Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comparison to Jesus

I can't find where the documentation for citing's of Tom Brady walking on water, healing the sick and feeding the poor. 99.249.126.132 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

he is not 3× AP First Team All-Pro (2007, 2010, 2014) , didn't won in 2014

didn't won in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.159.150 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for bringing it up. Deadbeef 11:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

206.80.31.55 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DeflateGate

Is there any mention of DeflateGate in this article? I couldn't find anything. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be considering there is no confirmation he was involved in it. -- Calidum 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation is not a requirement whatsoever. Reliable sources certainly cover Tom Brady's relationship to DeflateGate. Even if it's only accusations or suspicions, it's in plenty of reliable sources. He doesn't need to be confirmed as being involved as a requirement to include the information on his page. It seems quite curious (i.e., biased) that this article makes no mention of DeflateGate, when literally every reliable source out there mentions "Tom Brady" in every sentence that mentions "DeflateGate". I will add something in, if no one else does. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool, so can we mention Russell Wilson's teammates being suspended for PEDs? -- Calidum 04:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who Russell Wilson is. So, I can't comment. But, your reply seems like you are playing "tit for tat". Something along the lines of: "If you say something bad about my favorite player, I will say something bad about yours!" Which is indicative that you base your edits upon bias, as opposed to bona fide validity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment means that unless and until Brady is proven to have committed to have done some sort of wrong doing, we should not include the information. Policy explicitly says to "beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." -- Calidum 06:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Believe what you want. I disagree. Your intent is (clearly) to white wash the article. That's clearly POV. And you are clearly a fan of Brady, acting out of bias. As your comment above indicates. For cripes sake, the guy himself held a press conference on it. Repeat: the guy himself held a press conference on this very topic. That's not notable? Yeah, right. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll offer to arbitrate this argument. I'm about as unbiased a person as lives on this planet concerning this subject: I don't watch football, don't care about it, don't even have a TV feed, haven't been to a game in 30 years. Here's my decision: Make a section, down toward the bottom, "DeflateGate". Put one or two sentences to the effect that there was a flap about cheating, or whatever it was; Mr. Brady held a press conference, and the jist of what he said therein. The language can't say he was involved; it can only state facts, in a neutral way. It can say that as of <date> there's been no resolution. It cannot say he's probably guilty, nor that he's probably innocent, nor "Why would he, a star with so many accomplishments be involved?" When the issue is resolved it can add some words as to the result. The reason for this is because big news events are almost always written up in w, and updated as they unfold. Friendly Person (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your offer. I, too, don't know the first thing about football. Nor do I care to. I am not a football fan at all (unless you count my local high school). So, along with you, I too am about as unbiased a person as lives on this planet concerning this subject. I just followed this story since it has been in the news so much lately. And I was shocked to see that this article has no mention (zero) about DeflateGate. (A clear bias, I believe.) In any event, I think your proposal is quite reasonable. Facts. Well sourced. Unbiased. Etc. But ... just try getting anything whatsoever about DeflateGate into this article. Just try it. I challenged you to do that. All of the Brady fans go crazy and find "reasons" to delete it. They usually twist words, misrepresent the facts, and then cry "BLP violation". I could not even get one single word, DeflateGate (sourced by CNN), to be added as a "See also". So, with that in mind, what do you suggest? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit to a bias here, as a New Englander. But it seems clear that 1. The balls were deflated after they were checked in. 2. This is cheating. 3. Tom Brady, while he may have benefited from it, didn't personally do it. To quote WP:PUBLICFIGURE (part of WP:BLP): "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis mine)" So, here's the thing you have to do: 1. Put it in the actual article, not as a See Also (might I suggest the section "2014 Postseason") and 2. Find multiple reliable sources that directly accuse Tom Brady of interfering with the footballs. Then no one, no one, can hide behind BLP. Achowat (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Two points. One: the biased editors on this page would not allow me to even place it as a single word in the "See also". And you think they will allow it as text in the article proper? Two: the statements included in the article do not have to be "accusing him". They can simply be about the scandal and his connection to it. He is a central figure in the scandal (whether or not he is accused of anything). So much so that he held a press conference about the scandal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, per BLP we cannot insert anything that relies on guilt by association. So unless and until the NFL links Brady to the situation, we don't include it. Second, you need to cut the crap with calling others biased. If you can't come up with a better argument than that, you've lost. -- Calidum 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, I understand your frustration. It seems crazy that the biggest Tom Brady story since 2007 can't be included in his article. But The Foundation is liable for libel and other legal ramifications if WP:BLP isn't followed to the letter. And sorry, Deflategate isn't an important part of Brady's life if he's only guilty by his association to the team. I notice no discussion about Deflategate at Rob Gronkowski, Danny Amendola, or LaGarrette Blount. If you have reliable sources explicitly mentioning more than an association to the scandal, do what you need to do (find those multiple reliable sources and add it to the main text of the article where it belongs). Achowat (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comparison is a red herring. Rob Gronkowski, Danny Amendola, or LaGarrette Blount are hardly central figures in this matter. And they did not hold a press conference. In fact, I have never heard those three names before in my life. If Brady holds a press conference, he is injecting himself into the matter, anyway. Hard to see how that's a BLP violation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that holds that Tom Brady is a central figure in this matter? That's more-or-less the crux of it. The idea of placing Rob Gronkowski in the middle of this and your apprehension of it is exactly the same apprehension that I am having putting Brady there, without a number of reliable sources attesting to that.

But I think the real reason that this is becoming a bit intractable is that you haven't proposed any prose to be added (that I've seen, I could be wrong, but a review of the article shows only you trying to shoehorn Deflategate into a 'See Also'). Maybe if you told us what you'd like to add to the article, we could be able to find a way to make it BLP-okay. Achowat (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that the "notability" of some guy named Rob Gronkowski (whom most people – outside of sports fans – have never even heard of) is on par with the "notability" of Tom Brady (whom everyone in the world is familiar with, on some level) with regard to Deflategate? Additionally, I am not sure that Gronkowski held a press conference. Why on earth would Brady hold a press conference, if he had no "connection" to the incident? Whether he was or was not involved in cheating is irrelevant. Clearly, his name is "tied" strongly to the incident. So much so, that he himself held a press conference. (Presumably to dispel any myths or misconceptions.) And, yes, there are 8 zillion sources that link the connection of Brady to Deflategate. Nearly every mention of Deflategate also mentions Brady. That's not really in dispute, is it? I've never heard of Gronkowski, even as we speak. So, no, his name has never surfaced in any reports I have read on the topic. And I will repeat the same question I asked above. I was not allowed to add even one single word into the article (Deflategate in the "see also"). And the editors will allow narrative ant text into the article proper? Really? Have you read the above discussion? In fact, putting it into the "See also" is as neutral as possible. It allows readers to go read that article and decide for themselves whatever they wish, without any text whatsoever to "dilute" or "sway" their thinking on the subject. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And, as a matter of fact, I did add language that was an exact "parroting" of the language used by CNN. The language was extremely neutral (non-biased). And CNN is a reliable source. The language was, quote, DeflateGate, a 2015 incident in which "some people are suspicious of Brady" and he held a press conference to dispel accusations of alleged cheating (RELIABLE SOURCE CNN: [1]). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be relying on Brady's press conference as prima facie evidence of his involvement. Kevin Faulk had 4 press conferences about Spygate, but that's not on his page. But all of that is irrelevant. You want something added: Be my guest. But you need to make sure that the addition follows WP:BLP. Namely, put it in the prose and give multiple citations. You do that, and someone reverts you, I will personally reinsert it. But at this point, you haven't even tried to do that. Achowat (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently no one's noticed these?
NYT Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/sports/football/deflation-experiments-show-patriots-may-have-science-on-their-side-after-all.html?_r=0
HeadSmart Labs technical paper: http://www.headsmartlabs.com/#in-the-news— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.32.186 (talk • contribs)

This is not a place to discuss the merits of air pressure. We're here to talk explicitly and exclusively about what should be included in the Article Tom Brady and how best to present that information. Achowat (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

my contention is only that if you wish to include that information, then it is only fair to include objective information about the issue as, without it, it cannot but be interpreted as impugning his reputation and integrity. and, as there is no current evidence - only accusations - that he is somehow involved, then it's prematurely prejudicial. i'm not a particularly big fan of football myself, but i am interested in fairness and honesty.

Full disclosure

It should be noted that User Calidum nominated the Deflategate article to be deleted. See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeflateGate. The editors voted to keep it (and not delete it), as a "snowball keep", no less. Calidum was outnumbered about 99 to 1 on that issue. I suspect a strong bias and POV in this article (though not necessarily by User Calidum), given the comments above in this section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin help request

Some editors will not allow any mention of DeflateGate on this page, despite the fact that it is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. It is clearly POV to "white wash" the article of this notable incident. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly a violation of our BLP policy to accuse a professional athlete of cheating. We can wait until the league resolves this situation before we decide to add the information or not. -- Calidum 06:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing anybody of anything. Reliable sources are reporting this. For cripes sake, the guy himself held a press conference on it. Repeat: the guy himself held a press conference on this very topic. To leave this serious topic out is clearly POV and an attempt at white washing the article. And, as stated above, he does not have to be confirmed guilty and we don't have to wait for the issue to be resolved. Those are not requirements for something to be notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I subdued the {{Adminhelp}} template; the template is not for content disputes. Content disputes are best discussed on the talk page of the article, which seems to be going on in this section. In fact, trying to use administrative enforcement for a content dispute that has yet to be resolved can be considered disruptive. Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point. This article, for the most part, is attended to by Brady fans. So, clearly, there is an inherent bias in the article as well as on the Talk Page. (I mean, hardcore fans of Cher or I Love Lucy are not going to worry about nor visit the Tom Brady article. The hardcore Brady fans are.) This is a content dispute that needs a neutral eye. Not merely the biased eyes of Brady fans. In the article itself and on its Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• You've seemed to have missed my point. I was just stating that the {{Adminhelp}} template was misused. Nothing more, nothing less. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you missed my point. I don't feel that asking for Administrative help is an abuse. You do. Fine, let's disagree. You seem to think that all of the Brady fans on this Talk Page are capable of a neutral decision. I disagree with that and feel that more neutral eyes are needed. Hence, the request for "external help" (above and beyond this talk Page, which – generally speaking – is visited by Brady fans. Unlikely to be unbiased.). In any event, you were not helpful. And I've posted my question elsewhere. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

In 2004, Brady was inducted into the school's Athletic Hall of Fame. When Brady revisited two weeks after Super Bowl XLVI in 2012, it was announced[by whom?] that the school had named the football stadium Brady Family Stadium.[citation needed] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20040193 Demental (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Done -Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Citation needed template is note gone however, it is now placed after ..Hall of Fame. It would be nice if you get a reference for that sentence as well. Again, thank you! :) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Career Highlights

Career highlights should now also include the following:

Most postseason touchdowns in NFL history. Most postseasons wins in NFL history. Most postseason yards thrown in NFL history.Tommym96 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Change about Tom Brady's Postseason Records

Please add in NFL Records segment: Tom Brady is the first quarterback to win 20 postseason games. Please add in NFL Records segment: Tom Brady is tied with defensive lineman Mike Lodish for most Super Bowl appearances by any player

(source: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=400749520​ http://tombradyrecords.weebly.com/ Ikerofe (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The first link you provided points to a "NOT FOUND" error and the second might not pass WP:RS. Please re-activate the request if needed. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of a redundant request anyhow - Brady is the only QB who has 20 or more postseason wins period (see: NFL starting quarterback playoff records and the sources cited on that page). The closest person is Joe Montana who only has 16. The closest active player is Peyton Manning with 11 (who would need to win the next three consecutive Super Bowls to get to 20 wins before he retires). Saying Brady was the first to hit 20 wins seems a lot less relevant than that the fact that he is the only QB to achieve that (or even get close) so far. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015

Score for the Minnesota 2014 game should be changed from 30-17 to 30-7

158.37.129.9 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Add "Touchdown Tom" as an alternate nickname

I propose - in all seriousness - to add after "nicknamed 'Tom Terrific'," the words "and 'Touchdown Tom'," under the legitimate case that he has a strong online following, especially on Twitter, that refers to him as such. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/touchdown-tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.49.1 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. Find a reliable source and then bring this up again. Vyselink (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate

Look folks, it's time to put DeflateGate in the article. To leave it out is to damage the encyclopediability of Wikipedia. The NFL's Wells Report is out. We can now say without bias or POV that:

1. The balls were deflated.
2. This is cheating.
3. Tom Brady, the quarter back and a team captain was probably aware.

--96.241.77.157 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 1000%. I placed it into this article as a "See also". And User:Calidum immediately reverted my edit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please use your blogs to argue the case. Wikipedia is not like that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. This Wikipedia Talk Page is exactly the place for this discussion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This was previously discussed and consensus was to exclude for the time being. In my opinion, we should only include information of Deflategate if the NFL takes any action against Brady (a fine or suspension, for example). In that case it should be incorporated into the article itself and not in the see only section. Calidum T|C 03:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this was previously discussed. Yes, indeed, a consensus was reached. However, that all occurred before the official NFL findings. Obviously, things are different now. Significantly so. That prior discussion (and that prior consensus) is stale, outdated, and irrelevant, to say the least. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In light of the report's release and findings, directly implicating Brady, and the extensive coverage of this, there should now be some reference to Deflategate here. However, any statements about Brady's involvement should be clearly attributed to the report (or other source, if any), rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice as certain fact. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100% with User:Arxiloxos. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Before the release of the Wells findings it made sense to not include references to "Deflategate" on Brady's page, but after all these findings were released I think it's become more relevant to him and worth including. The circumstances have changed greatly from the time that the original vote was held, now that all the findings from the investigation have been revealed. I agree with Arxiloxos. --Reeves92 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I was on Team Exclude last time we talked about this, but the Wells Report makes it unavoidable. What is still inappropriate is simply putting it in as a See Also. This needs to be included in prose. Achowat (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In particular the quote: "Based on the evidence, we also have concluded that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls." seems kind of inescapable in terms of what gets put on this page for the 2014 season. To be honest, reading the evidence that they lay out, it felt like a stronger statement might even have been warranted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think you set the stage generally, put the denials of Brady (and maybe Behlicheck), put in the statement from the Wells report referenced above, and then a statement or two with prominent sports personalities commenting on it (which would include statements which more accurately reflect the tone and conclusions of the report which are far more damaging than the quote above), and then Kraft's or Yee's response.LedRush (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Some articles for inclusion

• https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/06/more-tarnish-patriot-legacy-this-time-tainting-tom-brady/qrFxvrcKdEP6Lvh8xO1wsM/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom#comments - This is from one of (if not the) most prominent Boston sports reporters.
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/06/questions-but-answers-from-tom-brady-patriots/G3cpfWCPOh7Wie3cx397PK/story.html - Boston Globe
• http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/bob-glauber/tom-brady-needs-to-be-suspended-after-wells-report-takes-air-out-of-his-legacy-1.10399064 - Newsday
• http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2455880-tom-bradys-legacy-forever-scarred-by-damning-wells-report - Bleacher ReportLedRush (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Deflation information

As an editor of Wikipedia I have a question. When does something go from being a paragraph to having its own section, section, section, section and section given how much news time this issue has consumed? Pages for Lance Armstrong and Tom Brady look inconsistent. — Gorba (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. The Brady story only broke today. So, relatively speaking, there is not a lot of information to include. Yes, there is probably quite a bit of information to include in the "Deflategate" article. But, there is not a whole heck of a lot to include in this, the Tom Brady article. I am sure there will be much more in the coming days and weeks. But, so far, there is not a lot to report. The Wells Report found him likely complicit and the NFL ordered a suspension. That's about it, so far. Although, come to think of it, we can and should add a few lines about how Brady denied his involvement in that press conference several weeks back. In summary, comparing Tom Brady with Lance Armstrong – at the present moment, at least – is comparing apples and oranges, I believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro. Firstly, Lance Armstrong's story was global, and far more serious (no one is stripping Brady of seven titles here, and no-one really cares much about the Deflategate story outside of the US; nor is there (yet) any allegation about Brady bullying whistle blowers or hounding people into bankruptcy the way Armstrong supposedly did - a better comparison would be with Ben_Roethlisberger#2010_suspension, a similar 4 game suspension for a high profile QB). Secondly, this is an evolving story. It seems inevitable that there is likely to be an appeal (not saying anyone should wait on that, but just pointing it out). There is certainly going to be a lot of "tarnished legacy" comment - some informed, some not - which will need to sifted and the more relevant bits included. We'll get there in time, but given (for me) the most notable thing about the DeflateGate story is the public rush to judgement, we need to be mindful to try our best to keep it all between the lines. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree on how to proceed, but the most notable issue about this is pretty clearly not a public rush to a judgment, but the fact that cheating was established not only by the burden of proof established through the bargaining agreement, but by any non-criminal level (and probably by most criminal burdens of proof) and that obstruction was found as well.LedRush (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, we can probably just agree to disagree about that. Of all the various investigations which were conducted this year in relation to cheating in the NFL (NoiseGate, TextGate, NY Jets tampering allegations, etc.), this is the only one that has remotely this kind of profile. But it is certainly not the only one where the allegations were proved and punishment was levied. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wells report stated "more probable than not." There's a long, long way between that and "proved," and saying that the allegations against him are "proven" would be a violation of BLP. —Lowellian (reply) 21:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OK, but you know what I meant. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The author of the report said that the allegations were proven and he used the "more probable than not" wording as that was his burden of proof to prove the case...just as it is in a civil trial. Surely we can quote him.LedRush (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The allegations against him were indeed proven. And they were proven according to the correct standard of proof: a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., "more probable than not"). Many assume that for him to be found "guilty", it must be by a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That's simply not true. This is not a criminal trial and Brady is not alleged to have committed a crime. This is a civil matter, specifically, a contractual matter. Very different from a criminal matter, which employs the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The Wells Report does find enough proof (according to its appropriate standard of proof) that Brady committed these violations. So, yes, the allegations were proven. No BLP violation whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't equate this with the standard of proof of a civil trial when this is not civil court, but an organization's private investigation. There is no legally established standard here that equates "more probable than not" with "proven." Saying that the report "proves" the allegations is a BLP violation, because that is not what the report says. —Lowellian (reply) 15:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What you say is wholly incorrect. Of course, this is not a civil court. Just as it is not a criminal court. However, the NFL has used the "standard of proof" that is outlined and required in the collective bargaining agreement. Which is why, in my comment above, I said that this is a contractual matter. (And a contractual matter is a civil matter, whether or not there is a civil court involved.) The two sides (the NFL and the player's union) agreed to their contract. And the contract to which both sides agreed stipulates and outlines the correct "standard of proof" required in a case such as this. So, once again, the Wells Report does find enough proof (according to its appropriate standard of proof) that Brady committed these violations. So, yes, the allegations were proven. No BLP violation whatsoever. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words, an organization's private investigation can establish whatever standard of proof that it wants to establish. And they did so through agreement. Namely, the collective bargaining agreement (i.e., their contract). And, by definition, both sides agreed to that contract. And to that standard of proof as the proof required to prove that someone committed a violation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the standard of proof required by a private organization's investigation should not be equated with "proven" as used by the general public. If it were, then any employer could accuse an employee of any arbitrary crime and claim that the accusation meets the employer's standard of proof, even with little or no evidence. By your argument, the crime would then be "proven" since it meets the employer's standard of proof, no matter how lax that standard of proof may have been or how flawed or lacking the evidence may have been.

Second, even if it were the case that the standard in the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement could be equated with "proven" as used by the general public, the CBA does not say what you are claiming it says. In fact, the CBA does not establish any such standard of proof. The only mention of standard or burden of proof in the CBA is in regard to the salary cap and to contract collusion between different clubs, neither of which apply here.

—Lowellian (reply) 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, what you say is incorrect. A private organization can do whatever it wants to do, whether or not you like it and whether or not the "general public" understands it. I do not have a copy of the CBA in front of me. It probably says something along these lines. If a player is found to violate the following rules (a, b, and c), then that player is subject to the following discipline (x, y, and z). Discipline can only be imposed for just cause (as defined in Sections A, B, and C above). Violations of conduct must be proven by the following standard: "more probable than not". Also, somehow, you are injecting the issue of criminal accusations into your comment. Criminal conduct, criminal accusations, and crimes being "proven" have no place in this discussion. You are clearly confusing – and trying to correlate – the two (a private employer's allegations of misconduct versus a governmental body's accusations of a crime). And, yes, employers can – and do – accuse employees of violations (not crimes) all the time. And that employer is free to establish whatever standard of proof it so desires, regardless of what the word "proven" means in the general public. The word "proven" means whatever the private organization defines it to mean. Wholly independent of what the general public "thinks" that it means. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

An employer never accuses an employee of a crime. Only a governmental agency can do that. A private employer can only accuse an employee of misconduct. A private employer has "jurisdiction" to decide ("adjudicate") whether or not an employee committed whatever misconduct the employer accuses them of. A private employer has no "jurisdiction" to "adjudicate" an employee of a crime. That decision ("adjudication") is only available to a governmental authority. You are conflating two very different concepts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I was using crime as an example of misconduct on the employee, not suggesting that misconduct is necessarily of a criminal nature. You are the one who is conflating two very different concepts. Namely, you are conflating the ability of an employer to make a determination of misconduct on the part of an employee with the idea that just because the employer makes such a determination, the misconduct is proven.

You are also claiming that "more probable than not" is the same thing as "proven", when, in fact, they are not the same, not even in the context of the collective bargaining agreement. You keep bringing up the CBA, but the CBA does not say any what you are claiming it says about standard of proof.

—Lowellian (reply) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wells Report was prepared by the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. They are a top-notch highfalutin law firm in New York City. And I am quite sure they have top-notch highfalutin lawyers that work there. And I am quite sure that they placed their most top-notch highfalutin lawyers on a case so public and high-profile as Deflategate. You can be quite sure that these lawyers dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" when they wrote up this report. Do you honestly think that these lawyers are not aware of the required standard of proof in the case at hand? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No doubt those lawyers are well aware of standards of proof -- which is exactly why they avoided using such the word "proven" in the report. They were careful to avoid saying that these allegations are proven. You want to cite the report as a source (on that I agree; we should use the report as a source), but you are going beyond what the source actually says. —Lowellian (reply) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but this is getting tiresome and we are going around in circles. I think the problem is that you and I have attached different meanings and definitions to the word "proven". To me, that word means: "an allegation of misconduct is proven if, after a fair and impartial investigation, the alleged misconduct is concluded to have occurred according to the standard of proof required ...". I am not quite sure what meaning and definition you attach to the word "proven". Since we are operating under different definitions (apparently), I will not understand your point; nor you, mine. So, for the record, what does the word "proven" mean to you? And what does the phrase "standard of proof" mean to you? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "standard of proof". It does not have to be spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement, per se. If it is not spelled out there, then clearly it is spelled out somewhere else. Most likely, through precedent in other arbitration decisions. These other arbitration decisions would concern allegations of misconduct in the NFL, and what burden of proof is required in order to sustain such allegations. So, the standard of proof is spelled out somewhere in the collective bargaining relationship, whether or not it is spelled out in the actual collective bargaining agreement. The NFL has been around for 95 years (since 1920). I am quite sure that this is not the first time that they have alleged misconduct, sustained misconduct allegations, and imposed discipline. This is not their first rodeo. Also, I am quite sure that their attorneys (at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison) have both researched – and represented management in – cases involving allegations of misconduct. This is not their first rodeo, either. What is your contention? That the NFL and that the lawyers of the Wells Report just "made up" this standard completely out of whole cloth? They just pulled something out of the air? They (the NFL and the lawyers) do not have to keep reinventing the wheel. In the 95-year history of the NFL (in alleging misconduct and sustaining those allegations), I am quite sure that this issue has come up before (i.e., "what is the required standard of proof?"). I am quite sure that this is a "settled" issue, at this point. What is your contention? Do you believe that this is the very first time that the question has arisen (i.e., the question being: "What is the standard of proof required in order for the NFL to "prove" and to sustain allegations of misconduct?")? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't help but feel we are getting slightly off track here. I am not sure I see the relevance of the debate: under the collective bargaining agreement, the determination is made on the balance of probabilities, and the report indicated the investor was satisfied under that test. Whether or not that should be understood as "proof" is surely semantics. The only relevant test that needed to be met under the CBA was met. For me the key point is still nothing to do with either the offence itself, the severity of the punishment, or the high profile nature of Tom Brady. For me the really striking feature of DeflateGate is how it became such a big part of the public consciousness and developed such a dedicated following in the media despite being such a minor breach (alleged breach if you prefer) of a largely inconsequential technical rule. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Legis, you and I are pretty much saying the exact same thing. This other editor (Lowellian) objects to the word "proven" for some reason. The main reason being, I suspect, that he is confusing the word "proven" as it is used in a criminal court with the word "proven" as it is used in a collective bargaining context. As you said: "The only relevant test that needed to be met under the CBA was met." Exactly. In other words, the league proved what they had to prove according to the appropriate standard of proof. This other editor does not think that we can say that the report "proved" that Brady violated the rules. Again, I suspect, he is confusing the word "proven" as it is used in a criminal court with the word "proven" as it is used in a collective bargaining context. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Legis, you state: "For me the really striking feature of DeflateGate is how it became such a big part of the public consciousness and developed such a dedicated following in the media despite being such a minor breach (alleged breach if you prefer) of a largely inconsequential technical rule." But, your point fails to address the fact that the whole controversy is not only about the "minor" technical rule (i.e., the correct inflation levels of the footballs). The "bigger" issues are that Brady lied and impeded the investigation. And the underlying concept of cheating in the game in order to win. And raising the issues of: if they cheated on this one time in this one way, how do we know how many other times they cheated and in how many other ways? These larger issues are neither "minor" nor "technical". They go to the heart of the game, competition, fairness, and maintaining a level playing field. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, and I am certain that this is the basis for the increased media and public interest. But I am not sure that it relates to the immediate offence. What they were charged with, and found to be culpable of, was deflating footballs. They were not charged with or investigated for "cheating generally on an unspecified number of occasions in an unspecified manner and generally lying and covering it up." But in the court of public opinion they seem to be generally found guilty of that too, and that seems to be what the NFL has largely punished Brady and Patriots for. Hence the severity of the punishment when compared with other teams who were unpunished for manipulating the pressure of footballs using heaters (although admittedly the others didn't obstruct an investigation, partly because there wasn't one). To me, that is the main reason why DeflateGate is so interesting. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree with that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate Defaming NFL No. One Hero

The punishment meted out for Brady & Patriots does not in any way reasonably balance out versus other more minor punishments for hugely more severe situations (as using steroids for decades, abusing spouses or your children, etc with smaller punishments given). So that please add balance to article for this issue of over punishment, esp as Brady is about the No. 1 Hero in all NFL history; so, NFL executives defaming him in this way, esp with this huge over punishment, is their defaming the NFL itself via defaming NFL no. 1 hero. 47.18.43.166 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Patriot Nation Fans

Thanks for sharing your views. I think everyone is striving to make sure the article complies with WP:NPOV. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Patriot Nation Fans" and "No. One Hero" this is pretty funny. Enigma^msg 04:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies! --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate Section

Resolved

Tom Brady's suspension was upheld on July 28, not June 28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.251.240 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fixed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Can't believe I typed in June. Ugh. Vyselink (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

There is typo in Personal life section: "Under Amour". Could you please update it to "Under Armour"? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.32.194 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All set, thanks for letting us know. Achowat (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate comments

The Deflategate discussion has a flaw in NPOV. It refers to "the intentional deflation ..." of the footballs without acknowledging that there is great dispute as to whether such a thing occurred. 98.110.150.153 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Once Brady gets back into regular season games, someone who does have the right to edit his page should forget about his preseason activities, make note of the fact that he missed his first four regular season games as punishment for Deflategate (if he is ruled against) and concentrate on his accomplishments from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.221.198 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate. The American Enterprise Institue conducted a true independent study regarding deflategate. Before Tom Brady's appeal AEI's recommendation was that the NFL should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolery12 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tom Brady. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051225033754/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/football/2002/playoffs/news/2002/01/27/patriots_steelers_ap/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/playoffs/news/2002/01/27/patriots_steelers_ap/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120725112250/http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/09/pats_confirm_ra.html to http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/09/pats_confirm_ra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice template requested.

It seems that this article already has a history of vandalism. I just spotted a special template notice when I was reading on the LeBron James article. Do anyone thinks it's OK to put up this edit notice template to this article to Tom Brady? BigSportsUnion (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2015

from the 2008 season first sentence delete "or in the 2008 pro bowl" since it is unneeded due to not playing. 50.169.17.254 (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: did not remove as requested; however, did retailor the sentence for clarity and accuracy. Inomyabcs (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

Proofreading error on the following line: He holds numerous NFL post-season passing records, and has more post-season wins that any other quarterback.

It should read "than" any other quarterback.

Thank you. 172.101.51.125 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen

Could a picture of Gisele Bündchen under Tom's "personal life" section be added? She has one of him on her page. Thank you.2606:6000:610A:9000:7C9E:89CF:EF08:A9D1 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Updating

I plan on editing two sections for Tom Brady's article. First his early years section, and then I will keep updating his 2015 season based on his performances each week.

First for his early life, much more can be expanded on his life playing sports in high school, as well as the recruiting process he went through that ended up with him playing at the University of Michigan. For his life in high school, I plan on writing about him playing high school football, and include his stats as well as his growth as a QB which led him from JV to the Varsity squad. Along with football, he was a great baseball player, so I will write about him being drafted by the Montreal Expos. Then when he graduated from high school, I will write about the recruiting process. Information for this part will focus on what school were interested in him, and what led him to making his decision to one, not play pro baseball, and two is why he decided to attend Michigan. I feel that by expanding this section, it will expand his young life and what led him to end up in the position he is in today. For this section I found many secondary sources, as well as quotes from his former coaches that are primary sources. Here is some of the sources I will use: 1. text 2. text 3. text 4. text

Lastly for his 2015 season, I will update how he performs, by displaying his stats and whether they win or loss. This information will come from the NFL website

Nickmccune12 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are maxpreps.com and jockbio.com reliable sources? Remember, this is a biography of a living person, so WP:BLP rules apply. Extra caution needed to vet each source. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. If I do use anything from these sources I will make sure there is no bias so it won't hamper what I am trying to write. Nickmccune12 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

All of this looks really good! I like how you formatted his current season and everything he is currently doing that will add nicely. If you have the chance do you mind looking at my page on JJ Watt and letting me know what you think? ( Chrissy333 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC) )

I like the sources, they could be useful and are all reliable. I do think you should be careful though because there are well over 100 existing sources on the page so make sure yours are updated. I would also like to hear more about the fact that he dropped so far in the draft, maybe you can find more info on why that happened. Great ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshewuh2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Brady's drop in the draft is fairly well documented; he had to compete with Henson for his starting job. Most coaches doing draft aren't interested in someone who had to struggle for the starting position, they can find other quarterbacks who so dominated their teams it wasn't a question. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tarl.Neustaedter. Documentation of being drafted with pick 199 in the 6th round is well known. I'd prefer to focus on his life before that in high school and in college recruiting to have a more complete article on Tom Brady. Nickmccune12 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

NFL Top 100

Request to add or make note to eventually add "top 100 players statistics". A few players have this already listed on their wiki page, and I see this being added to more and more players as the "top 100" achievement becomes more credible.

Tom Brady's is as follows:

• Ranked #3 in the Top 100 Players of 2015
• Ranked #3 in the Top 100 Players of 2014
• Ranked #4 in the Top 100 Players of 2013
• Ranked #4 in the Top 100 Players of 2012
• Ranked #1 in the Top 100 Players of 2011

143.199.125.10 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

"He, Eli Manning, and Joe Montana are the only three players in NFL history to win the NFL Most Valuable Player and Super Bowl MVP awards multiple times."

Eli Manning never won the NFL MVP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.142.200 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to allow this page to be edited freely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.197.169 (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to edit this page, you must create an account and demonstrate good faith by accomplishing a number of successful edits elsewhere in Wikipedia. This page has been subject to so many vandalism attempts that anonymous editing is not currently allowed. It's unlikely that anonymous editing will be allowed while his career continues, as repairing vandalism drains editor resources that could be used elsewhere. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well someone's gotta update the playoff record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.133.46 (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. They should update te page to show that the 2015 regular season is over. Then once the Patriots' playoff run ends that should be updated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.196.229 (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by 130.108.222.160

Someone who is allowed to edit this page should update the 2015 season section of Brady's page so that it summarizes the season as a whole. - Joshua Haralson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.222.160 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes to infobox

I've reverted changes to the infobox which seemed inappropriate. Changing from the list of superbowls to just point at the generic superbowl article is not an improvement. Also, please start using the edit summary, as per wikipedia policy, to explain what you are doing and why. If you had a discussion somewhere and the consensus on that other page was overwhelmingly to change every article under creation to re-shape the infoboxes, point to that discussion in your edit history to avoid discussions on every article you modified without an edit summary. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

AFC OPOY

Brady was announced the 2015 AFC Offensive Player of the year, by the Kansas City committee of 101. Joshstickrod (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

ShoneBK (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Request declined, no actual request was made. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

ShoneBK (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

What is your reason for a semi-protection? Meatsgains (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Found a problem with this

Tom Brady is the only unanimous selection for MVP ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopslops123 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Deflategate Redux

For the editors out there who may wish to immediately modify the article to say that Brady has been suspended after the NFL's appeal of Berman has won: My understanding is that the re-suspension is not automatic. The appeal opens the way for the NFL to suspend Brady again, but that separate action has not yet occurred. If and when that does happen, it will likely (but not certainly) be starting week one of the 2016 season. The NFL commissioner could choose to impose it on a different set of games, but the essence of WP:CRYSTALBALL is that we don't know and we shouldn't speculate in the article. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To be specific - here, the following statement: It's not immediately clear what the NFL will do next. The league potentially could reinstate the suspension, but Goodell has not commented publicly on the case since before Super Bowl 50, and he would not say then whether the four-game ban would be imposed if the league wins on appeal. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess nobody uses talk pages any more. WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) has given way to Bold, Revert, Repeat. I give up. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect total for regular season GS

There appears to be an incorrect total for regular season games started. The total is listed as 224 however the total should be 223 if you add up the numbers. Confirmed to another source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm Kevin2kkelly (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2016

Tom Brady won the 2015 AFC offensive player of the year award, this accomplishment is not listed Madmonkey418 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Second team All-Pro

I'm a huge Tom Brady fan, but he wasn't an All-Pro in 2015. Check the wiki of All-Pros in 2015 and you'll see. He was the AFC Offensive player of the Year though. OlegYehudi (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My bad, the OPOTY was Antonio Brown in 2015. OlegYehudi (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Brady is widely considered to be among the greatest NFL players of all time.

173.27.104.35 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section needs to be tightened up somewhat. See MOS:LEAD, in particular As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Currently we have seven paragraphs, and a lot of that is due to trying to cram in specific details into what should be an overview. If nobody else feels up to it, I'll take a stab at tightening up the section in a few days. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brady page feedback

Tom Brady is an idol figure and one of the greatest quarter backs in history. Most of the information on this page is neutral and straight to the point. After checking the majority of the citations, they appear be working and liable sources. This page however has little on Tom Brady and this upcoming season. It also lacks a lot of information about Tom Brady and the Deflategate. An event which plays a major role in shaping the rest of Tom Brady’s career. However for the information that is presented, it remans neutral and avoids heavily shaped opinions. One thing that I do like about this page is that it provides a lot of interesting facts that you do not always see in the media about Tom Brady, which had me interested in searching more. Briannestarr96 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)BStarr 9:28 13 September 2016

The page shouldn't have much on the upcoming season, see WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. As for Deflategate, there is an entire article about that - most of what's been added to this article on that subject has been highly partisan and removed. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Monahan info

I fear that not only does the material consist of "celebrity gossip", use weak sources for such gossip, and name a minor child in detail (who had nothing to do with much of anything to be singled out by name), it also treats the "celebrity gossip" as notable fact. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

The dates of Tom's children's birthdates are incorrect. She was born December 5, 2012. NOT in 2015. His son was born August 22, 2007 Here's the source-it's Wikipedia. <https://g.co/kgs/Oz1Qvy> Here's the part of the article that needs correction: Together, they have two children: a son born in 2009, and a daughter born in 2015. (under Personal Life) Sharindipity (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC) SharindipitySharindipity (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead section for Tom Brady article.

WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should ... explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING ANY PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES ... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations" A summery of Deflategate with citations belongs in the lead, just as WP:LEAD states.

This summery of Deflategate includes citations as WP:LEAD states should be included in controversial subjects, and is presented in a neutral point of view, as WP:NPV states.

On May 11, 2015, the NFL announced that it was suspending Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season for his alleged part in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. On September 3, 2015, Judge Richard M. Berman vacated Brady's suspension. It was reinstated on April 25, 2016, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

References

Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That looks like more detail than belongs in the lede, primarily the issue of the dates. Please remember, this is a summary - you don't need details in the summary. That could as easily be written:

In 2015, the NFL announced that it was suspending Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season for his alleged part in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. Federal Judge Richard M. Berman vacated Brady's suspension. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the earlier ruling, resulting in Brady missing the first four games of the 2016 season.

Tarl N. (discuss) 01:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, let's go with that. Jerry Stockton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, in particular in context of WP:RECENTISM, the fact that the suspension was vacated and then re-instated is largely irrelevant over the long term. The relevant part for the long-term biography is that he was suspended for the first four games of 2016. The soap opera leading up to the missed games is entertaining and much in our minds, but won't be on anyone's mind by the time he's eligible for the HOF.

As for going with the above text, let's wait for others to chime in. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• The "Deflategate" paragraph is undue weight. There isn't a single word in the lead about him missing 15 games in 2008 but the paragraph about him missing 4 games in 2016 is nearly as big as the paragraph about his accomplishments. See WP:Undue. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. The deflategate saga does deserve more weight. Rightly or wrongly, people view Brady through the prism of how they saw deflategate - the HOF mention above was specific, the events leading up to the suspension will have a large role in the voting for that accolade (hopefully ten years from now). The season missed due to injury will not have a role. The only question is separating the long-term view from the current-events mentality, and the precise dates are part of the WP:RECENTISM issue. The question is whether the appeal and reversal also deserve mention, and I'm thinking that in 2025, nobody will care about the legal dance that took place. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It will have no effect on the voting. He's an 100% first ballot hall of famer. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Deflategate is not going to be forgotten in ten years time. This case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That is important information and should be in the summary. This case almost went to the Supreme Court of the United States. I think the fact that Brady was suspended by Roger Goodell and that his suspension was vacated by Judge Richard M. Berman, ALLOWING BRADY TO PLAY THE 2015 SEASON, is very important information and belongs in the lead summary. I don't think that WP:RECENTISM is an issue, these court cases will all be remembered as important for a long time. Deflategate not only has its own page at Wikipedia, it also has its own heading at National Football League controversies. The fact that Brady lost his appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is extremely important. The National Football League Players Association is not going to forget Brady's defeat at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit any time soon. It was a giant loss for them and it will be the center of all cases challenging the power of Roger Goodell in the future. Jerry Stockton (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think deflategate could be mentioned in the opening but only as something very trivial, because it's like the 100th thing to bring up in a Brady biography. It's a minor side note to his career at most. So going into great detail about it in the article opening seems a bit strange.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The above summary is just three sentences. This covers the court cases that were all reported on television and radio, and in magazines and newspapers. ESPN estimated that the NFL Players Association spent 7.1 million dollars in defending Brady in these court cases. This is a major sports story that is still in the news on a regular bases more than 20 months after the 18 January 2015 football game. Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

How about this? The NFL announced that it was suspending Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season for his alleged part in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. Court appeals vacated the suspension and then overturned the lower court, resulting in Brady serving his suspension in the first four games of the 2016 season.

The details of exactly who filed what suit and what court ruled which way on which date belong in the detailed article rather than the lead - this is Brady's, the summary should be about him, not details about the antics surrounding an event that affects his career. The key point is that he was suspended and after a year of wrangling, he served his suspension. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think your first summary was far superior to this summary. It was just slightly longer, but still only three sentences. There are lots of exact details in Brady's lead, a few details about his court cases seems reasonable and would help clarify what happened. That this case went all the way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit shows that this was not some minor little court case, but was a major case that was decided by one of the highest courts in the United States. Jerry Stockton (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

..."this went all the way to"... The point is that's not about Brady. That's about the NFL and deflategate. This article is about Brady. The details of the article have that information, the lede should reflect information specifically about Brady, not the power struggles between Goodell, the NFLPA and the US courts. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should ... explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING ANY PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES" Brady is at the very center of the Deflategate controversy. Your first summary, that was just three sentences long, explained the controversy in a clear and understandable way. In my opinion, your second summary is not as clear or understandable as your first. Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the lead is supposed to do, "summarize" the main points, not go into excessive details about them. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The first summary suggested by Tarl N. contained just 65 words and does not appear to contain excessive details. Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Tarl N., you expressed concerns about WP:RECENTISM. I replied to that concern showing why I believe all of these court cases will be remembered in ten years time. It has already been over 20 months since the 18 January 2015 football game and Deflategate is still in the news. Every time the NFL Players Association appeals a Roger Goodell suspension these court cases will again be in the news. In ten years time, when Brady probably becomes eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, all of these court cases will definitely be in the news again. Are you still thinking WP:RECENTISM is a concern? Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This deflategate issue is barely even something that would come up in a Brady biography. If anything, more would be discussed about Roger Goodell probably and how the suspension was handled. An issue of footballs being possibly deflated and someone possibly knowing someone else possible did it would be extremely trivial in any NFL quarterback's career. So deflategate really is more a discussion about the NFL, Goodell, and how they handle player discipline and suspensions. Just a minor mention of it in Brady's opening of his article is more than enough. I would take the details to his main body article, and probably more specifically it belongs actually in the delfategate article itself.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deflategate is a major NFL scandal, and Brady is at the very center of this scandal. Brady was suspended from the NFL for four games. The National Football League Players Association spent 7.1 million dollars defending Brady in a case that was decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Although you might consider this an "extremely trivial" part of Brady's career, it isn't. Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should ... explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Wikipedia policy is that a summery of prominent controversies, with references, belongs in the lead, so Deflategate clearly belongs in the lead. As no one has presented a Wikipedia policy showing why a summary of Deflategate should not be in the lead section, and currently Deflategate is not even mentioned in the lead, I will be adding the following summary to comply with Wikipedia policy.

In May of 2015 the NFL announced that it was suspending Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season for his alleged part in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. In September of 2015 Judge Richard M. Berman vacated Brady's suspension. The suspension was reinstated in April of 2016 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Brady missed the first four games of the 2016 season due to his Deflategate suspension. Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• Oppose inclusion. Von Miller was suspended six games for a failed drug test -- no mention in lead. Ben Roethlisberger suspended four games for personal conduct issues related to sexual assault allegations -- no mention in lead. Peyton Manning accused of sexual harrasment and steroid use -- no mention in lead. Le'Veon Bell multiple suspensions for drugs with no mentions in the lead. Yet we have an SPA pushing to get this info included in Brady's article. Makes you wonder if he's got ulterior motives. Calidum ¤ 05:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should ... explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Deflategate clearly belongs in the Brady's lead section as he is at the very center of this controversy. That the lead section of these other sports figures do not contain their controversies is a problem with their lead sections and is not a valid reason not to follow WP:LEAD and include Deflategate in Brady's lead section. Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I am coming into the conversation late. Plus, I have been "away" from this article for quite some time. For what it's worth, I do believe that the Deflate-Gate scandal should be mentioned in the lead. Yes. Absolutely. As to the level of detail and specificity, I am open. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that a summary of any prominent controversies be shown in the lead section. Brady is at the very center of the football tampering scandal Deflategate and he was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season for his alleged part. Per Wikipedia policy a summary of Brady's controversial suspension and court cases should be included in the lead section. I do not see where anyone has presented a valid Wikipedia policy reason not to follow Wikipedia policy and include a summary of the Deflategate controversy in Brady's lead section. Many other sports stars have their controversies shown in their lead section just as Brady's Deflategate controversy should be shown in his lead. That some sports stars do not have their controversies shown in their lead is not a valid Wikipedia policy reason not to include Deflategate in Brady's lead. The following summary has been suggested:

In May of 2015 the NFL announced that it was suspending Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season for his alleged part in the football tampering scandal known as Deflategate. In September of 2015 Judge Richard M. Berman vacated Brady's suspension. The suspension was reinstated in April of 2016 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Brady missed the first four games of the 2016 season. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That proposal seems fine to me. What -- specifically -- is at issue with that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Records

I'm surprised no one's noticed (or cared) for so long, but a few months ago I removed the "records" section because it was entirely unsourced. That's why the article currently only lists his postseason records. If they're re-added, each one should be attributed to a secondary source specifically acknowledging each as a record. This way we can establish notability for each one, and avoid exotic "records" that people find by using pro football reference. "Most passing touchdowns on a Thursday to a tight end in home games" and citing PFR's custom search query is original research. There's nothing inherently notable about that. But if it's listed in, say, the 2016 NFL Record and Fact Book, or mentioned by a published media outlet, then its notability would be established. Lizard (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

Tom Brady has won 4 super bowls in his career - the intro article states he's won 3. The super bowl game where the patriots beat the eagles is not included in that count.

72.215.185.4 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-read the lead, it says that. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Already answered EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk page archives too quickly

This might not be the appropriate place to ask, but can someone adjust the talk page archive speed? I'm not sure how. Every month is a little overkill. Lizard (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed the archiving frequency to 2160 hours, which translates to 90 days. We may need to increase it if we get more traffic on this page. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarl. I imagine it was set as such during the deflategate saga. Lizard (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Diet

Can you please talk about how Tom Brady eats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.78.220 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We can if anybody wants to find reliable sources on his diet (if they're out there).White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV of lead

"...many analysts and sportswriters consider Brady to be the greatest quarterback of all time." Ignoring how many panties this statement will likely put in a wad, let's be real: Boldly proclaiming such a thing without any mention in the lead of past controversies is a farce, and violates WP:NPOV. Even if he wasn't directly involved, even if it was never proven he was in the wrong, the fact is that the controversies surrounding his career are a part of his legacy. The lead must make some mention of this if we want to have any credibility. If we can't find a way to fit it in, I propose removing the "greatest quarterback of all time" statement from the lead. It's well sourced, but that's not the issue here. Lizard (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Career stats

Can somebody please make certain that Brady's regular season statistics include Week 12 of the 2016 season and make sure that his postseason statistics include both of his playoff games in the 2015-16 season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.197.86 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

All Pro

Can someone please remove the 2x 2nd team All-Pro? He was an 2nd team All-Pro in 2005, but not in 2015, even though Pats fans and others agree that he had such a season. Cam Newton was 1st team and Carson Palmer was 2nd team. Check Scoring Nation, Associated Press and Pro Football Writers of America if you don't believe me. I'm a huge Brady fan, and I want his accolades to be represented correctly. Perezco (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

He was a second-team All-Pro by Pro Football Focus, a selector we used to list but no longer do. I'll remove it. Lizard (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)