Talk:Spygate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American football Portal
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of the New England Patriots subproject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the New England Patriots and the National Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 5, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] South Park

An April 2008 episode of South Park used Spygate as a foundation for one of the episode's two subplots. I made an entry concerning this response under the response section. It has been truncated greatly and moved to a popular culture section. I was wondering if somebody could link me to some editorial guides that talk about what should be relegated to popular culture as opposed to integrated into already existing categories? I feel like football is such a popular culture type of article that it seems redundant to include a specific pop culture section.

Thoughts? mroconnell (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that my edit was entirely deleted and then somebody else added a shorter version in a new section. Pats1 who edits this article very frequently but appears on the talk page not so frequently deleted the original edit about south park with the note "(uh, yeah, not really notable)". This is an interesting argument since South Park is an Emmy-winning comedy show that has run for 12 seasons and has been chosen as Time's 100 Best TV Shows of All Time. The average episode of South Park is viewed by 3.1 million people ( http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391792/index.htm ) before being rerun twice the same week. I understand it's not Saturday night football ratings, but it sure beats most of the traditional news coverage of the events.

I'm expanding the entry under popculture because notability of South Park is established. mroconnell (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of the Comcast mention under Congressional section

Don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. This casts speculation on Specter's involvement for doing, right or wrong, what congress is supposed to do. This comment should be moved into Specter's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.213.215 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it extremely relevant, and appreciate it being there. Until I read that info I could not for the life of me figure out why someone would be doing things like that, it's not like there's another football league they're competing against. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of rule

Can we find out when this rule came into effect? I keep hearing different things and it has an effect on what this means for the Pats past history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.50.103 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The new revisions are poor

Personally, I think Pats1's revisions have diminished the original prose of the article. I think my original version was more descriptive and concise than the latest version. Some links have been removed, and there are several grammatically incorrect statements. Overall, the wording seems "sloppier" than the original version. Additionally, I'm uncertain as to why several portions of my version were labled as "POV" in one revision. I attempted to maintain a neutral prose in my original version. The introduction has been severely downsized, too. Personally, it severely downplays the Jets' role, and it places too much emphasis on New England. The revisions apparently display Pats1's original bias against this article, but I'll assume good faith. Overall, I'm uncomfortable about this new version. CVW (Talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll go through point-by-point:
    • "significant NFL scandal" - "significant" rather POV - what qualifies significant or not?
    • "multiple teams" - the Jets were the accusers, but 100% of the focus was on the Patriots
    • "The effects from the scandal were profound, and it drove another divide between the Patriots' devoted fans and detractors." - original research, source provided on the next line only about Shula's comments - "profound" would be POV if it was sourced or not
    • "debate continues" - OR again
    • "The scandal emerges" - borderline POV heading, needs to be a bit more neutral than creative
    • "The NFL community was strongly polarized during the weeks after the scandal." - OR as novel synthesis of sources
    • "Don Shula famously said" - OR, who said it was famous?
    • "whether the Patriots' record was marred" - need multiple sources to support claim, and probably more descriptive sentence (marred how?)
  • The Jets had a very minor role. They simply made the accusations, and left the situation after that. The later accusations never really surfaced anything - the information provided was about all that came out. I don't see how "the revisions apparently display my original bias against this article." Please elaborate. If there are grammatical errors, please fix them as necessary. Pats1 T/C 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay–I certainly understand your reasonings. I was correcting some errors, but you beat me. Thanks for the clarification. CVW (Talk) 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ref/punctuation placement, WP:CITE says that they can go either inside of outside the punctuation as long as it's consistent throughout the article. It is now (and was before) so it's fine either way. Pats1 T/C 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The POV words all appear to have been removed. I, as a neutral observer, just read the article (I don't have an opinion on the subject) and I don't see any obvious POV. So, I'm removing the NPOV tag. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The POV sign will remain until the issue with Specter/Comcast is resolved. To say that Specter is conducting the investigation because of personal interests in Comcast is to say that Wikipedia should openly endorse a conspiracy theory which has no basis in fact and is the product of speculation on the part of those who are upset with the Spygate investigation. The POV remains for now, until somebody writes revamps the section to contain less conspiratorial content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lore?

Noticing that most NFL Team infoboxes have a line for lore (i.e. memorable/controversial/notable moments like the Freezer Bowl or Immaculate R[D]eception), and I'm thinking this would count as NFL lore. Or is several months after the actual occurence too soon? I'm going to put it in, but this is a notice for anyone who thinks that it is in fact too soon and wants to veto by taking it out. Saucy626 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I could possibly see it for the Patriots, but definitely not for the Jets. Pats1 T/C 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think if you look at National Football League lore, lore is defined as "events [that] have become extremely famous, even mythical, in the history of the game." I believe that "events" are events that occur on the field during play. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, like the guarantee. Spygate should be considered more like a controversy in my opinion. --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other teams

Shouldn't this article talk about other team cheating in a different section. It looks like this article was written in a certen teams prospective, just wondering. 24.250.26.95 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about this specific case. Pats1 T/C 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specter/Comcast Issue

The inclusion of Specter's relationship with Comcast is completely inappropriate for this article. It implies Wikipedia is endorsing a conspiracy theory that Patriot fans have attested to which says that the whole Specter investigation is motivated by self-interest and jealousy. Wikipedia is not a forum for Patriot fans or anyone else to come forth and express their personal views, and I find it unsettling that this allegedly objective article implicitly verifies this completely unfounded theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I read the article, that statement jumped out at me as irrelevant. I don't know about any sort of conspiracy theory, but I read the paragraph several times trying to figure out why the sentence was even mentioned. I think the mention of comcasdt interrupts an otherwise smooth, NPOV, informative article with confusion and that it should be removed. BobertWABC (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
aggreed too. I just removed it, and also therfore resolved the last of the POV issues, so I removed that tag too. Charles (Kznf) (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Specter/Comcast speculation was re-inserted in an attempt to portray Specter negatively. POV. Judicator700 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was in the article previously, but what's there as of this date is not imposing or suggestive of conspiracies. It is a simple statement of fact, and is relevant as to why a Senator would spend time trying to raise a stink about as many things as possible with the NFL. I consider it to be very neutral. CraigWyllie (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely poor paraphrasing

I can't help but think a Pats supporter wrote the paraphrasing here.. the article says "as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[5]"

However, the full rule (from the linked ref) says: ""Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.""

The current paraphrase makes it sound like the prohibition is contingent on aiding a team during the playing of a game. However, the full rule does not make that contingency. The clause about aiding a team during the playing of a game applies to "any other form of electronic devices". Note the clause "including without limitation videotape machines", which is conveniently cut out of the current paraphrase. 64.132.221.211 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the portion of the rule Belichick was referring to. Pats1 T/C 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walsh and the walkthrough

" . . . a member of the Patriots video staff videotaped the St. Louis Rams' Saturday walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI at the Louisiana Superdome.[31] Matt Walsh, a former Patriots video assistant who was with the team in 2001 as a video assistant and was fired after the 2002 season, which he spent as a scouting assistant, has also indicated that he has a lot of information regarding this but has not yet divulged it. . ."[32]

Has a reputable source established that Walsh claims to have a tape of this walkthrough? The article cited certainly doesn't make that claim; in fact, it doesn't mention the walkthrough at all. Without evidence to the contrary, it would appear to be OR. Samer (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)