams was removed after he beat the Packers. I think this should be put back. At first glance it looks like the note is just meant to mention that Favre has beaten 31 NFL teams, and that it became a moot point when Favre beat 32. But what makes it notable is the fact that he led the SAME team to victory over the OTHER 31 teams in the league. This distinction is important because it's not the same as saying you've beaten 31 teams, because any player could jump from team to team and from conference to conference and give themselves many more chances to win against teams they wouldn't normally play by sticking with one team. The fact that Favre, Brady, and Manning all accomplished this with a single team is remarkable, and I think the "beat all 32 teams" note should be included ALONG with, rather than in lieu of, the "31 other teams" note.

Hopefully that makes sense. Anyone agree? Jesse0986 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)