Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of Talk:Brett Favre

Contents

Cleanup

I removed the following from the Green Bay section of the article: "Favre's first pass completion was notorious for being the only NFL pass in which the same man was the passer and reciever. The ball was deflected by another player's helmet and bounced directly back to Favre."

1. This sentence was in middle of discussion of his poor play during the September 20, 1992 Cincinnati game. This actually took place the week before against Tampa Bay. 2. This is a nice trivia answer, but not the first or only time this has happened as the sentence contends.


Ridiculous

"Going around a bend a few tenths of a mile from his parents' house, Favre was going quite a bit over the speed limit when his car went out of control." That sounds so lavished. I was around when that happened, everybody knew - and before he became "the legend" - would easily agree that he was drunk with his brother at the time of that accident. Can I prove it? of course not, only him and a couple people at most would ever know that, but could it be true?...... this somewhats explains why I protest wikipedia's original research policy. Either way I don't feel that what is written is NPOV with the line "Favre was going quite a bit over the speed limit" and will remove, or re-write it and likely due to it and its nature - the entire section, if it is not fixed. Mithotyn 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace

Is favre from Kiln? espn says his hometown is Hattiesburg. Tkessler 03:40, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

fixed the problem. According to his official website and ESPN.com, it is "Born: October 10, 1969, Gulfport, MS" --Anonymous Cow 04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression Bret Favre was a woman who fought to reform sexist traditions within the English government. Am I wrong?

Yes. Capitalistroadster 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The article stated that the population of Kiln was 50. A local resident stated that it was incorrect. Our article on the town stated that its population was approximately 2,000. Please don't restore the population as 50 given that the source is the 2000 census. Capitalistroadster 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

whaaat???

i think this should also mention that he has been with his wife since the age of 14 - according to his book

Actual birthplace is Gulfport, MS, per Packers.com and many other sites. As of today it has been changed to Kiln for some reason.

Irvin Favre merged here

Its AFD debate agreed to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was his off field troubles detail removed?

I'm a Favre fan, but I think removing that info glosses over the truth. AdamWeeden

I originally added more information about the painkiller addiction two years ago, and have, for lack of a better term, 'put it back'. I believe it belongs in the article, and I believe it belongs in the 'Green Bay' section as something that happened during his time in Green Bay. Skybunny 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's just make sure the same revisionist who was removing the info doesn't do it again.

For your information I am the "revisionist" who removed that...I think it needed a better title...It was originally in its own section but if it's in the green bay section, that should be fine. Sorry about that...I have been one of the main people working on this article from week to week, and I personally didn't think it belonged in its own section.

Understandable. I just don't think simply removing it was the solution. AdamWeeden


Why does the article ignore the fact that Favre was a great QB in the 90s and has been a mediocre QB (at best) in the 2000s?

The overall tone seems like it's written by Favre's publicist. All of his 2000 playoff appearances (and isn't the playoffs what really matters - and his 90s playoff results made him a great hall of famer) involved embarrassing performances. 6 picks vs. the Rams including 3 returned for TDs. 4 picks vs. the Vikings including an incredibly embarrassing one. The game losing pick vs. Philly in OT. All of these poor performances plus leading the league in '05 in ints/passing attempt can not simply be blamed on supporting cast. He may have put up a lot of hollow #s in the 2000s but he hasn't been among the top 5 QBs in a long time.70.16.144.86 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Your opinion. A rather silly opinion in any case. Isn't it an accomplishment just to make it to the playoffs?
2. Why write an article attempting to smear an otherwise great career?
So the article should ignore Favre's less than impressive (to be generous) performance in the past several seasons (including, IIRC being statistically the worst starting quarterback in the NFL last year) because he had an outstanding career in the previous decade? The only one "smearing" Favre's career is Favre, because he either can't or won't accept that it's time to retire. If his career has gone to crap in the last few years (which it has), the article shouldn't sugarcoat it. 71.203.209.0 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
perhaps you should go here http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=FAVREBRE01 And notice that his QB rating in the 00's have been 78, 94, 85, 90, 92, and 70. He's thrown for over 3000 yards in every one of those seasons, 20 or more TDs in every one of those seasons, and has thrown 20 INT's in 2 of those seasons. That's pretty consistent with his numbers in the 90's when he was so much better (according to you).
Plus, Marino never won a Super Bowl. Why doesn't his article make this the main focus? Isn't the Super Bowl what matters? --King Bee 18:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Favre is actually the second winnist QB in the 2000's. and 2nd in passing yards! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDM32 (talk • contribs) .

People are stupid. Do your research before flouting your ignorance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.54.114 (talk • contribs)

Some people is this discussion need to read the POLICY Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Great and mediocre are someone's point of view because they are relative terms created by someone's subjective opinion. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a chatroom. Present the reader with the facts, and let them come to their own conclusion. Royalbroil T : C 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

?????????

WHY did "A new kind of quarterback get removed??????" Who did that? I wrote that and that was a key part in this article! Whoever did that, put it back, and I will write the criticism part of the article since so many people want it. But return it PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-The Revisionist

Uh, Okay

I don't understand why adding the line "widely considered to be one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL" is considered POV when it's near statistical fact. Please, if Joe Montana can have that in his article, I don't see why Favre can't. Until someone points out a reason not to, I'm putting it back.

I've removed it. Review the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. A well written article shouldn't need to have such a biased statement in it to make an assertion that Favre is one of the all-time best QB's in the NFL. This is a conclusion readers MIGHT possibly come to based on the FACTS in the article. Regarding the "citation" that was included supporting this statement, it was equally unsuitable, because it didn't offer any source for the claim. A valid source would be a cited quote from a noted expert or analyst on the topic. ---Jackel 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Events

I renamed this section "family tragedies." Having a section named "Recent..." isn't a good idea since as time passes, its "recency" wanes. If someone wants to come up with a different heading name, feel free. mtz206 05:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Sounds good to me.

Another question

Why no mention of his cameo in There's Something About Mary?Swatson1978 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I'm not very technical, but I think this article could use a picture or two of Favre.

Agreed, but the problem is we have to find one that has no copyright issues associated with it. The picture would need to be public domain, or used with permission. Numerous pictures have been added to the article, but all have been removed for not meeting these standards. AdamWeeden 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the Peyton Manning article uses a Sports Illustrated cover image, which apparently qualifies as fair use (see note in the image's page). --mtz206 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually pretty sure that using an SI article image like this is not fair use. Looking at the article Wikipedia: Fair use, in the 'What is not fair use' section, I see, as an example:
An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Honus Wagner article.
Now, what's interesting about this is, if someone wanted to create an article section or short summary devoted to the December 16, 1996 SI article - in the greater context of Brett Favre - we could probably legimately use this image in that section of the article. But just by itself, it sounds like we can't, and certainly not as the infobox image. I've been looking pretty hard for Favre images myself, and this is not an easy hunt.
I don't suppose anyone's tried writing Brett Favre('s agent) to ask for a GFDL-able image. Skybunny 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Before posting magazine cover images, please see this discussion regarding whether such use is acceptable under the copyright of the magazine (my understanding is that it is not). --mtz206 00:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the magazine cover image as copyvio, see the autograph in the magazine, Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jaranda's removal of the magazine cover as not legitimate copyright use. I will leave a message on Microphon200's user page shortly asking that it not be put back again, because I don't want to start an edit war and this page has already been reverted twice for this reason. I have asked Microphon200 to explain his rationale here. Skybunny 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 Season

I changed:

"Brett Favre had an average season with over 3,000 yards for a record fourteenth consecutive time, but he also led the league in interceptions with one shy of 30."

to

"Brett Favre had a below average season with over 3,000 yards for a record fourteenth consecutive time, however he only threw 20 touchdown passes and led the NFL with 29 interceptions. This gave him a passer rating of 70.9, 31st in the NFL."

Since it struck me as fairly POV to describe his 2005 season as "average", in a section discussing all the problems Green Bay had during the season as opposed to Favre's own poor stats, which are ignored. Barnas 17:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to add something about him having the WORST offensive line in the league and his best RB and WR out for the season. God would have thrown 29 interceptions on that team.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDM32 (talk • contribs) .

Consecutive-game streak

How many seasons has Brett started every single game? The first section in the article mentions that Brett started "every single game played by his team for nearly sixteen straight seasons". But the Records section mentions that Brett "started every game his team has played over the past 14-season period." Clearly, only one of these two statements is true. Considering that his streak started on September 27th, 1992 and that it is now 2006, I'm more inclined to believe that the latter statement is the correct one. Am I mistaken? Brett Favre has started 241 consecutive games, including 20 in the playoffs!

Favre Returns for 2006

It's pretty much official. [1] Cheesehead Fan 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Brett Favre will return for his 16th and final season as the Green Bay Packers quarterback.

order of stuff

I moved the info on Irvin Favre's death from college stuff to family tragedies. It seemed out of place to be talking about Favre's death in the section where Favre was in college... even though he suffered the attack in the same place where Brett had his accident. --Splent 06:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Last Name

I've always wondered why his name is pronouced "Farv" even though it is written "Favre"... Even with my (extremely limited) knowledge of French, I don't understand why "v-r-e" is pronounced "r-v". [I'm not debating the pronunciation, just curious about why...] - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply because he doesn't know how to pronounce his own name. It should be Fav-re.

Kiln

The line that states that the Kiln does not have any paved roads or stoplights is incorrect. There are a couple of stoplights here and the roads are most definitely paid. In fact, the main road through the town is a state highway.

The roads in the Kiln are "paved" ... sorry for the misspelling earlier.

Enough arguing about anything

If something doesn't relate directly to making the article better, please don't argue anymore...this is getting ridiculous, as I have stopped myself from responding again.

The accident

I changed the part of the article where it was describing how his car lost control, as it was quite vague...though that is how I originally wrote it :)

Pictures?

I've personally written about 1/2 of this article...can someone add pictures, because i've been busy with several other articles I've been working on...Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwslassls (talk • contribs) Bold text

Consecutive starts, not just games played

I cleaned up the Consecutive Starts section, but I have issues with the other examples provided. The MLB, CFL and NBA counter-examples all deal with consecutive games played, but not necessary consecutive games started. There is a difference. AC Green, for example, might have just came off the bench for 2 minutes or something. I added a caveat in the article noting this. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"media protection" section

This section appears biased in tone, particularly the bit about him "only" winning one Superbowl title somehow being a shortcoming. However, it's biggest weakness right now is lack of cited sources to support the assertion that he is getting the "Dimaggio treatment". Since the basis for this lies in media accounts, it should be supported with them. ---Jackel 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the WP biography tag, above, material like this must be removed from the article, which I have done. If someone wants to provide primary sourced material with these assertions (e.g., not something someone said on a forum), they would be valid additions to the article. Skybunny 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, stuff like that should never be added again. It's biased even with media accounts. Keep it NPOV. --Aviper2k7 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's clearly true that some sectors of the media are biased towards Favre- see also Peter King. The real question is whether that's notable for an encyclopedia article on Brett Favre, and I don't think it is. Barnas 01:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Interceptions

Why are career/playoff interceptions included with his "records and milestones"? Interceptions are not usually regarded as good things! I mean, it might be noteworthy, I don't know... but to include that he's closing in on the most interceptions thrown with the same group as most TD passes, most wins, most completions, etc. seems a bit out of place. 134.48.148.174 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All of his records he holds are notable for this entry, not just the "good" ones. ---Jackel 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. But like I was saying, it seems a bit of place to group them as such; as in only pure statisticians and people with a morbid dislike of Favre would care that he's "closing in" on the interceptions record. Maybe a regrouping or rewording would be better? Also, I would like to note, that the article on George Blanda -- who actually _has_ the interceptions record -- doesn't have that "honor" mentioned with all the rest of his records. 134.48.5.69 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying only statisticians or those with an unhealthy love of Brett Farve would care that he's closing in the most games by a QB...Just being in the top 5 in a certain "all-time" list is noteworthy and suitable for inclusion with any of his other records--good or bad. ---Jackel 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add the Blanda record to his page, I'm surprised it's not mentioned there. I say keep it in, because it does show that Favre throws a lot of interceptions. I mean, Favre even joked about that being the record he wanted to break.--Aviper2k7 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

reverted edit

I don't know how to contact "Jackel" user but unclear why my edit to records and milestones was undone. (My format isn't always great but) the factoid was proper and a key one, that Favre is 1st in career average for points per game (merely 6*(TD pass+TD rush)/total games). QB stats based on averages are highly useful, as career lengths differ but avgs get to the heart of the bottom line for scoring, yardage, interception ratio etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billymac00 (talk • contribs)

I don't know the situation, but this sounds like a citation problem. I do know that you need to make sure that you use a citation from a reputable source if you are not. Make sure that you are not the one doing the calculation, because that is Original Research. I'm sorry in advance if my comments are incorrect. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Check the entry history again, I think you have me confused with "User 4.245.122.33", who removed the stat you had added. My latest edit was to remove the unverifiable, POV statement that Brett Favre was widely regarded as one of the greatest QB of all time. I have no problem with your edit, feel free to add it back. ---Jackel 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Playboy article

I've included the link to the Playboy article that criticized Favre as the worst player in professional football. The last time I added it someone deleted it as "vandalism" but it is a legitimate, sourced criticism from a well-known publication. Please do not delete it. There are plenty of accoldaes for Favre on the page. It's only fair to include some criticisms.

The article is ridiculous. It's not credible and is by who now? Playboy.com? Criticism (if even included at all) should be by reliable sources and by credible columnists. See WP:POV also. It's ridiculous to say he is the "worst player in pro football". If he was the worst player in pro fooball he wouldn't be starting. If Favre is the worst player, than what is Rex Grossman? This is just a writing of a disgruntled bears fan. It's not even an article. It's a two paragraph rant on Brett Favre. Very non-encyclopedic. It's playboy.com for crying out loud! Please see WP:SOURCE as it is in violation of "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources."--aviper2k7 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the cited inclusion of the Playboy article is a violation of any Wikipedia policy. The article's author is Allen Barra, aside from the Playboy article, is a sports columnist for the Wall Street Journal and Salon.com, both of which are credible from a journalistic standpoint. I think your bias is showing ---Jackel 02:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of funny you have to go to playboy.com to find an article about Favre being the "worst player in pro football".--aviper2k7 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've readded the article. Do not delete it again.
Careful. While the article may not represent a questionable resource, that comment comes very close to wp:POINT. I don't see a problem with including the reference - makes sense - but you need to cite the true content. He wasn't criticized as the worst player, period, he was listed as a Hall of Famer who they recommended retire. CMacMillan 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a silly article and such articles would cheapen Wikipedia's value if they were included.">jabbathenut 04:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Byrne, not Playboy

If you read the reference, its not Playboy.com that calls him the worst, but rather Kerry J. Byrne of Cold Hard Football Facts who calls him such. Playboy is just reporting on what Byrne says. So, the question is whether Byrne's opinion in notable or reliable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to make the same point! I abstain. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Byrne's opinion is not notable, because it is clearly a libellous dig at an NFL quarterback. Someone who is the worst player in pro football does not get to keep starting at quarterback for an NFL franchise. --King Bee 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It clear that this article was reflecting specifically on Favre's dismal performance in the preceeding 2005 season, not his career at large. As such, the quote could be added to the 2005 section, and used to characterize the sports media's reaction, perhaps along these lines: "His passer rating was 70.9, 31st in the NFL and the worst single season rating of his career, fueling speculation that Favre would retire. Sportswriter Allen Barra quoted Kerry J. Byrne of Cold Hard Football Facts, calling Farve "the worst player in the NFL" <citation>. As ZimZalaBim pointed out, the citation doesn't accurately reflect "Playboy.com's" analysis. Would this be agreeable to the pro-Favre and anti-Fave pundits? ---Jackel 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
FTFA:
"And eight times last year the Green Bay Packers, with Favre at quarterback, had the ball within the last four minutes of the game, trailing by a touchdown or less. They lost all eight games."
I'm just not entirely sure how that reflects only on Favre, and not the dilapidated Packers organization as a whole. I do not find the article notable, and it is nothing more than the incendiary ravings of a man who is a self-proclaimed "angry troll." I found this on the Cold, Hard, Football Facts website:
"Kerry holds the esteemed title of Chief Angry Troll."
The website for which he writes calls him a troll! I don't see how his opinions are thus notable or if he is even a credible source that should be cited on Wikipedia. Hence, the quote stays out of the article. --King Bee 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with King Bee. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the posted bio of the author of these comments, I agree that his credentials of "food writer" and "beer column writer" are not a valid basis for sourcing his analysis of Brett Favre. Keep this out. ---Jackel 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this out. This is not the place for angry trolls like the author. I am concerned about the libelness of adding POV statements like his. Let's end this edit war now! Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Let's get some citations in here. If you're not familiar with the proper markup, just add a link like you normally would. Someone (probably me, but not if someone beats me to it) will format it for you properly. Let's make this article the best we can! --King Bee 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Strahan

"Players and fans from around the league were highly critical of the play. Mike Freeman of the New York Times wrote: "Yes, Mr. Favre, Strahan deserves the record, but please, handing it to him the way you did, as if you were throwing change into a Salvation Army bucket, is the kind of mistake Favre may never live down".[" id just like to point out that what he did was out of the goodness of his heart. its all ok if you want to find something wrong with what he did, but seeing as the game was nearly over and the packers were sure to win (i say that lightly), this was strahans last chance of getting the record. im sure strahan appreciates as well and theres no need to ruin it by saying he didnt earn it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.163.68 (talk • contribs)

Something's wrong with this page

From the subheading "Controversy caused by Michael Irvin's comments" and beyond, pressing the edit button gives you the edit page of the section below the section you are trying to edit. Try it and it may be more clear. Can anyone fix this? P.S. If you need to message me about this comment, please do it at User talk:Twipie. 74.129.124.40 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)