Talk:New England Patriots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New England Patriots article.
Article policies
Former featured article New England Patriots is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2006.
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] The GM Thing

For future reference, it should be noted that the team has no General Manager. Scott Pioli is the VP of Player Personnel, and Belichick is the Head Coach. Pioli's job desription from Patriots.com is this "As vice president of player personnel, Pioli's responsibilities include overseeing the college draft and free agency, as well as serving as the Patriots' primary contract negotiator. Since he arrived in New England, he has shown a propensity for finding veteran free agents who can contribute and play important roles in building playoff-contending teams."

Personally, I think we shouldn't use the term GM, and instead have Scott Pioli listed as Personnel Director WhiteKongMan 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Though the team doesn't have a formal General Manager position, it is Belichick who fits the description best, not Pioli.

"After significant input from Pioli -- who also manages the cap and negotiates contracts -- Belichick has final say." (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/nunyo_demasio/01/12/patriots/index.html?section=si_latest)

1. Belichick has final say over contract, personnel, and draft decisions.
2. Belichick is paid the salary of a coach and general manager.
3. Pioli is a deputy to Belichick.

Samopolis 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to believe the Patriots website rather than than an SI article. Also, if you think about why was Pioli awarded the Executive of the year award twice if he were only the assistant. It would be like giving an Oscar for Best Director to the Director of Cinematography.199.94.73.221 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Heres a direct quote from Belichick hiring Pioli from the book patriot reign. "I can't do Scott's job, and he can't do mine. We work perfectly together" This quote seems to go with the idea that Pioli is more in charge of personnel, but wut should i know, i only interned with the teamMrscottjackson 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Patriots website doesn't say Scott Pioli is general manager, it only describes what he does. The SI article doesn't say Belichick is the general manager, but it illustrates the FACT that he has final authority over contract, personnel, and draft decisions (the Patriots will confirm this). I've also read Michael Holley's book 'Patriot Reign' and the only thing that quote says is that they have different jobs. In fact, the book later on specifies that Belichick is the one in charge, even if he allows Pioli autonomy and a good share of the credit.

My original point stands: the best approximation to GM for the Patriots is Bill Belichick. 24.23.148.53 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the League has said that Belichick is the de facto general manager when they gave him such a high fine over spygate. They said that levying such a unprecedented fine was because his actions reflected his position as both coach and general manager — 71.192.65.23 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Jefferson

I always enjoyed watching him play, but is he really a notable alumni?

[edit] Logos

Is it legal for us to include these logos? They are copyrighted, is it acceptable for us to put them here? -- Zoe

I think as long as its not generating any profit, its ok.

Probably covered under Fair Use. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from the Patriots official website:

Q. May I download images or graphics for use on my own web site? A. Patriots.com encourages fans to create their own personal sites about the Patriots. You may download graphics and images from this site for personal, non-commercial use. If your site, however, is commercial in any way, use of Patriots images, graphics, or logos is expressly forbidden.

--Max2400 (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That is non-commercial use policy, which is only specific to Patriots.com photos and graphics. This is a broader discussion on organization logos in general, which are almost always accepted on Wikipedia as long as they come with an appropriate fair use rationale. Pats1 T/C 02:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Action Required

Someone with a license pls get rid of the last sentence about the patenting of 'that 19-0 thing'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.45.175 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Event Tag

I'm a huge fan of the Pats and I love to see them get coverage, but the current events tag doesn't belong on this article. As described on Template talk:Current:

The tag was created for two reasons:
  • So that users would know that the article was undergoing major revisions as events were happening.
  • So that editors would know the same so that they could keep that in mind if/when they decided to add to or edit the article.
It was originally designed for short-term use as a warning for editors and readers if an event was occurring right that very second (or very, very recently).

The information on this article isn't changing rapidly and there doesn't seem to be a problem with edit conflicts. However, if someone wanted to put the tag back up for Super Bowl Sunday only, I don't think that would be a problem. Carrp 14:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My favorite NFL team! Patricknoddy 17:28 February 7, 2005 (EST)

[edit] Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tedy Bruschi's status

FWIW, it is correct that Tedy Bruschi has stated that he plans to sit out the 2005 season. That said, his current status--PUP, or Physically Unable to Perform--allows him to come back midway through the season. stismail

Which he did. See [Tedy Bruschi Activated of Injured Reserve]jfg284

[edit] Putting the history section into a separate article

Since the history section of this article is getting long, I might split this into a separate article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game by game

The history section of this article is getting ridiculous. We do not need a summary of each game for the 2005 season. --Cholmes75 17:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Patriot a symbol of ineptitude?

I'm not sure if "many saw Pat as a symbol of ineptitude" is an accurate statement. On the day the Flying Elvis was unveiled at the stadium, the fans cheered for Pat and booed Elvis. --MrBawn 13:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the one that put that in there. I stand by that, by 1992 when it was retired in game use, "Pat Patriot" to many had become a symbol of ineptitude - just like Tampa Bay's pre-97 "pirate" logo had long been a symbol of embarassment. Of course, that is not to say that people loved the Flying Elvis when it was rolled out - indeed, a lot of people didn't like it and I even read one wag refer to them as "USFL uniforms."--Seadog1611 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest lineman of all time?

John Hannah was a guard, right? This might be reaching, but has anyone ever hear of this obscure LEFT TACKLE named Anthony Munoz???????

[edit] Not To Be Forgotten

I personally like this section and have added to it myself, but in doing so a question occured to me: how do we determine who is "not to be forgotten?" Isn't that a little bit POV by definition?jfg284

sort of POV, i guess, but i guess we just do it by consensus. If someone makes an unreasonable addition, then we take it off. i think it should stay "not to be forgotten" and not changed to Alumni.--Alhutch 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree...the change to "alumni" makes it more POV, in my mind. The teams in its 46th season (right? well, roughly, in any case), so there have been a lot of players who've moved through the system. Will anyone remember Matt Bahr, placekicker of the mid to late 90s? Probably not. Yet it's liklely he'll never be added to a section entitled "alumni." at least "not to be forgotten" makes it clear at the outset that these really were exceptional members of the team. And also, although its a touch POV, you bring up a good point that if someone WERE to add matt bahr with the claim that he was an influential member of the squad that lost to the packers in the super bowl, the consensus would be to take him off. and it's a good section, so i agree it should stay; i was really just wondering how it was that it was justified. jfg284 you were saying? 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How is alumni more POV than "not to be forgotten?" Alumni is a "one who is a former member, employee, contributor" according to Merriam Webster's dictionary [1]. The definition and use of "forgotten" in this situation is very subjective. The list is really notable former players, so reffering to them as alumni, or even "former players" would be more in keeping with WP policy than using "not to be forgotten." Just because most sports pages have "not to be forgotten" doesn't make it right. I will propose a across the board change to those pages which use the terminology. Granted the section itself is POV, as with your point about Matt Bahr, but using subjective words in the heading shouldn't be the answer. For now can we at least agree to "Notable alumni?" That wouldn't change the intent of the list and would better describe it with less opinionated language. In the end its all POV, but at least we will be calling it for what it is. Assawyer 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"In the end its all POV, but at least we will be calling it for what it is."
Exactly why i prefered "not to be forgotten" over "alumni." However, I do like "notable alumni," as it does purport a reason to list them without the name being nearly as POV. I'll support it. jfg284 you were saying? 21:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I will change it, and hopefully people will agree that its more in line with what the subsection is all about. Assawyer 22:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified claims

At 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC), an anonymous IP user added some unverified content about when the team was being owned by James Busch Orthwein. [2] Most of the content has no sources and does not seem to follow a Neutral point of view. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks like another anonymous IP removed some of the questionable, unverified content [3], but not all of it... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Look slike the original anonymous IP user restored the questionable content again [4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 and beyond

This seems to be getting kind of long, especially as a sub-subheader. Do we really need information about individual games (such as the game vs. the colts and the wild-card playoff game)? Perhaps there should be a separate Patriots 2005 season in review article or just remove some of the excess stuff. Gflores Talk 18:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • There has been discussion on this topic, both on this article's rejected FA nomination and a WikiProject discussion. There seems to be consensus that the history should focus more on summaries and high points of the season, but nobody is really willing to start the clean up until February when the season is over. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • to add to that, i think the title should be changed. as the 2005/6 season is over, "2005 and beyond" doesnt seem as appropriate to me. i suggest a 2005 section and then perhaps a "future" section of some kind. i havent put much thought into it, it just occured to me after looking at the last few edits (mostly changes of the title to reflect the "end" of the "dynasty". (Such as "Transition and dethronation - 2005 and beyond" and "End of a Dynasty - 2005")--jfg284 you were saying? 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Altough, is the dynasty really ended yet? It is called a dynasty by most people because they won three out of four NFL Championships. That second year, they didn't even make the playoffs. This year they did (winning their division). So if they happen to win it all next year, it would mean the start of a new dynasty? No, it would be said they won 4 of 6 years. And who knows after that. To say the dynasty is over is still premature. I'd say they still have two more years to win another Championship before we can say for sure the dynasty is really over. And I never called it a dynasty to begin with. 4 years does not establish a "dynasty". Just my thoughts though. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"end of a dynasty" is inappropriate. I agree with Voldemort. We can't see into the future.--Alhutch 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we all have different ideas on what is a dynasty. I feel that one must win the majority of the super bowls over a period of time to be considered a dynasty, with a minimum of two in three years. Right now, they are at three in five years (including this season). In my opinion, they have another shot. This logic seems to stand, so I will rename the section. Deckiller 04:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a few sub-sub-sub headers to help organization, and simply named the seasons "The XXXX season" until we reach an agreement. Deckiller 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I cut "The Patriots later signed receiver Reche Caldwell, cornerback Eric Warfield, safety Tebucky Jones, and kicker Martin Gramatica." Two of the players were cut, one is on IR, and who knows what the 4th will amount to. This was never as significant as listing major players that left the team.

[edit] History section

As per featured article suggestions, I plan on trimming the history section down to about one paragraph per header, and perhaps 2 for the dynasty era. All of the info has been moved to History of the New England Patriots. Deckiller 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed it down somewhat; I'm thinking that this level of information looks pretty good. Once we replace it with beautiful prose (I wrote it in somewhat of a hurry) and cite, we might be ready for feature article or at least good article status. Deckiller 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A suggestion for FA: You should also begin a section on the logo and uniforms too, and how it evolved from the "Pat Patriot" logo to the "Elvis" logo. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like an awesome idea. Deckiller 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the brief section from the history page to get the ball rollong. Deckiller 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I admire your dedication, Deckiller. keep up the good work!--Alhutch 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO MESSING WITH THE ARTICLE!

The name of the team is the "New England Patriots." Also, the name of their mascot is "Pat Patriot." Whoever snuck into the article and messed it up is a vandal. That's vandalism on Wikipedia's watch!

[edit] Information to be added

Several FA voters have said that they object to the FA status of this article unless business-related events are covered in more detail. Therefore, here is a "to-do" list for tonight"

  1. Explain the reason behind stadium shifts of the 1960s
  2. Explain one or two key injuries to the team
  3. Develop on the sexual harrassment case.
  4. Explain the Sullivan issues of the late 1980s and how this led into the new ownerships between Kraft and the saint louis owner.
  5. Explain the saint louis ownership and how Kraft saved the team from a move.
  6. Perhaps another 2-3 sentences on Kraft, Gillette, and maybe coaching changes during the 1960s.
  7. Sellout streak

Deckiller 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Two and a half items to go. Deckiller 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Hey, we did it; we brought this article to FA status. However, there are still some minor fixes and additions to be made so that we satisfy all people who voted; it's only fair. There's always work to be done. Anyway, I'd like to go through a list of people who deserve barnstars and congratulations for their work and criticism: Alakazam, Assawyer, Thethinredline, Spangineer, Monicasdude, Zzyzx11, Gflores, Maclean25, Wayward, anon edits, and anyone else I forgot to mention (I'll try and add as many names as I can once I start digging). Let's keep it up, keep improving and editing, fix any stray objections, and really make this article shine! Deckiller 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current staff section

Just an observation: I noticed that the addition of the "Current staff" section was reverted [5]. I am relatively neutral on that addition, but since that same user added it to the rest of the NFL team articles, the question that popped into my head is: What going to happen when a bunch of anonymous users or newbies are going to come by when the 2006 season is underway and wonder "Why isn't a current staff section on the Pats page (my team's page) like all of the rest of the NFL team articles? ... I might as well add it since no one else has...", and the like. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to list "current staff" since they do play an important role for the football operations of the team, and we have a box for the players. InTheFlesh? 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I removed it is because there was no prior discussion (I want to make sure massive changes are discussed, since it's an FA). I do agree that we should have it. Deckiller 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
HOWEVER, I think we should only add it at the start of training camp; by then, there won't be as many (if any) TBA entries. Deckiller 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Watson

Benjamin Watson is listed as "Benjamin"--his preferred name--on the Pats' roster page. I see no reason why this page should say "Ben". Samer 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WHY is this a featured article??? —This unsigned comment was added by 68.163.144.87 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] General Manager

It is a common misconception that Scott Pioli is the general manager of the Patriots. In fact, he is the Vice President of Player Personnel. Bill Belichick is the general manager with final say over all personnel decisions. I don't have the citations, but a search of Google will show this to be true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.82.112 (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Independence Day

You expect me to believe that the Patriots had their first workout on Independence Day? Give me a break.

Please read the source. — Deckiller 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] America's Team???

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the nickname for the Dallas Cowboys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ychennay (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Media section

To me it seems like a whole host of information that isn't encyclopaedic, and is quasi-advertising. Maybe keep it down to just an external link. I'll remove it, but if anyone objects, this is the place. Thethinredline 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jets Patriots Section

I've added a section on common players between the Jets and Patriots. While this may seem trivial to some, this is a relevant topic due to the coaching changes between the two teams. I know there are more players, I just can't think of them at the time. Please try to add to the list, as I'm sure there are more.

It's way too trivial, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Jaranda wat's sup 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article restoration

Sometime soon, I'm going to do a major cleanup of this article to restore the post-FAC polish. I'm not taking it to FAR though, because it's not that bad and there's already enough to worry about on the FAR backlog. — Deckiller 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with images

A review of the use of images in all Featured Articles is currently ongoing. A few issues have been brought up in regards to this article. Please see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey#Sport and games for a description of the issues. Feel free to address the issues and leave a comment on the survey page. Any questions to me personally can be left on my talk page. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. As an aside, I'm going to place this article on FAR once I'm done with the Woonsocket, Rhode Island FA push; I feel that I need to work on it more to attain "modern" standards, but I really don't have the time right now. — Deckiller 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos and Uniforms Section

Since the entire section on the logos and uniforms is presented on its own separate page, I suggest that all that should be on the main page is the link to the secondary page, a la the strategy section. Or, as a compromise, a more concise logos and uniforms section on the main page. Pats1 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marquise Hill

I added about his death in 2000-present. any comments?--Gingerbreadmann 01:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the 2007 New England Patriots season, since this article is a brief overview of Patriots history. See WP:RECENTISM. Quadzilla99 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the update. but i'm sure someone else will write another thing about him. should there be a link to it somewhere obvious? thanks--Gingerbreadmann 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

I just requested that this article be permanently semi-protected, as alot of anon editors vandalize this page. Black Harry (T|C) 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We were denied b/c the Admin didn't find enough evidence, If this keeps up I'll reapply. Black Harry 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
IMO, as an admin myself, less than 10 vandal edits per day is not enough for page protection. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay I didn't realize what the rule of thumb was for page protecting. Not sure what IMO means though. Black Harry 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"In My Opinion..." Pats1 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The general rule of thumb is a high-rate of vandalism from multiple users and IP addresses. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested page protection again, since most, if not all, edits by IP users are vandalism. Its highly disruptive to have to revert changes made by vandals. BH (T|C) 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected for two weeks. BH (T|C) 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] the cheating thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/sports/football/11patriots.html?em&ex=1189656000&en=d15e95c2c5789f60&ei=5087%0A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's entertaining that an issue where a first round draft pick was taken away from a team, and also a united states sentator became involved is not mentioned, or even referenced at all. There should definately be at least a link to the spygate article in the "see also" section. Rtconner (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, links contained within team templates at the bottom of the article aren't included in the "See also" section. Pats1 T/C 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Videotape Incident Reference Copyright Violation

The paragraph listed in 2000-Present which mentions the videotape incident is directly copied from Chris Mortenson's article on ESPN.com:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677. This should be rewritten --Cdman882 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

well something should go in there...i mean its a pretty significant right? this will be remember for a long time...you cant just ignore it and pretend its not a big deal. i mean now everyone who already didnt like the pats has fuel for fire. Robkehr 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone can go ahead and add info on the incident if they wish. But this time it shouldn't be copied and pasted directly from another source. Sasha Callahan 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the Broncos once lost a draft pick for salary cap violations, and the Steelers lost one for illegal off-season workouts. Neither event is mentioned in the respective articles. So I'm not sure this really needs to be added. I also think people should review WP:RECENT. Sasha Callahan 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this is currently a featured article, I suggest any addition be brief as possible and more details should be added to History of the New England Patriots and 2007 New England Patriots season. See WP:WIAFA and WP:RECENT for more information. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


ill add the info to the steelers page concerning their 1978 minicamp violation where they wore...pads... im unaware of a broncos salary cap violation, but that happens alot so i wouldnt be surprised. Robkehr 05:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Broncos lost two third round picks for going over the cap to keep Elway, and ended winning the Super Bowl they year they broke the cap. Sasha Callahan 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the videotaping was found to have no effect on the outcome of the game 72.79.230.52 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Anonymous. This is speculative and should not be included.

I think it should be noted that they had to break the rules in order to stop the last place Lions:http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_6910464.

[edit] Year of Inception

The New England Patriots began in 1959, not 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.57.237 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section title at 2007 New England Patriots season

Over at 2007 New England Patriots season there is some disagreement over the title of the section describing the signal videotaping incident during the Jets game. One option is "Illegal Videotaping Incident" while another option is "Signal Videotaping Incident". In my opinion, "signal" is a better and more descriptive term than "illegal" as it conveys more information. I think any discussion of legality belongs in the section's text, not the title. Thoughts? Chaz Beckett 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for adding the link: 2007 New England Patriots season

Smart. Is this standard operating procedure for other sports teams? It absolutely should be. --146.115.115.184 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kickoff return leaders

I am trying to understand why Jon Vaughn was not credited as being one of the kickoff return leaders in his best years. Please see the last paragraph in his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 04:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved at Talk:National_Football_League#Kickoff_return_leaders.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dynasty statement

This sentence in the lead: "Their recent success has prompted many to dub the team as a modern NFL dynasty." is a weasel statement, not that I disagree. Anyone have a suggestion to replace it with, maybe a good quote from a sportswriter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrac (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's some good quotes in this article, written after the Pats won their 3rd title. Chaz Beckett 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, what do you think of replacing it with this: As Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy wrote after the Super Bowl XXXIX win: "And the New England Patriots of the 21st century are established as an NFL dynasty on a par with the Packers of the 1960s, the Steelers of the '70s, the 49ers of the '80s, and the Cowboys of the '90s." Vrac (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End Zone Militia

ESPN named it as one of the top ten celebrations of 2007, not the top one...it was clearly stated that the list was in no particular order. Fix it.

This appears to have been fixed as of 12/27/07. ΨνPsinu 16:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of history section

Hi all: This is the first time I've read over this article, which is actually quite excellent. However, the timeline organization of the history seemed a bit incoherent when I read it over. (The "breakpoints" of 1994 and 2001 seem to be especially key, but were lost in the old timeline.) I have attempted to give it better logical flow by moving the dates around a bit and giving them titles. Feel free to alter to better versions if you think it works better (not that I could prevent it :) ).

Also, despite the objections some might have to the somewhat negative inclusion, I thought it necessary to include the stuff on the nickname "The Patsies" in the early '70s section. I grew up in MA in that time, and the Patriots WERE The Patsies to those of us who suffered through those years. I think it's a real part of their history that current fans of the Patriots might not fully understand...

Thanks, ΨνPsinu 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again... I'd like for someone other than Pats1 to look at the changes I made... they were reverted pretty much in full, and while some of them I'm OK with, most are kind of (thinking of a word) Machiavellian (?). Thanks... ΨνPsinu 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you go point-by-point? Pats1 T/C 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If I have to... you mean each change? (I may have to generalize on some of the timeline stuff.) Thanks, ΨνPsinu 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Not each change, just where you disagree. Pats1 T/C 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of history section - edit rationale (see above)

Let's start out with a point of introduction... I went to my first Patriots game in 1968 - we had cars back then, honest - and have been a fan ever since (grew up in Peabody, MA, and even still pronounce "Peabody" with the correct North Shore intonation). While I love the current Pats, and they're only one step below in my Hierarchy of Life Obsessions than my religion (which, of course, is the Boston Red Sox as worshipped at the Temple of Fenway Park), I sense somewhat of a lack of historical (pre-2001) perspective in this page. (Still damn good, at least post-2001, though.)

I'm going to sort of do this quickly (note added later by me: ha - like a New England sports fan can do anything in a non-obsessive manner) and at the highest level. Stuff not mentioned here is detail I'll get into later (if I get a reasonable discussion here) or stuff I'm neither here nor there about the reversion (e.g., 12th Player Award - this should be somewhere, but perhaps not on the "main" Pats page).

  • Moving the paragraph beginning "The team's on-field performance and attendance improved drastically over the decade...." under "1997-2000" to Intro, or earlier in history. (Note - it appears that the correct header for 2000-present is missing; this is the heading under which it was originally placed.) Doesn't make a lot of sense at end of "present history", as it really pertains to stuff that began in 1994-1996 and is not really well placed as the most current historical reference (i.e., at the end of xxxx-present). Also see rationale for a "1994-1997 or 1994-2000" section below under "History evoluton".
  • History evolution I've tried to do this by significant breakpoints. There are three that IMHO I consider indisputable:
    • 1969 move to the NFL
    • 1994 purchase by Kraft
    • 2001: Brady goes in for Bledsoe
These are all massive turning points in the history of the team, at least temporally. (For example, Brady being the "cause" of the post-2001 success is arguable, but that moment is indelibly when "it all changed")


I'd add these as other intermediate important points of change:
    • 1976: Pats finally have a stellar season and make the playoffs - no longer pure laughingstocks (see "The Patsies" below)
    • 1985: Pats finally achieve national "legitimacy" by making the Super Bowl (then promptly almost blow it by getting mauled by the Bears)
    • 1997: Pats move out of Parcells-Kraft bickering stage and begin ascent to the dynasty

Thus, I reorganized the history along those lines. You'd have to look at my primary reorg edit as a standalone page to get a sense of how I did it, since it was, erm, rather ham-handedly reverted and I don't wish to get into reversion wars by trying to bring it back.

  • Titles on time periods Small point, but I think it helps make it look a lot clearer and more logical (and for anyone that cares, professional), but that's just my opinion. I'm not asserting they are necessarily the right titles, but they're not POV by any stretch (I mean, read 'em - they're supposed to reflect the historical basis).
  • References to "The Patsies". ||begin rant'|| Come on now. Find me a real Pats fan over 40 that doesn't remember when that was the name you called them. Someone out there will hear a "click" in their brain when I just mention the three names "Eddie, Mark, and Jim". If you heard that click, you probably STILL slip and call them the Patsies, even to this day. (How is there NO WP page on "The Sports Huddle, anyway?") ||end rant||
In any case, regardless of any hackles it raises in newbie Pats fans, it's a real part of their history, and should be represented. (Also, my seconds on the reference somewhere above to the comment on the old Pats' logo being a symbol of incompetence - it really was, folks, although it's still way better than RoboPat.) This change is the one to which I'm referring.

OK, OK, I'm done. There were some other minor changes, but whatever. Hope this gets a little more serious consideration this time around. Thanks, ΨνPsinu 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

    • And my last words in response, promise... can we hear from others? ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's how I see things:

  • The paragraph about the post-1994(?) sellouts is too specific an information nugget to be in the intro/lead paragraph. Its general point certainly is acceptable there, but with the paragraph before it and after it (XXXI and then XXXVI-XXIX), it would be redundant. Pats1 T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • To be clear (which I wasn't), I don't disagree with the contention that it doesn't belong in the intro - that's a style call. I do think at the very end of team history is inappropriate. I'll let others think and offer a change later. ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The 1985-92 and 93-96 and 97-99 cutoffs are simply by coaching changes. As you certainly know, there's a considerable difference between 1992/MacPherson and 1993/Parcells/Bledsoe. While Kraft didn't officially own the team until 1994, the real Kraft/Parcells/Bledsoe era began in 1993. As far as 2000 vs. 2001 is concerned, there was again a huge difference in 1999/Carroll/Grier and 2000/Belichick/Pioli. And of course Brady was drafted in 2000, and Belichick stripped the team to skin and bones for the 2000 season before building it back up for 2001. So it wasn't like the moment Mo Lewis destroyed Bledsoe and Brady came in the era began. Pats1 T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere between just the two of us. While I disagree with your catergorization, we can't really compare them dispassionately. Yours and mine are on two completely different bases. Yours is on coaching breakpoints and things that are more well-known amongst a smaller group of real team fans; mine was an attempt to bring it more into line with f"casual fan"/public perception of the team (and its "big moments"). There are arguments for and against either. Let's see what others have to say. ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Heading/Era designations are considered to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR per a recent discussion on Talk:Miami Dolphins. Things like "first decade" are fine, but just restate the obvious. "A decade of instability" or "Patsies" is much more objective and place a label on an era that isn't a fact/truth like the years themselves are. As far as the "Patsies" things goes, feel free to add something neutral back that is well-sourced, but remember any fans of any two sports teams will always find a way to poke fun at the other, whether it be Doophins, Jest, Criminals, Cocaines, etc. Pats1 T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (laughing a bit) OK, I guess I'm not gonna win this one either. If we can't call a decade when team management, future certainty, etc. was very unstable "a decade of instability", maybe we've got too many rules. (No dig on you personally there, more on the WP multiplicity-of-rules stranglehold that prevents any reasonable attempt to "be bold in editing". It's a bit of a farce for them to state that the way WP has evolved, not that I'm bitter that I spent a bunch of time on this.) ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • On "Patsies", yeah, I'll get a source and put it in appropriately. That's probably the right call. Maybe I can include the helmet "image" issue as well. ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I've now done this. I also added mention of Sam "Bam" Cunningham, who was probably the most popular player of the early '70s (Hannah was probably the best in historical retrospect, but less visible in his time than a running back). ΨνPsinu 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The 12th player award is notable enough for inclusion in player and season articles (i.e. Wes Welker and 2007 New England Patriots season), but it's not notable and important enough for the main season article. Pats1 T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I just thought (still think) the information is too good to just throw away. Is there a place to put it that's linked to the Pats but not the Pats main page? I can definitely imagine wanting to look up that list. ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • External links may be a good idea. Pats1 T/C 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done now (crowd goes wild), but others please chime in. My overall message is that I still think this could use some reorganization to be a little more (coherent?) (cohesive?) (something). But with the couple of exceptions above, I'll leave it as it. Thanks...

P.S. Love the Pats 1 sig colors, BTW. ΨνPsinu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- Go Pats! Pats1 T/C 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see people willing to work on this featured article after I went on to pursue other projects. With a separate page for history, balance in the history section can become a large topic of debate. Initially, the 2001-present section was half this size, so the early history seemed well balanced (details went to the subarticle). — Deckiller 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Uniforms

They don't wear them too often, but shouldn't their red (throwback) uniforms be shown on the page? Moose Sheriff (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They wore them once in 2002 for Thanksgiving. They're not an alternate. Pats1 T/C 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tightening up the History section

We have the daughter article, why not use it? Per summary style, it is generally a good idea to substantially shorten the main article once the daughter article is created. This History section is NOT substantially shorter than the article that has been split off. That article also lacks a WP:LEAD. I propose we create a short 3-5 paragraph summary of the teams history (one section, not broken down like now, but 1 section, 3-5 paragraphs) and use that text for both the lead at the History article AND for the entire History section here. This article is already huge, and we should use the daughter articles for what they are intended... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; this article has become somewhat bloated since the FA push. — Deckiller 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Pats1, you take good care of all of these Patriots articles. What think you? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the history section was shortened before when the separate article was created, but I agree that it is still too long and in many ways mirrors the other article. Pats1 T/C 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will get on it then. Look for my spiffy new version in about 15-30 minutes or so. If it looks good, we can port it over to the history article as its (now nonexistent) lead section. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Did it. What do you all think? Tweak as necessary, but I think I hit all of the high points without going into any deep detail. Such details can be left for the History article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good at a quick glance. There's still a bit of work to be done to update this FA, and I only wish I had the time to invest in it again. — Deckiller 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Can we get an established editor to revert the vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.5.221 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What vandalism? Burner0718(Jibba Jabba!) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You have two. BTW, what vandalism? RC-0722 communicator/kills 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Patriots" script logo

Can anyone upload the Patriots script logo? --Howard the Duck 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl Loss

The recent Super Bowl loss is a highly significant event in the history of the Patriots franchise. The opening section discusses the "dynasty" status of the Patriots, but hardly mentions the effect of the recent loss. This page has featured status for fair and proper discussion of important Patriots facts. However, the page now feels unbalanced and biased due to its brief and perfunctory coverage of this highly significant loss. It is beginning to feel like a protected fan page, as opposed to a balanced and factual discussion of important facts relating to the Patriots. Obviously the page should be protected from vandalism by Giants fans, but this page needs to acknowledge that the Patriots lost a game that many football experts are calling one of the greatest upsets of all time. 137.159.153.35 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)DLOMME 02/06/08

Yup. RC-0722 communicator/kills 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taunting Disguised as Factual Information

Looking through the history of edits since the Super Bowl, a lot of information that's being added (and much of it since deleted) may be true, but the inclusion of it into the article seems more like a subtle attempt at taunting. Is it really relevant that the Patriots are the first 18-1 team NOT to win the Super Bowl? Who cares? And believe me, I'm no Patriots fan (they've been a thorn in my team's side since last season's playoffs), but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a fan forum. This page should be locked from any further edits for awhile, unless something TRULY relevant to the Patriots should suddenly occur. ChargersFan (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, protection is not something to be taken lightly. Being an admin (and even though I am a die-hard Pats fan myself), the level of problematic edits to this article, while high, is not so bad that we haven't been able to keep up with it by rollbacks and undos. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

I've nominated the article for Featured Article review since a lot of the content that was there when it was nominated has now been moved elsewhere. AlexJ (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This article is starting to get vandilized again. If it were up to me I would make it temporarly semiprotected. I wonder why vandilism is returning to it. Get over it people, the superbowl's over!!!Excitinginterception7 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to request semi-protection? RC-0722 communicator/kills 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias??

The Franchise history section seems to be a little biased against the Patriots. Whenever a Superbowl loss is mentioned, the opposing team and score are given. When it gets to the part about the Patriots winning Superbowls not only are the teams/scores not given, but it doesn't even say that they won them. ie: "Under Belichick, the team went to three Super Bowls in four years..." It should be consistant one way or the other.

The sentence, "The Patriots, however, were defeated by the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII, after winning the first 18 games of their 2007 season." is very clumsily tacked on to the first section. I think it warrants another sentence or 2 or at least the deletion of the word "however" as the sentence before it has nothing to do with the 2007 season. I -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.128.35 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patriots only team without city/ state name?

The Patriots are the only team in the NFL whose name includes the name of a region, rather than a city or state name. If nicknames are also excluded (Golden State Warriors), the Patriots are the only team in and of the four Major League Sports in the USA (football, baseball, basketball and hockey) not to have the name of a city or state in their title.

Can someone with editing credentials please add this? I think it's notable, because so many people comment on the fact that they're not the "Boston Patriots (anymore), or the "Massachusetts Patriots," and because it's unusual (actually, unique to the Patriots) in all of sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? there is no actual city called "Tampa Bay", it's Tampa. Tampa Bay itself refers to the body of water, not the city. Pharos04 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good point -- I didn't think of that! Still, the name of the city (Tampa) is included in the name of the team. I still think it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no such state as Carolina, either. Pats1 T/C 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Historically, there's also the Oorang Indians, who were named after a dog kennel; and the Staten Island Stapletons, Brooklyn Lions and Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL), all of whom played in NYC after consolidation. In the case of Staten Island, the borough in which the Stapletons played was then known as Richmond. Staten Island, like New England, was the name of a region. More recently, the New York Giants and New York Jets have played outside both the city and state of New York. "New York" essentially refers to a region; namely, the New York Metropolitan Area. Then, in addition to the Bucs, we also have the Carolina Panthers. The Pats are not really as unusual as they seem. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff: your historical info is interesting but irrelevant. And New York is not the name of the region, it is the name of the city! They just happen to play over state lines. Just think about people from Jersey- they do not refer to themselves as being in "New York." Carolina is a fair point, but again it is part of a state name. New England remains the only NFL team (current) not having a city or state name as part of the team name. Please keep additional comments limited to current teams- I don't want to hear about some minor league17th century chess team. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make this simple: If you can find this claim in a reliable source, then add it to the article. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about some unsourced, meaningless and potentially untrue claims to uniqueness for the Pats. My suggestions above were merely to suggest that this claim isn't particularly notable... as you yourself concur by disparaging these exceptions. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As proof that it's both unique and interesting see this Yahoo! trivia segment: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070209200428AAfrhnc

Also, see this article from the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E4D91530F932A35755C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Is this a "reliable" enough source for you? After all, it represents the entire "region" known as "New York."  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is quite possibly true, and yet insanely trivial and not at all really relevent to the article. As has already been mentioned, there are other regionally named teams (Carolina, Tampa Bay) and you REALLY have to put some rather silly qualifications to make New England unique in that regard... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was settled! It's in the NY Times. I'm going to put it back. Please don't delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It only says that New England is not a state name. True, but the Patriots are not unique in that regard. We don't need a source to say that or not to say that. The words New England also have two "e"s in it. Do we need to note that?!? Simply because it is true that New England is not a state or a city does not make it especially important; nor is it unique, as Tampa Bay is not a city or a state, and Carolina is not a city or a state. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is often noted by commentators and journalists...even Andy Rooney called attention to it in his 60 Minutes piece on the Superbowl. Would someone just settle this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Andy Rooney's mention of this factoid actually proves its triviality. Lambertman (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German article

The German article reached the FA-status I think... Maybe someone should translate the article from German so we can promote it again, who'll do? --80.138.55.130 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be an excessive amount of unnecessary work. A few changes here would be all that is necessary. -Zomic13 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)