Talk:Deflategate/Archive 2

Scientific consensus?
With these edits, a bunch of text was added about "scientific consensus". I'm uncomfortable with that phraseology, since that really doesn't exist with respect to Defaltegate - you have a lot of people who are called scientists calling shots on both sides of the debates, but since it's not a subject worth pursuing in scholarly articles to peer-reviewed journals, those amount to opinion pieces. Do we want these edits to stay in place? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 22:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep that garbage out. One can't just claim a consensus from the scientific community and cite it with Huffington Post of all things. Come back when we have an official statement from the UN or something. Lizard (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. LedRush nuked it a few hours ago. I had only noticed it because an IP edited a sentence to invert the meaning. When I looked closer, the entire edit looked dubious. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 06:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with these comments. Ebw343 06:30 pm, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally, if many respected news organizations report something, that something is taken as fact. The New York Times reported it as "overwhelming scientific consensus".  (I cited that article).  This is a retraction to The Times' previous position, so I don't think they'd report on this lightly.
 * The Washington Post used the phrase "a legion of scientists" (that one was also cited) in a way that would have been misleading if The Post believe the Scientists things the evidence shows cheating. Perhaps some articles on Yahoo Sports are intended as mere subjective opinion, but one can see from the tone and detail that this was not one of them.  It states: "there appears to be a scientific consensus, if not unanimous opinion, that those footballs were never illegally deflated."  (The article I cited says something similar and links the that article -- that link I provided here can be used instead when re-applying the edits).
 * Had my edit said "The ball pressure data proved that the allegation was false", then perhaps you'd need peer reviewed data, which does exist to some degree for deflategate, which at the moment is not relevant.
 * My edit did not say unequivocally that the allegation was false; it merely said there was scientific consensus, which does not mean that most scientists, if you poll them, think the data exonerated the Patriots. What it does mean is that all or nearly all of the scientists who have seriously reviewed the Wells report and the critiques of it believe the data exonerated the Patriots.  That's what the major outlets are reporting, with no major outlets weighing in to say there is no such consensus among scientists who have studied the issue. Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * None of the experiments in the articles cited by Mr. Young are peer reviewed. None of that work rigorously replicated the conditions at Gillette Stadium. In contrast, as a recent (Sept. 26, 2016) NYT article discusses, the experts at Exponent did replicate the conditions at Gillette Stadium and now have responded to all the outside analysts who did not have access to the same evidence. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/sports/football/deflategate-new-england-patriots-nfl-science.html?_r=0. In addition, the report by the experts at Exponent was peer reviewed by Princeton physics professor Daniel Marlow. Moreover, the Wells Report relied heavily on direct evidence, such as the text messages. As summarized by Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy: "Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion. The texts were unexplainable." Both Mr. Shaughnessy's article and the NYT article regarding the research conducted by the Exponent were written after all the articles cited by Mr. Young were published. In sum, the "consensus" alleged by Mr. Young does not exist.  Ebw343  06:00 am, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * At issue are the reports of the existence of consensus I (Mr. Young) cited, not the underlying scientific work that led to that consensus. Thus Ebw343  has moved to answer a question different from the editorial the question at hand.
 * Ebw343 is presenting his/her own analysis above that s/he believes there is no consensus.  His/her opinion does not outweigh the quotes from New York Times, Washington Post, and Yahoo Sports asserting that there is a consensus.  If s/he wishes to assert that there is controversy among scientists who have studied the situation, s/he needs to produce credible sources that disagree with those major outlets' findings regarding the existence of a consensus.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ebw343 cites the Shaughnessy article as contradiction of the report of consensus among scientists and yet that article never uses the words science or scientists or scientific and never weighs in on the topic of what scientists who have studied the issue believe.  The article is about what Mr. Shaugnessy believes, not what scientists believe.  (Incidentally, Mr. Shaugnessy's article has a sample of zero scientists because he is not a scientist but rather a sports reporter.)Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mr. Shaugnessey states his opinion that any agenda-less person would come to the same conclusion as Shuagnnessy but makes no claim to have vetted that hypothesis with actual agenda-less scientists or even scientists that dislike the Patriots. That opinion has since been discreited: the legal brief I had cited (through the Huffingtonn post article that embedded it, although it can also be found directly here) shows scientists and universities all over the country who disagree with Mr. Shaugnessy, making Mr. Shaugnessy's claim that no agenda-less person could disagree with Shaugnessy extremely doubtful.  Mr. Shaughnessy would not have had the benefit of that information because it was from April 26, 2016, well after the time of Mr. Shaughnessy's writingRob Young in New Hampshire (talk)
 * Furthermore, Mr. Shaughnessy's point above is about the texts (meaning text messages) -- which is not on domain of science and not relevant scientific inquiry regarding whether the data shows no air was missing from the footballs. Even if there is a system in place to enable cheating, if no air was removed, there was no cheating.
 * Although not relevant to the issue at hand, to avoid the creation of bias among editors here, allow me to respond also to the irrelevant claim from Ebw343 above that the NFL analaysis was peer reviewed, and the irrelevant claim that the Exponent work better simulated game-day conditions than did the scientists objecting to the Exponent work.
 * Professor Marlow was paid buy the NFL as a consultant on the project, thus disqualifying him as an unbiased peer reviewer.
 * The New York Times article about Exponent was not a form of peer review because it did not discuss or evaluate any critiques. There was no defense attempted to any of the specific claims but rather a blanket statement "Having heard whatever everybody has said, and having reviewed the thoughts of the critics, I still stand behind it 100 percent".  Peer Review is a dialogue process, not a simple re-statement of opinion.
 * Ebw343 makes an assertion that the Exponent work better represented Gillette stadium conditions, but that assertion is his own personal work (no cites provided to show otherwise).  That assertion is opposite to what numerous quoted scientists have been saying.  The cited scientists claim the the Exponent only made it look like air was missing from the footballs by simulating conditions unlike those of game day, most notably taking the footballs out of the bag to warm them up quickly (unlike game-day), and in a critical instance, simulating temperatures known to not match the actual game-day temperatures.  In both cases the assumptions were not documented but rather uncovered by forensic analysis of the report by the critiquing scientists.  Hiding key assumptions from review, assumptions known to the those doing the work to be vital, is a hallmark of science fraud.  Indeed the wikipedia article doesn't highlight that there is a second allegation: the allegation of malfeasance by the NFL itself.  That's a topic for another day.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. Young's advocacy cannot change several basic facts. First, since the NYT article (written after all of the articles cited by Mr. Young) clearly states that the scientific experts at Exponent have concluded that all of work done in the articles cited by Mr. Young is wrong, there clearly is no "scientific consensus." Second, none of the articles cited by Mr. Young are peer-reviewed. Thus, there is not a "scientific consensus" because peer review is an integral part of the scientific method. Third, the fact that Princeton Professor Daniel Marlow was a consultant to the NFL does not change the fact that he served as an independent peer reviewer of the work performed by Exponent. That is, unless Mr. Young seeks to impugn Professor Marlow's character. Fourth, Mr. Young claims that I made "an assertion that the Exponent work better represented Gillette stadium conditions, but that assertion is his own personal work (no cites provided to show otherwise)." Mr. Young is wrong. The NYT article clearly explains how the experts at Exponent replicated the conditions at Gillette Stadium ("the cold conditions at New England’s Gillette Stadium soon would be reconstructed in a thermal lab in the desert a few miles away.") Fifth, Mr. Young attempts to downplay the direct evidence regarding text messages and the fact that a Pats' employee referred to himself as the "Deflator," not to mention Mr. Brady's destruction of his cell phone. But an evaluation of the work done in the articles cited by Mr. Young must specify the prior probability that the footballs were deflated. This is elementary Bayesian statistics. I could go on, but there is no point. Mr. Young’s advocacy is clear. Ebw343 05:32 pm, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above latest response from Ebw343 is attempting to make Ebw343's personal opinion or research regarding what the definition of scientific consensus is, and whether it exists, outweigh the reporting of cited reputable sources regarding the definition and existence of the consensus.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To prevent editors from being biased by Ebw343's attempt at justifying his/her opinion here are some responses.
 * The reputable citations claiming consensus were written with full knowledge that Exponent's official corporate position is to disagree. The NYTimes article cited by Ebw343 adds no new information regarding Exponent's position or the debate; it does address any of the criticisms other than to re-iterate Exponents position already taken into account by the New York Times in reporting a consensus.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise Prof Marlow's position was known prior to the cited sources reaching their conclusion that a consensus exists.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ebw343 did not deny the that Marlow was paid by the NFL. Therefore Ebw343's assertion, that Prof. Marlow's opposition precludes there being consensus, is like saying that there was no consensus that second hand smoke caused cancer until such time as the the Tobacco institute and those who paid by the Tobacco institute retracted their opposition. Few would agree with that definition of consensus.  Interestingly, that's a very apropos analogy because Exponent was paid to argue that 2nd hand smoke didn't cause cancer.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ebw343's re-asserts what is his/her own analysis of which scientists better accounted for environmental conditions. Although the article s/he cites talks at length about some of the replication of some of the Gillete conditions, the article does not offer a comparison between whether Exponent better matched the conditions than the other scientists did in their analysis.  Ebw343, not The New York Times, is the one making that comparison.  Ebw343 has not addressed the specific examples I provided for how the "consensus" scientists say the error of the Exponent report was in not addressing key conditions (see above).  None of those conditions were addressed by the NY Times article Ebw343 is talking about.  Therefore Ebw343 has not responded to that point already made before repeating his point.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the "fifth" point Ebw343 is advocating for using things other than physical science to answer the question of whether the right amount of air was in the footballs. The right amount of air being present means there was no tampering.  Ebw343 is disagreeing with the scientists that the 3 reputable sources say are in consensus (and not even addressing the analysis those scientists offered).  Whether the consensus view is accurate or not is irrelevant to the edit we are supposed to be discussing here.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk)


 * At this point it is obvious that Mr. Young is an advocate. His advocacy of a non-existent “scientific consensus,” in the absence of any peer-reviewed evidence, is so complete that he makes the following unbelievable claims. First, based on literally no evidence, he essentially slanders Princeton Professor Marlow by claiming that his work did not constitute an independent, peer-reviewed evaluation of the report prepared by the scientists at Exponent. Second, Mr. Young asserts that a NYT article published on January 22, 2016 took into account the positions of the scientists at Exponent discussed in a NYT article published on September 21, 2016. But as the latter article makes clear, the scientists at Exponent intentionally withheld their judgment regarding responses to their report until the entire affair was complete. In fact, the subtitle to the September 21, 2016 NYT article states: “The researchers whose work led to Tom Brady’s suspension have never spoken publicly. Now they’re eager to say they were right, no matter what Patriots fans believe.” The fact that Mr. Young missed this basic point simply illustrates, again, the nature of his advocacy for the false claim that a “scientific consensus” exists. In sum, Mr. Young’s assertion that opinions stated in several non-peer reviewed articles published in several non-scientific journals (the conclusions of which were later completely rejected by the scientists at Exponent), somehow constitutes a “scientific consensus” must fail. Ebw343 12:07 am, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ebw343 above mostly repeats claims he made previously, without addressing specifically the responses offered to his/her last note that made the same points.  That does not constitute a productive contribution to the discussion.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One new wrinkle from Ebw343 worthy of comment, perhaps illustrating the need for no further responses to this line of commentary:
 * Ebw343 above asserts that it is slander to call Prof. Marlow not independent, and that there is "no evidence" of it. Response: Being paid by a party to the real-world conflict (the NFL), a fact I pointed out and Ebw343 did not dispute, is the very definition of "not independent".  Whether or not the quality of Prof Marlows input was affected, Prof. Marlow is by definition not "independent"Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of major media reactions summarizing scientific opinion that no air was removed
I'm Robert_Young_In_New_Hampshire ( discuss ), who made the edits reporting the scientific consensus and post-superbowl media reaction, and subsequently edited the main article to report scientific consensus. This == == section explains why it is inappropriate for LedRush to have removed the post-super-bowl media reaction from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated.

LedRush removed those with an edit description of "revert to non-biased language." That description is inadequate to characterize an important edit LedRush made: removing the record of the conclusion reached by the above-mentioned reputable news and sports reporting organization. To suggest that the New York Times, and the Washington Post are biased in favor of the Patriots is untenable.

Even if one posits that those well-known, mainstream media outlets are biased in favor of the Patriots, the common theme to their reporting makes these mentions extremely relevant representations of media reactions, and thus important to the section. Removing those edits thus was improper editing, most likely done without considering the material that was edited as well as its meaning that affects other edits made by LedRush.
 * I removed the information because of undue weight - the weight of the article cannot be tipped too far to one side or it does not maintain neutrality and a clear encyclopedic tone. One could easily find references and citations leaning "the other way", however both viewpoints have been depicted in the article, and the addition of 5-6 paragraphs in a row "debunking" material that is already covered within the article (in different, relevant sections) seems to not maintain the neutrality of the article. Garchy (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to Garchy (talk) in detail. I hope that user will restore the edits for the reasons I noted in that talk page.  'nuff said until the user has a chance to respond.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Innapropriate removal of Huffington Post media reaction (which embedded a scientific paper)
The Huffington Post is indeed known for liberal bias (although not pro-Boston-sports bias). However, in this case, the Huffington Post article embedded within the article an actual scientific paper (not in a peer reviewed journal, but a scientific paper none-the-less. Even a casual reading of the Huffington post article and the summary section of the scientific paper (which take the form of a legal brief) shows that, in this case, the Huffington post article accurately reports on what the scientists said.

Accordingly I'm re-instating this content.
 * Hi ,
 * Please read WP:BRD. Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold with your edits, you were reverted, please now discuss before reinstating your changes. Also, new talk page sections go at the end (as I've moved these sections), and please sign your posts with the quadruple tilde ~, so Wikipedia can replace that with the date/time and your signature. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Thanks for the tilde tip.
 * I think the changes I re-instated were before your note -- and what I re-instated was only the specific media citations -- I did not re-instate the paragraph that described the pattern those citations represented. I'll respond to the broader concern outside of the "huffington post" headingRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My main concern with the additions was the claim of scientific consensus - as best I know, nothing got published in peer-reviewed journals, which is the starting point for acceptability in science. Without such publications, the articles amount to opinion pieces by people who have technical expertise - but who are as vulnerable to partisan side-taking as the rest of us. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ,
 * Can you state specifically that you no longer object to the citations themselves being added to media reactions section (so I can safely restore those without being accused of rogue behavior)?
 * Probably at the moment you were clarifying that your concerns was "scientific consensus", I was providing the defense of that into the "consensus" topic. :In short, a) multiple reputable news outlets reported that there was consensus. Whether the consensus is true or not is a more complicated issue to prove, but the existence of consensus is documented adequately, as I think you'll agree after you see what I put in the consensus talk section.  Note the report of consensus doesn't mean that there are no technically oriented people who disagree but rather those such people who have examined the specific data at length overwhelmingly agree.  Regarding your concern about tech folks being vulnerable to partisan thinking, in this case we have ironclad proof that the those referenced in the consensus were not prone to partisan thinking: given that many (likely most) are in non-Patriots-fan areas, if such folks were prone to partisan thinking, it would be impossible for them to come to a consensus that supports the Patriots.
 * It would be contrary to the mission of Wikipedia if the voices of those who study an area are cancelled out by those who state opinions but haven't studied the issue in depth.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi all, sorry for the delay in responding here - my concerns were about undue weight, specifically making sure that for every viewpoint that "debunks" deflategate there is some context of the other argument - likewise, this should be carefully weighed for the opposite, something I have noticed is already done well. I have no qualms about adding in the information so long as it is from reputable sources - but stacking it within the article paragraph after paragraph may not be the best way - perhaps a section can be created (maybe a "criticism" section) - or it could be added inline within the existing paragraphs, but would have to be careful to not be too wordy or add more context than necessary for the section. Garchy (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi {Ping | Garchy},
 * Your above comment that balance was adequate prior to my edit is untenable because, for example, the media reaction section included an "anti-Patriots" media quote from Dan Wetzel but not a later complete reversal of position by that very same commentator.
 * That being said, I embrace your suggestion. To the Media reaction section, I'll add a subsection (or try to -- not sure exactly how to do that) specifically on reporting of their being scientific consensus that no air was missing.  Because that is such a major development so central to an informed opinion regarding what really happened, I expect it to be about the same length that my original edit was.  I'll take care to avoid too many words or too much context, although for that two work as a section it will be important to call out that the yahoo and NY Times positions are reversals of their previous viewpoints.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An item to be very careful about; HuffPo saying something is a scientific consensus does not mean it is a scientific consensus. This is a statement that is absurd on the face of it, so we can't simply report what HuffPo says in Wikipedia's voice. For anything where it's obvious the source is biased, we must ensure that it's clear where the statement comes from in the text itself. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * Agreed! Indeed it was NY Times, Wash Post, and Yahoo that reported the consensus. I referenced the HuffPo article because it did the math to tally up the count of scientists and universities issuing the joint legal brief, and because it embedded the brief.  I thought it was helpful point to further corroborate those main sources. When re-editing, instead of HuffPro, I'll use the link direct to the legal brief, and a CBSBoston link that does the math (despite being in Boston, I think they can be trusted to count names)  I'll include the CBSBoston link and brief for corroboration in the media reaction not as a direct footnote to the "consensus" claim.
 * Question: are you comfortable that three different news organizations claiming a fact, all with a deep history of study of the issue, two of which actually reversed their opinion to get to this new understanding (and so you can be assured they didn't decide on this new position lightly), 2 of which are major old-guard media sources, all reporting on the agreement, meets the standard of credible 3rd party proof for reporting that what they said as a fact? (Note: that's a separate question from whether the the consensus itself is correct or not.)Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe a big part of the issue is also the fact that just because ANY news organization says something is "scientific consensus" does not make it so. That is a very touchy wording - even when multiple scientists agree on something it must be peer reviewed and takes a process to be become consensus. To report that scientists have supported Brady's assertions is one thing, but I would be very careful using the wording the press uses in an encyclopedia. Garchy (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Phrased better than I could have. The only thing I'd change is to say "particular scientists", rather than "scientists", as the latter implies a broader reach than warranted. I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but having read many of those reports, my one conclusion is that the report writers don't actually have the information needed to accurately determine the facts. Simply too much noise in the evidence chain due to sloppiness. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the above two inputs convincing and withdraw my request to report the "consensus" as a fact.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "noise" is an issue throughout this controversy. That's the challenge here.
 * I'd like to see improvement in the opening paragraph of the "reactions to wells report" section because currently its gist is that opinion about the Wells report is determined primarily by team preference. While that may be true of the general public and of early reaction and cursory press references, it sells short the more rigorous inquiry which has been shown to span markets and team preference.  In effect, the opening paragraph discredits the analytical work that follows as biased.  We just discussed citations showing many of those same conclusions to be common across people with no particular love of the Patriots.  Do you agree there's a problem there?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an organized articulation in the Wikipedia page of the counter-allegation that the NFL drove creation of a highly misleading "science" report by unreasonably manipulating key assumptions and clever legal wording. That conclusion can be arrived at via careful reading of all the material, but is easily missed by the casual reader.  The Times, Post, and Yahoo citations we've been discussing all point the finger at the NFL for those reasons.  That provides important introduction to the topic sets it aside from the "noise."  Do you agree that the allegation has passed the critical threshold (of comment by multiple, relevant, trusted sources) to be covered in an organized fashion, rather than sprinkled into the media reactions or reactions to the Wells report? (The reactions has a valuable timeline, but is not optimized to address the allegation of NFL misconduct)Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The current Deflategate page provides a good case study of how effective the Wells report is in misleading readers:
 * Wikipedia says "Wells concluded that, while there is no absolute certainty, there is no known "set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts" for the total measured air loss." That is a misrepresentation of the Exponent "scientific" conclusion.  Exponent never made that statement without narrowing the statement to something to the effect of "within the set of parameters we were asked to examine".  Exponent never vouched to have tested in accordance with the best information available to Exponent but rather only in accordance with what the NFL asked.  The scientists reported to be in consensus found those assumptions to be unreasonable and to make the difference between apparent guilt and apparent vindication. Shouldn't there be some change to avoid passing along to unsuspecting readers a misrepresentation?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, there should be some prominent mention to the effect of: the significant-majority opinion, among non-partisan scientists who have looked at the matter in some detail, is that the ball pressure data indicates no reasonable possibility of enough air being missing to support a credible allegation of tampering; they believe the NFL made unreasonable assumptions that were responsible for the appearance of missing air in their experiments. Do you agree that the citations claiming "consensus", even if not meeting the special status required to report in wikipedia a scientic consensus, do provide highly credible evidence of a significant majority view such as that?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Any text added, including text that I will propose to add, needs to be consistent with these facts.
 * Fact 1: none of the work cited by Mr. Young is peer reviewed.
 * That's too strong a statement. While not peer reviewed to normal scientific standards, there is evidence of peer review.  Detailed analysis has been published.  At least one meeting took place at UNH to discuss those findings. 21 scientists legally went on the record as concurring.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 1 is correct. None of the articles you cite are peer-reviewed to scientific standards.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your "fact" if you put quotation marks on the term "peer reviewed". Without the quotations marks, I believe it means substantially the same thing as "none were reviewed by peers", which of course is false if even one peer reviewed work of another.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 2: none of the work cited by Mr. Young is published in a scientific journal.
 * Fact 2 is correct.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ebw343 on that pointRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 3: after reviewing all the work cited by Mr. Young, the scientists at Exponent concluded those results were wrong.
 * Untrue. Everything Exponent has said has been heavily lawyered, which means that what it seems to be saying can differ from what it is actually saying.  Bearing that in mind, Exponent never said the reportedly-consenting scientists were wrong.  How can that be? As you'll see, the reportedly-consenting scientists never claimed that that the lawyered-up conclusions was wrong.  The 21-person legal brief pointed that out explicitly and pointed out how the lawyered up language does not rule out the possibility that, as best the Exponent scientists can tell from independent evaluation, the data exonerates the Patriots. Therefore, Exponent could simultaneously agree with the consenting scientists while still 100% standing by their work.
 * Most applicable quote is this: “Having heard whatever everybody has said, and having reviewed the thoughts of the critics, I still stand behind it 100 percent.” One might wish to infer that what they really meant was the scientists were wrong, but a) that would be an inference rather than a fact, and b) other evidence invalidates the inference.  The NYT article never claimed that Exponent claimed the reportedly-consenting scientists were wrong.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT article, creating the above misperception of fact, quoted Exponent out of context and editorialized a meaning that Exponent did not convey.  See this passage from the NYT with their quote marks: "Exponent “identified no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the additional loss in air pressure.” It did not say that someone deliberately removed air from the footballs, but it might as well have."  Search the Wells Report, and in partiular the final bullet (13) on Exponent page 68, and you'll see Exponent never said the quoted passage without including the disclaimers.  The reportedly-consenting scientists asserted that the assumptions (encompassed by those disclaimers) are the ones that were unreasonable and untrue of the best information available about game-day conditions,  and asserted re-calculating the experimental results to account for them exonerates the Patriots.
 * Science does also play a role in evaluating assumptions. Science was used to evaluate the Exponent experimental results in order to determine which un-documented assumptions were used in the simulations.  Science was used to invalidate rationales Exponent used to justify assumptions contrary to the written record and the climate record.  Scientists knowledge of fundamental knowledge of other scientist helps inform an opinion as to whether something was an trival overesight or a deliberate obfuscation Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 3 is correct. Exponent scientists explicitly stated: “When we released the report, I stood behind it 100 percent,” Gabriel Ganot, one of the four Exponent executives to lead the Deflategate investigation, said. “Having heard whatever everybody has said, and having reviewed the thoughts of the critics, I still stand behind it 100 percent,” thus rejecting the “thoughts of the critics.”Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that above Ebw343 has re-asserted his position (that it's a rejection of the critics)  without addressing any of the reason I provided for why it is not a rejection.  The reasons I provide already addressed the quote specifically.  Please in the future explain what it was about the justification I provided that didn't work.
 * Thanks ebw343 for responding; it is very helpful to know that ebw343 did not find my explanation convincing. Perhaps this will help: That quote says that Exponent stands by the [the Exponent] report, not the Wells report.  Wells claimed that Exponent examined "the most likely game conditions and circumstances" but Exponent never claimed to have examined that.  Had exponent made that claim, then their statement would have been a rejection of the critics.  But they didn't, so it isn't.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 4: the report prepared by Exponent was reviewed by Daniel Marlow, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a consultant for the NFL, who agreed with the methodology and results contained in the Exponent report.
 * Is there evidence that Marlow disagrees with the reportedly-consenting scientists? I've seen no evidence that Marlow's position is any different from Exponent declining to disagree with the critics.
 * Marlow has declined to engage with specific critiques, as has Exponent
 * Therefore inserting these "facts" may be improper weightingRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 4 is correct. “Exponent concluded that, within the range of likely game conditions and circumstances studied, they could identify no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the Patriots halftime measurements or for the additional loss in air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls, as compared to the loss in air. pressure exhibited by the Colts game balls. Dr. Marlow agreed with this and all of Exponent’s conclusions.”Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ebw343 that the fact is correct. I don't that the above comment from him/her has any bearing on whether the fact should be weighted into the page.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 5: a physicist is qualified to offer an expert opinion on matters of physics.
 * Fact 5 is correct.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * I Agree Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 6: a physicist is not qualified to offer an opinion on whether physical evidence regarding the air pressure of footballs supports an inference that the Patriots had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials.
 * That is not a "fact" because the statement is conditionally true and conditionally false. If a physicist finds that the data is inconsistent with the hypothesis that discernable air was removed, then the "fact 6" statement is false.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 6 is correct. A physicist can only offer an expert opinion on matters of physics. A finding that the Patriots did or did not had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials depends on evidence other than physical evidence regarding the air pressure of footballs (such as the fact that Patriots’ locker-room attendant Jim McNally referred to himself as “the Deflator”).Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * I don't understand what bearing the above comment has on the logic I presented.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 7: whether all the evidence, including evidence other than physical evidence regarding the air pressure of footballs (such as the fact that Patriots’ locker-room attendant Jim McNally referred to himself as “the Deflator”) supports an inference that the Patriots had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials is a question for experts in statistical inference and officials with the relevant jurisdiction over the matter.
 * That "fact" is conditionally false for the same reasons "fact 6" is conditionally false.
 * Perhaps there is evidence of a system of cheating, but if the a physicist finds the physical evidence to be inconsistent with the hypothesis that that alleged system was implemented on the day in question, then it is again a physics question, not a statistical inference question.
 * This debate about a "system" actually buttresses the position of the reportedly-consenting physicists. It is inconceivable that a system woudl be put in place for the purpose of creating a ~0.1psi difference.  If the upper limit on the amount of air that could have been removed of that low magnitude, then evidence of such a low upper limit provides exoneration of any cheating at all, even in the amount of 0.1ps.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 7 is correct. The ultimate conclusion regarding whether the Patriots did or did not had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials depends on evidence other than physical evidence regarding the air pressure of footballs (such as the fact that Patriots’ locker-room attendant Jim McNally referred to himself as “the Deflator”). The answer to that ultimate conclusion is a question for experts in statistical inference and officials with the relevant jurisdiction over the matter.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * I don't see what bearing has on the logic I presented.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 8: A statistical study would evaluate all whether all the evidence, including evidence other than physical evidence regarding the air pressure of footballs, supports an inference that the Patriots had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials.
 * Incorrect for the reasons noted above.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 8 is correct, for the reasons noted above.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * Fact 9: there are no peer reviewed statistical studies regarding the question of the Patriots had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials.
 * Irrelevant for the reasons noted aboveRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 9 is correct.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * I agree it is correct but not that it is relevant.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 10: the legal system has no jurisdiction regarding the question of whether the Patriots had a system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials because that jurisdiction is held by the NFL.
 * Irrelevant to the question of whether the evidence exonerates, or incriminates, or is ambiguousRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 10 is correct.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * Fact 11: the NFL concluded that the Patriots did have in place system for deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. <font color="#008000">Ebw343 03:36 pm, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to the question under consideration (see above)Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact 11 is correct.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">
 * As a neutral observer, these don't seem like "facts" as much as Rob Young's assertions ran into issues with undue weight. The point is, these assertions are already made in the article. Adding in rebuttals, with proper citations and proper wording, would be relevant here. Your request that any text added in support your own "facts" runs into issues of undue weight as well. If reliable references can be found rebutting the "facts" above it should by all means be added in, with due weight (not too much info and not too little). My issue as well is that you call them "facts", when in reality both arguments placed here are justified and have a place in the article. Please be sure to maintain neutrality. Adding to this, the assertions Rob Young has made should be added into the article, but should be carefully worded so as not to sound as if there is a scientific majority supporting this. However, this information must be added in, perhaps in a critiques section, or in-line as each assertion is made (to offer the rebutting view point). We simply cannot keep it out, or ensure it relates to the "facts" above, as the entire point is that it refutes many of those points, with reliable sources. My issue has simply been the wording ("scientific consensus" was not ok), as well as the amount added in (it was multiple paragraphs stacked upon one another). Other than that, by all means the information should be added. Garchy (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the articles cited by Mr. Young dispute any of the eleven facts listed above. <font color="#008000">Ebw343 04:52 pm, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have responded in-line, above, to many of the facts on the list. Some aren't facts.  Others not relevant.  Please critique any of my responses in-line above.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition to opening sentence of main page (description of controversy), to reflect the bi-directional nature of the allegations
Before:
 * Deflategate was a National Football League (NFL) controversy involving the allegation that the New England Patriots tampered with footballs used in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts on January 18, 2015

After (added text shown in bold, but not to be added to the article in bold)
 * Deflategate was a National Football League (NFL) controversy involving the allegation that the New England Patriots tampered with footballs used in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts on January 18, 2015, and a counter-allegation that the NFL was the only guilty party.

Discussion:
 * If the controversy was simply about "did they or didn't they", it would not have generated nearly the interest and press that it has.
 * It is the counter-allegation that makes the debate so enduring and heated. It is the principle behind ubiquitous stories around concepts like  "Brady revenge tour", and "Goodell a no-show for AFC championship" and "want to see Goodell present the trophy to Brady",
 * There is ample evidence that the counter-allegation is principled, non-partisan, informed, and relevant to the contemporary discussion and understanding of the controversy (See For example, most recently see NYTimes, Washington Post, Yahoo Sports, 21-scientist legal brief citations discussed in talkback sections I started to protest removal of relevant citations.
 * If you have objections to the edit, please justify them here.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a non-neutral proposed edit. The most one could conclude from the articles cited by Mr. Young is the following: A number of physicists writing non-peer reviewed articles published in non-scientific journals have concluded that the empirical evidence does not reject the null hypothesis that the footballs in question were not intentionally deflated below the NFL-specified level.Ebw343 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<font color="#008000">

Proposed section on counter-allegation that the NFL was the only guilty party.
Editorial discussion of why this section is needed This topic is major component of the controversy (see discussion of proposed edits to main page first sentence), that has/had no section organized to explain it. The deflation allegations-against-patriots side has an organized exposition: one place for initial allegations ( “wells report” section) and one for “obstructing the investigation” allegations, additional obstruction detail in the “after appeal hearing”. In contrast, Previous to this proposed edit, the counter-allegations lacks an organized listing or explanation. They are sprinkled chronologically through many sections: “reactions to wells report”, “sanctions by NFL and appeals”, “reaction to appeal hearing”, “after motions filed in in court by NFL and NFLPA”, “reactions to the transcript of the appeal hearing”, appearance of conflict of interest of lawyers…”, “US district court vacates suspension”, “US court of appeals reinstates suspension”, and “media coverage” The counter-allegations are listed mixed in with other topics and background unrelated to counter-allegations whereas the anti-Patriots allegations are contiguous, uninterrupted.

Therefore, a section is needed

Proposed content

The proposed section title would be "counter-allegations against the NFL"

It is alleged that the "NFL", here meaning the as an organization, and it's commissioner and legal team, intentionally intentionally created a false appearance that the Patriots violated the rules. Regardless of such allegations, it's also alleged that the NFL treated the Patriots unfairly and was incompetent.

Counter-allegations, include:
 * Obscuring the "fact" that the ball pressure data, when properly analyzed, exonerates the Patriots
 * Reneging on promises to gather potentially exonerating ball pressure data during NFL games the following season
 * Imposing severe penalties instead of the rule-mandated $25,000 fine {cite needed}
 * Leaking inaccurate ball pressure data early, leading to erroneous scientific and public opinion against the Patriots {cite needed}
 * Implying that the missing cell phone had prevented the investigation from obtaining all the text messages to the relevant parties, to justify punishment and to incite public opinion at the time of the internal appeal decision {cite needed}
 * Implying that a staffer routinely called himself the "deflator" based on what really as a single text message mid-way through the previous offseason, and describing that text message in a way that implied multiple ongoing such messages.{cite needed}
 * While accusing the Patriots of a system of taking air out of footballs for the whole season, the NFL failed to address the texting evidence that in a game part way through the season the referees grossly over-inflated the footballs and the Patriots did not remove any air from them. {citation needed}
 * Violations of due process during the internal appeal
 * Purporting to have commissioned an independent investigation when the investigation was directed to justify a pre-determined conclusion {cite needed}

Allegation of obscuring exonerating evidence

Independent scientists from many areas of the country signed a legal brief agreeing with analysis: "the very possibility of an additional increment of pressure loss was generated from assumptions of the league’s choosing rather than data." Also noted: "Additionally, had the NFL taken the opposite assumptions — that referee Walt Coleman used the gauge he recalled using, and that the temperature was 71 degrees — then the “additional” pressure loss beyond natural expectations would be at or close to zero. “Had the league made these two different assumptions alone,” the group stated, “the results would have vindicated Mr. Brady.”

A critical assumption not evaluated by Exponents work was how the balls were stored while awaiting measurement: in a bag (slow warming) or individually (rapid warming); the only parameters claimed to be matched to game-day conditions were "“Namely, the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges were used.” The scientist listed first in the brief, John J. Leonard, claimed that the simulation data shows that Exponent's simulation did not account for keeping the footballs in a bag.  Prof. Leonard indicates that if the bag were accounted for in the Exponent work, the the conclusion of the Exponent work would have been reversed: "Accounting for an additional drop in pressure from some balls being wet, the agreement between prediction (11.32 psig) and observation (11.49 psig) is remarkably good. The difference of 0.17 psi is in line with the amount of warming that would be expected to occur during the measurement process, especially when one accounts for the fact that the Patriots’ footballs were kept in a bag before being measured during halftime."

Limited, informal, independent review by peers: No article is known to be published in any peer-reviewed journal. The lead author of the brief has published lengthy analysis on youtube, and detailed analysis pertinent to the brief in Sports Illustrated. The 20 other scientists co-authoring the brief is suggestive of some review of the salient analysis.

Major press stories centered on the science debate reporting very wide agreement among informed scientists that the Patriots were vindicated and the NFL was the guilty party include The New York Times, The Washington Post,, and Yahoo Sports.

Exponent Scientists reaction: When interviewed at length by the New York Times, Exponent said regarding the Exponent report "Having heard whatever everybody has said, and having reviewed the thoughts of the critics, I still stand behind it 100 percent.”  Note: The article did not contain response to critics of the NFL assumptions that restricted the scope of Exponent's work.

Editor note: I'll flesh out more of this draft in a later revision.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I put in a to keep the references with the text, and not get confused in the replies. I'll comment on several points:

The above does not meet WP:NPOV. It reads as a partisan rant.
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to fix.  Do bear in mind that that this section is documenting a "partisan" position.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Youtube is not a reliable source. I believe there is even a bot which goes around deleting references pointing to youtube.
 * Interesting.
 * It seems to me that youtube is the document repository, not the source. Unless there is an allegation that the video is a forgery, the true source is the Professor, whom has established credibility as an expert in DeflateGate science.
 * The video is an elaboration of information summarized in the Sports Illustrated article by that person
 * Do these factors change the equation?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For purposes of Deflategate, What you are referring to as "The NFL" consists of the two officials at the game who handled the balls, Goodell and Walsh. "Guilty party" is not a term which applies to any of them (there is no crime alleged).
 * re: "NFL" How you read it is not the meaning I intended. Fix: Changed the phrase to  "NFL", here meaning the as an organization, and it's commissioner and legal team
 * re: "Guilty Party": Those are the specific words used by the press, I agree with you. Fix: changed to "intentionally intentionally created a false appearance that the Patriots violated the rules."Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A claim that the Patriots have been/could be exonerated is incorrect; the evidence is simply so noisy there can be no definitive answer. The evidence was not handled with enough care to establish events - in particular, the pressures were not logged at the start of the game, nor how long after inflation were the pressures were checked.
 * Whether the patriots have/could have been exonerated is, at the very least, the largest of all the allegations. If the allegation had to be proven to be reported on, then the entire wikipedia page would have to be deleted.  Fix: Refined heading title to "Allegation of obscuring exonerating evidence"Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For weighting purposes, the allegation has been sufficiently documented as important to the controversy and not in the realm of "conspiracy theory".Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For editorial clarity, it is important for readers to understand the basis for the claim. Your assertion is in disagreement with scientists that have looked at it deeply.  They are are "partisan" in the sense that they have an opinion but are also impartial in the sense that they have no team.  It seems that you have documented a mindset that the data cannot exonerate.
 * If you set the standard of proof at "95% certainty that no more than 0.000001psi could have been tampered-away, then exoneration is impossible under any circumstances. What is threshold at which, if it is proven the tampering couldn't have exceeded that threshold, that counts as exoneration?  The critics believe that whatever that standard of proof is, the availble information is sufficient to qualify under that standard off proof.  Perhaps it's necessary to bring in some of the reasoning used there.  I'd hoped that extra detail wasn't needed, but your feedback suggests it is.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Ideal gas law is mostly a red herring; between 59˚F and 70˚F (gametime vs indoor room temperature) is a 4% difference (convert to Kelvin, 283 K vs 294 K, apply PV = nRT). Not enough to impact measurements to the degree seen. High temperature during inflation itself could be a factor, if the balls were checked while still hot. Since that wasn't logged, it's hard to tell.
 * The above-suggested method of application of the gas law to football "psi" is conceptually flawed and not in agreement with the Wells report.. I've read that:  had the "NFL" not made, they would have determined that the intercepted ball had the right pressure, and thus the deflategate scandal would not exist.  That's been covered but not weighted-into the wikipedia page.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Presuming I can find a suitable citation, hopefully with a direct quote and the proof, should I edit into the AFC game section, immediately following this:
 * "and the team notified NFL Gameday Operations that the ball measured below the permissible range.:
 * this:
 * "Had the NFL correctly understood applied the gas law, operations would have reported that the ball pressure was permissible" Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exponent disagrees with the above formula for calculating football psi changes.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exponent disagrees with the notion that temperature doesn't make much of a difference.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk)
 * Additionally, there are offsetting errors: I believe the field temp was 48-50 (not 59).  But also a 11F difference is not a 11Kelvin difference.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The biggest "sloppiness" the NFL is accused of is being greatly unaware of how much difference temperature makes in the measured psi.
 * Much of the enduring opinion about this whole scandal is the end result of erroneous belief, in the very first weeks of the scandal along the lines of what is articulated there. That and the leaked erroneous ball pressure claims kicked up the whole scandal.  Quite possibly if the "NFL" had not made a similar error, they never would have hired exponent, or found the infamous one text  messageRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The error in the above calculations fooled many scientists in the first days of the scandal. It's so tempting to internalize the idea that PV=NRT means "proportional" is to forget to think deeper about outside air pressure and how that renders measured psi non-proportional to temperature.  Note that when the temperature goes down both inside and outside the ball, the inside pressure drops while the ouside pressure does not drop (because the weight of the air above you does not go down as a result of the temperature going down.)   The cause of the error is already documented in the wikipedia page (reactions to wells), by an expert, whom perhaps readers dismissed by assuming he was biased or on a rant: "Leonard walks through the ideal gas law calculations, highlighting mistakes others made when doing similar calculations by not using absolute pressure"  In short, the measure psi is not the actual pressure inside the ball but rather the difference between the pressure outside vs. inside the ball. Inflating a ball in Boston and measuring it in Denver will change the measure PSI even if nothing else changes.  Keeping it simple, a properly inflated football has roughly 2x the pressure inside as there is outside the ball.  Roughly speaking, if you if you reduce the inside pressure by 10%, the "psi" difference between the outside and the inside is reduced by about 20%.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The smaller the amount in dispute, the greater the chance that the upper limit on how much air the Patriots could possibly have removed is so small that that motive to cheat goes away. Also, the ability to remove such a small amount without accidentally removing a large amount gets dubious, making the the whole issue a red herring, and as a practical matter, exoneration.
 * Bear in mind that the difference between the simulation and the game-day results is so small that it would take very little systematic error in the experiment (due to failure to apply the best available information about what happened) to have caused the simulation results to exactly match the observed results.
 * For most of the public if simulation had exactly matched the actual pressure, that would have been considered vindication. For most folks I think it would weight out like this: yes, one time 9 months prior to the game, someone called himself the deflator, that that someone didn't do anything about the wildly over-inflated balls in the Jets game a few weeks prior to the AFC game, and the balls checked out fine at the AFC game, so if there ever was deflation, it didn't happen in either of the two cases we know about where ball pressure was an issue.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also bear that the differences are indeed so small, that it's already at the threshold of being highly improbable that anyone would bother devise a system to to cheat by such a small amount, even a team known for finding every little advantage.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Overall, this section reads like a rationalization. Finding reasons to achieve a pre-determined conclusion. I would suggest that this article should simply note the inaccuracies and sloppiness. Claiming an exoneration would be an overreach. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't want it to feel that way.
 * Ironically, do you agree that there's legitimate evidence to accuse the "NFL" of being the party paying millions to find reasons to achieve a pre-determined condition?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sloppiness and inaccuracies is an allegation more widely believed, but that alone doesn't fully explains the level of passion around this controversy. Have the citations provided adequately documented that the allegations of something worse that just sloppiness are an important part of the scandal?  Specifically the press coverage citations in the above proposed sections.?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And what about all the allegations outside of the science, included in that "rant" list, which are mostly already present in the deflatgate page but just not put into a summary list?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if there is not exoneration, the allegation that the "NFL" manipulated the investigation on purpose boost the perceived magnitude of possible cheating and the perceived odds that it happened is a much bigger deal than sloppiness.
 * Many folks believe that that not only was there no exoneration, but that exponent successful provided strong evidence that science proved it was unlikely that the Patriots were innocent. That's been very evident in some cites and also on this talk page. The rebuttal of that viewpoint goes hand in hand with the counter-allegation.
 * Can you suggest specific ways to make it more likely that someone who has the view that no possible data could over rule that one "deflator text message" to adopt a more nuanced view?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Young’s proposed edits over the past few days evidence, first, a non-neutral effort to create a “scientific consensus” where none exists. Mr. Young now impugns the reputations of NFL executives and outside attorneys Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Brad S. Karp, and Lorin L. Reisner of the prestigious law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP by claiming they, in Mr. Young’s words, “intentionally created a false appearance that the Patriots violated the rules.” If this statement appeared on the Wikipedia “Deflategate” page, it would not be surprising if the Paul Weiss firm responded, perhaps with a lawsuit.Ebw343 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)(talk)

Mr. Young’s non-neutral claims are made evident by a review of the summary evidence provided in the Wells Report, which I quote here for convenience.Ebw343 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)(talk)

In reaching these conclusions, we have considered, among other things, the following facts that we believe are established by the evidence for the reasons detailed in this Report:

1. Rule 2 of the Official Playing Rules of the NFL requires that footballs used during NFL games must be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. In particular, the rule states that “[t]he ball shall be made up of an inflated (12½ to 13½ pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind.”

2. Several hours before the AFC Championship Game, Jim McNally, the Patriots employee responsible for delivering the Patriots game balls to the game officials for pre-game inspection, brought the balls into the Officials Locker Room at Gillette Stadium. At or around that time, McNally told the referee, Walt Anderson, that Tom Brady, the Patriots quarterback, wanted the game balls inflated at 12.5 psi. McNally has been employed by the Patriots as a seasonal or part-time employee for the past 32 years. His work for the Patriots during the 2014-15 NFL season took place only on a part-time/hourly basis on days on which the Patriots had home games. His legitimate job responsibilities as Officials Locker Room attendant did not involve the preparation, inflation or deflation of Patriots game balls.

3. During the pre-game inspection, Anderson determined that all but two of the Patriots game balls delivered by McNally were properly inflated. Most of them measured 12.5 psi. Two tested below 12.5 psi and Anderson directed another game official to further inflate those two game balls, which Anderson then adjusted to 12.5 psi using a pressure gauge. Most of the Colts game balls tested by Anderson prior to the game measured 13.0 or 13.1 psi. Although one or two footballs may have registered 12.8 or 12.9 psi, it was evident to Anderson that the Colts‟ inflation target for the game balls was 13.0 psi. No air was added to orreleased from the Colts game balls pre-game because they were all within the permissible range.

4. When Anderson and other members of the officiating crew were preparing to leave the Officials Locker Room to head to the field for the start of the game, the game balls could not be located. It was the first time in Anderson’s nineteen years as an NFL official that he could not locate the game balls at the start of a game. Unknown to Anderson, and without Anderson’s permission or the permission of any other member of the officiating crew, McNally had taken the balls from the Officials Locker Room towards the playing field. According to Anderson and other members of the officiating crew for the AFC Championship Game, the removal of the game balls from the Officials Locker Room by McNally without the permission of the referee or another game official was a breach of standard operating pre-game procedure. According to Anderson, other members of the officiating crew for the AFC Championship Game and other game officials with recent experience at Gillette Stadium, McNally had not previously removed game balls from the Officials Locker Room and taken them to the field without either receiving permission from the game officials or being accompanied by one or more officials.

5. Based on videotape evidence and witness interviews, it has been determined that McNally removed the game balls from the Officials Locker Room at approximately 6:30 p.m. After leaving the Officials Locker Room carrying two large bags of game balls (Patriots balls and Colts balls), McNally turned left and then turned left again to walk down a corridor referred to by Patriots personnel as the “center tunnel” heading to the playing field. At the end of the center tunnel on the left-hand side, approximately three feet from the doors that lead to the playing field, is a bathroom. McNally entered that bathroom with the game balls, locked the door, and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds. He then left the bathroom and took the bags of game balls to the field.

6. In the weeks and months before the AFC Championship Game, McNally periodically exchanged text messages with the Patriots equipment assistant primarily responsible for the preparation of the Patriots game balls, John Jastremski. In a number of those text messages, McNally and Jastremski discussed the air pressure of Patriots game balls, Tom Brady's unhappiness with the inflation level of Patriots game balls, Jastremski‟s plan to provide McNally with a “needle” for use by McNally, and McNally‟s requests for “cash” and sneakers together with the “needle” to be provided by Jastremski. A sports ball inflation needle is a device that can be used to inflate a football (if attached to an air pump) or release air from a football (if inserted alone into a ball).

For example, on October 17, 2014, following a Thursday night game between the Patriots and the New York Jets during which Tom Brady complained angrily about the inflation level of the game balls, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages: McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a fuckin balloon. Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done... Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though... Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs fucked us...a few of then were at almost 16. Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them McNally: Fuck tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday Jastremski: Omg! Spaz

On October 21, 2014, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages: McNally: Make sure you blow up the ball to look like a rugby ball so tom can get used to it before sunday Jastremski: Omg

On October 23, 2014, three days before a Sunday game against the Chicago Bears, Jastremski and McNally exchanged the following messages: Jastremski: Can’t wait to give you your needle this week :) McNally: Fuck tom....make sure the pump is attached to the needle.....fuckin watermelons coming Jastremski: So angry McNally: The only thing deflating sun..is his passing rating

The next day, October 24, 2014, Jastremski and McNally exchanged the following messages: Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks....or its a rugby sunday McNally: Fuck tom Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week

On October 25, 2014, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following messages: Jastremski: Size 11? Jastremski: 2 or 3X? McNally: Tom must really be on you McNally: 11 0r 11 half......2x unless its tight fitting Jastremski: Nah. Hasn’t even mentioned it, figured u should get something since he gives u nothing

On January 7, 2015, eleven days before the AFC Championship Game, McNally and Jastremski discussed how McNally would have a “big autograph day” and receive items autographed by Brady the following weekend, before the playoff game against the Baltimore Ravens. McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages: McNally: Remember to put a couple sweet pig skins ready for tom to sign Jastremski: U got it kid...big autograph day for you McNally: Nice throw some kicks in and make it real special Jastremski: It ur lucky. 11? McNally: 11 or 11 and half kid

On January 10, 2015, immediately prior to the game between the Patriots and the Ravens, in the Patriots equipment room with both Brady and Jastremski present, McNally received two footballs autographed by Brady and also had Brady autograph a game-worn Patriots jersey that McNally previously had obtained. In addition to the messages described above, before the start of the 2014-15 season, McNally referred to himself as “the deflator” and stated that he was “not going to espn……..yet.” On May 9, 2014, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages: McNally: You working Jastremski: Yup McNally: Nice dude....jimmy needs some kicks....lets make a deal.....come on help the deflator. McNally: Chill buddy im just fuckin with you ....im not going to espn........yet.

Take a break
This conversation has certainly gotten out of hand. It has come down to 2 editors, who will not see eye to eye, clogging this talk page with assertions back and forth. My advice: Take a break, and stop contributing more of the same to this talk page. If you need consensus than you will require more than just 2-3 editors - take it to WP:RFC. Otherwise, please end the chatter here, as it is not constructive and both parties are close to tendentious editing. Garchy (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Woah, I was the second comment in that discussion but this page isn't on my watchlist so I had no idea it had ballooned into that. Yeesh. <font color="#008000">Lizard (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Physics
There are so many problems with the section that it's hard to know where to begin. The Ideal Gas Law says NOTHING about the pressure change in a football between two different temperatures. The pressure change will depend on dT AND dV! (change in both temperature and volume). The Ideal Gas Law can't predict how the football will contract as it cools, that is: its dimensions change with temperature. That's one problem. The second problem is that the temperatures, for the most part, weren't measured. Worse than that: they probably weren't even at equilibrium. Third, the gauges weren't calibrated, were they? Finally, the report seems to avoid the possibility that air (pressure) was lost during the measurement process - I know when I stick a needle into a pressurized ball, that some of the air leaks out. Unless a report evaluates all of these factors, it's incapable of addressing the physics. Note that the ball is composed of an elastomer which may itself have hysteresis (in terms of volume and stresses) under changing temperature (and handling) conditions.40.142.179.18 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

R f C needed?: Should deflategate include and reference a section on counter-allegations?
Can we agree, without need of an RfC, there should be a section to cover this, and that it merits high level mention?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Background:
 * This New York Times article, "True Scandal of Deflategate Lies in the N.F.L.’s Behavior" indicates that a very important part of the controversy is alleged wrong-doing by the NFL and associated parties. Likewise, the Washington Post had an article prominently claiming and arguing that "Deflategate has always been an inverted scandal. The real attack on the integrity of the game came not from the New England Patriots, but from the NFL commissioner" while Yahoo sports determined that the shame lied with the NFL.


 * There is also litany of specific accusations of deliberately misleading statements from the NFL and Exponent and misinformation, as well as not following their own rules. Do we need to detail them here to reach agreement that a counter-allegations section is needed?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: If answering "no", please justify "no" in accordance with this wikipedia policy on weighting discussions: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". In other words, if no then please cite reliable sources justifying in some detail the assertion that such counter-allegations are not relevant to understanding the vigor and nature of the two-sided debates about "deflategate"Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

yes (meaning, add section) or No (meaning don't add section) If "Yes" does not prevail, I'll create an actual RfC for wider input.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * No - Both articles come across as biased.
 * The Post actually says that Goodell got harmed more, and makes dubious statements like[Brady, in] the court of public opinion, he won. That's far from factual (most of the country is convinced he cheats seven times before breakfast). The Yahoo article comes across as even more biased, and says there appears to be a scientific consensus, if not unanimous opinion, that those footballs were never illegally deflated. That's also far from factual. As an aside, I'd postpone any actions on this article as well as Belichick and Brady's until the Superbowl hoopla dies down. The deflategate statement has already been nuked in the Brady article, but when you see over 100 edits in a day, there's no point in trying to stem the tide. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While there is no scientific consensus as defined by research polls and publications in peer-reviewed journals, there sure seems to be consensus in the form of scientists who have looked at other scientists work. As the Washington post article points out, if anyone dissents from that consensus, their work is hard to find online (ie she looked and found no dissent.)  It's fair for the publications to call that "consensus" even if it does not rise to the level of proof of global warming consensus.  I don't think their readers are confusing the two definitions.  As mentioned, I'm fine with qualifying language so it won't be construed as cigarattte-smoke-causes-cancer rigorousness of consensus.  There are all of those articles saying that (informal) consensus.  The proper way to challenge is with similarly focused articles challenging the idea that there is such (informal) consensusRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the comments on the Post story support the view that the Goodell was losing the public opinion -- so the author wouldn't have to be biased to believe people feel that way.
 * The claim that the New York Times and Washington Post are biased in favor of the Patriots and against the views most of their readers likely prefer should require a high burden of proof. If the Times has an inherent bias in favor of the Patriots, why did the Times initially publish a scathing article saying Science worked against the Patriots?  To later publish a complete reversal of that position seems to show that The Times must have put some serious study into reaching the decision to publish a complete reversal all the way to exoneration.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof to establish that counter-allegations are not a worthy topic of discussion would be to show that such counter-allegations are not part of the fervor over the scandal on the part those who believe the NFL was more at fault. How can one credibly argue that no pro-Patriots folks believe what the Times, Post, Yahoo are saying, or if they do believe it, don't find it motivating?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No - Undue weightLedRush (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What are the reliable counter-weighing sources, indicating that the counter-allegations are not a relevant part of the scandal?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No - Counter allegations do not seem to offer any new facts, just further speculation of why.  The NFL's actions are plainly stated and the reader can draw their own conclusion. This is like trying to figure out why Brady allegedly and with intent, cheated.  Do we need a section on why Brady was intentionally giving himself a handicap by using deflated footballs? After all, his play in the second half, the rest of the playoffs and in the next season suggests once the NFL got their act together, Brady clearly benefited from alleged (we still have no specific facts from the NFL) consistent ball pressure.  Give it a rest.Rcollman (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A worthy line in inquiry! Because so much of the controversy is driven by alleged intent to gain every advantage, it would be helpful to have a section with quantification of whether the upper limit on possible missing air constitutes enough of an advantage to be worth the hassle of attempting it, and indeed the risk of introducing inconsistency both within balls used at the same game and across balls in different games.  There were some apparently well-researched articles on whether it's really an advantage, and I think also on emphasis on consistency in training and in other fields of quality control.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether one believes the speculation of intent adds value to the guilt/innocence question, doesn't it add value to understanding why folks get so worked up over this controversy?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes on pressure of intercepted ball
The section indicates the Colts believed there was a problem with the ball inflation for the intercepted football. The Wells report contains both the Colts' description of what pressure was measured and what the NFL and their consultants contend should have been measured under the rules and policies in place. Therefore, the article should not leave the question hanging as to whether the Colts' belief was correct or not.

The simulation data:
 * There are two concluding graphs in the Wells Report, science section (ie the Exponent appendix). Fig 29 is Exponent's theory and simulation of what the cold football psi should have been as a function of how much time it had to warm up.  (In contrast, the alternative Fig. 30 corresponds to a ball under-filled as a result of an inaccurate gauge used when filling). Time = 0 represents the ball still at field temperature.  The red dots are for the simulations, depicting the average of many footballs, which indicates that on average footballs were expected to have a psi just above the "Patriots wet" line.  Thus at T=0 the ball pressure of the average should have 11.2,

"Approximately"
 * Attempts to measure any one ball would achieve varying results, and results would also vary between footballs. The range of uncertainty of measurements is indicated as more than 0.4 (the shaded region around the horizontal red line). There is additional reasoning and explanation of the uncertainty in the Wells report.  Thus 11.2 and 11.0 are approximately the same.  Both are "approximately 11 psi."  Presuming that the average person would understand 11.2 fall within "approximately 11 psi", additional explanation for this use of the word "approximately" would needlessly detract from the readability of the article.

Reliable sources: The Wells report is definitive.

Notability of the Synthesis of comparing the Well's theory with the Colts account: NBCSports.com "The intercepted ball was legal"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)  oops -- signing it this time:Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just reverted your last change claiming the Wells report says the measured pressure is what was expected. That is not what the report says. Please quote (here) the text you claim says that. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the text on page 59 says "it appears that the average pressures of the Colts footballs that were measured on Game Day are explainable by the simulation, whereas the average pressures of the Patriots footballs that were measured on Game Day are not.", which directly contradicts what you added. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote you gave is about the "average pressures of the footballs measured". The statement I made was about the pressure of just one of the footballs -- the intercepted one.  Thus no contradiction, direct or indirect.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there some rule in Wikipedia that a number cannot be read off of a graph?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you disagreeing that 11.2 within a tolerance range of over 0.4 is fairly characterized as "approximately 11 psi?"
 * Are you disagreeing about how to read the graph?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am disagreeing about what that graph says. You misread the text explaining the diagram, it does *not* say the pressure readings taken are expected from a correctly inflated football. If you claim it does, find the text that says that.  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The gist of the report is that Fig 29 is for correctly inflated balls vs. Fig 30 is for balls underinflated due to the ref using a bad gauge, but I’m happy to provide the exact text.


 * Because the report flows toward those concluding figures, the specific description (indicating that the pressure [curves depicted in the graph] are expected from a correctly inflated football [at the low end of the allowable range]) builds up over the course of the report.


 * 12.5psi (in the locker room) depicts a properly inflated football:
 * “[t]he ball shall be made up of an inflated (12½ to 13½ pounds)…” (Wells (not Exponent) page 3, bullet 1 passage from rule 2).   “Information provided by Paul, Weiss to Exponent indicates that the Patriots and the Colts inflated the game balls for the AFC Championship Game at or near 12.5 psig and 13.0 psig, respectively." (pXI, bullet 5).  From the "background section of the wikipedia article, note: "The official rules of the National Football League require footballs to be inflated to a gauge pressure between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch (psi) or 86 to 93 kPa, when measured by the referees. The rules do not specify the temperature at which such measurement is to be made.[9]"


 * The Non-logo gauge is accurate:
 * “…the Non-Logo Gauge, which read similarly to the Master Gauge” (p44)


 * The non-logo gauge was used to set the football to 12.5psi for the tests that follow:
 * Table 12 (p49): “all initial pressures were adjusted using the Non-Logo Gauge.” Read Table 12 for team=Patriots; result: 12.5psi


 * From there, it the same curves flow through to Figure 29.
 * Please let me know if you need the specific proof of that flow-through. Can you un-do the reversion of my edit?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. FIgure 29 is a graph of a simulation. Page 58 of the Exponent report: "For the Patriots measurements, all averages [of the simulations] are higher than what was observed on Game Day". I think what is going on is you are trying WP:SYNTH, to read meaning into a report that is not in the report. The report does *NOT* say that figure 29 indicates the patriots footballs were properly inflated. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 20:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the above paragraph is about the averages of all the footballs whereas my point was about one football -- thus no contradiction. If the one football matched what the "average" should be, that one football was fine even if the average of all the footballs didn't match what the average was supposed to beRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the above paragraph is about footballs that had re-warmed whereas my point was about a football that hadn't, thus no contradiction.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If Fig 29 were only a graph of a simulation, it would have just the six filled in circles. Exponent may use it to make a point about simulations, but all that other data is an integral part of the graphRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What are the "A" and "B" parts that you believe I'm synthesizing for the first time into "C", the idea that the lower dotted line in Figure 29 represents the minimum the pressure was supposed to be on average to be as a function of time, even if the descriptive text for Fig 29 is somewhat obtuse?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH. Specifically: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. The report does not say explicitly (or even implicitly) what you wrote. As I understand that section of the report, you are misreading it entirely - what they are describing is that they did the simulations, and that the simulations did not explain the difference in pressure. Specifically, page 58, describing what they are doing in that section, the simulations compared to actual observations: For the Patriots measurements, all averages are higher than what was observed on Game Day. In other words, the Patriots balls pressures as measured were lower than their simulations can account for. As for Figure 29 not being a graph of a simulation, read the caption: A comparison of the simulation results. (my bolding). There are numerous problems with the Wells report and the Exponent research, but mis-reporting the contents simply flags the edits as biased. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above repeats Exponent statements that, as I already explained, address issues different than the point at hand and thus do not conflict.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Captions are not intended to fully define what information a graphic contains, but rather that which is being highlighted in the discussion. Therefore pointing to the presence of information not specifically mentioned in the caption is not a form of mis-reporting.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll add a further comment. If you wish to dissect the Wells report and point out contradictions, that sounds like an excellent idea - for an article to be published elsewhere. Wikipedia prohibits that here under WP:NOR. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 00:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing I proposed adding contradicts anything Exponent said; nothing I said claims that Exponent contradicted themselves. Exponent never made any claim in text regarding what the on-field pressure would most likely be for a properly inflated football.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I much appreciate that you have weighed in several times here today. I'll give it a rest for a while and hope that after a fresh look you'll more clearly the points I made above.  Perhaps I'll go for RfC or 3PO, but later -- indeed time for a rest.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs
The two lead paragraphs currently end like this:


 * The NFL changed the process for monitoring football pressure in the 2016 season. Brady was suspended the first four games. The New England Patriots won Super Bowl LI. At the MVP ceremony, Goodell praised both coach Bill Belichick and Tom Brady.

I would move the first two sentences to the end of the opening paragraph, and I would delete the third and fourth sentences because they have nothing to do with Deflategate. The fact that the Patriots won Super Bowl LI and Goodell praised Brady says nothing about Deflategate. If the Patriots had lost Super Bowl LI, then no editor would have added that fact to the lead paragraphs of the article.Ebw343 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Ebw343 (talk) (UTC)(talk)

AgreeRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Really, Goodell giving praises to Tom and Bill have no relation to Deflategate??? Goodell rules that Brady cheated and tried to hide the fact over a year later says Tom has set a "high bar" and he is honored to award the trophy to him?? OK I will delete "The New England Patriots won Super Bowl LI" as a non-deflategate related event (my fandom came out) in the opening summary. My viewpoint sees these deflategate related facts: NFL changed the process, then Brady served his suspension and then Goodell said he was honored to award the person he suspended for damaging the integrity of the game, the MVP trophy. Those are definitely Deflategate related facts.  Rcollman (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would delete the last two paragraphs of the current version. The fact that the Patriots won SB LI is completely irrelevant to Deflategate, as are the Commissioner's comments after SB LI. The Commissioner said nothing about Deflategate. The implication that one editor wants to make, i.e., that somehow the Commissioner's post-SB LI comments absolve or partially absolve Mr. Brady, is unsupported. The NFL did not rescind any of the penalties imposed on either the Patriots or Mr. Brady, nor did the NFL rescind any of their prior findings. In particular, the NFL did not rescind NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent's May 11, 2015 letter to Mr. Brady, which stated in part: "Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football."Ebw343 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Ebw343 (talk)Ebw343 (UTC)(talk)

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."

 * Can some editor stop the effort to keep this speculation in the article: "Given the crushing victory by the Patriots, there is a consensus that the Colts would still have lost even if the footballs were properly inflated." It's pure speculation and, more importantly, completely irrelevant to the issue. Ebw343 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ebw343. The statement "that the Colts would still have lost even if the footballs were properly inflated" is pure speculation. The cited reference is one football player's speculation in a tweet and more speculation from one sports writer. That " there is a consensus" of that speculation is not supported by the cited reference." Please see WP:UNDUE. Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSPECULATION does say "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation", but it specifically has the caveat: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." So, yes, even "speculation" is allowed under reasonable circumstances; also, the given reasoning sounds more like "a reasonable inference" than what I would personally categorize as "speculation". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows what would have happened in that game if the Patriots hadn't deflated their footballs after they had been inspected and approved by the game officials. To state that playing with deflated footballs for the entire first half of the game made no difference is pure speculation. Jerry Stockton (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's four sources for there being a consensus. Are there any contradicting sources? Similarly unlikely. The Pats won 45-7, and 28 of their points came in the second half -- after the game officials had pumped the balls back up to their regulation pressure. You make the call." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox "Anyway, most sane people wouldn’t argue with Allen."
 * USA Today "Allen is, of course, totally correct. The Patriots dominated the Colts from beginning to end, and a lot of their dominance was in the running game, so whether the balls were over- or under-inflated really wouldn’t matter. The Colts weren’t winning that game."
 * Five Thirty Eight "Again, we don’t know exactly how much of a boost Brady and company received due to the deflated footballs, but it’s tough to make the statistical case that a moderately reduced Patriots passing game would be enough to close the gap between New England and Indianapolis in other areas of the game."
 * CNN "Could the ball pressure really have played that large a factor?
 * Again, this is all speculation. But even if every player and football expert agreed, that's not the point.  The point is that this speculation has nothing to do with whether or not the footballs were improperly deflated by the Pats.Ebw343 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it does; it's saying that doing so hardly mattered to the result of the game in the opinion of experts. I don't have the quote handy but I also seem to recall Andrew Luck saying the game could have been played with a brick and the Pats would still have won. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, the Deflategate wiki page is about whether or not the footballs were improperly deflated by the Pats. Which team won the game is irrelevant. Which team might have won the game if the footballs had not been improperly deflated is also irrelevant.Ebw343 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously we will have to disagree about that. This page has always been not just about the scandal but about the game the scandal occurred in, which is an integral part of the story. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The page is not about "whether or not the footballs were improperly deflated by the Pats". This page is a documentation of the entire scandal and never meant to give any one judgement. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The page is not about 'whether or not the footballs were improperly deflated by the Pats.'" You can't possibly mean that.  I think your claim is that the page is about more than that issue. But, again, I disagree. Which team won the game is irrelevant. Which team might have won the game if the footballs had not been improperly deflated is also irrelevant.Ebw343 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to your views, but there is not yet consensus for them. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden isn't on me to establish consensus for the common sense statement that asking which team would have won the game under circumstances that never happened is speculation. That piece of speculation, by construction, will never achieve consensus, which is your (un-achievable) burden.Ebw343 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy that permits such information has already been pointed out to you above. If you have your own policy based arguments for your position, please offer them.  It is indeed incumbent upon you to gain consensus for the change that you propose from the way the article is currently. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've posted to the talk pages of both the Patriots WikiProject and the Colts WikiProject requesting comment by others. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article as it currently stands looks good to me. No irrelevant speculation in it.Ebw343 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't do it, but the page should be restored to the way it was before the information being discussed here was removed. Pinging . 331dot (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any hugely strong views, but it seems to me that it is information which could be properly included if phrased correctly. Speculation is bad, but it is probably acceptable to say something like: "A number of commentators have pointed out that given the margin of the Patriots victory and the fact the majority of the scoring occurred in the second half, the underinflated footballs were unlikely to have play a material role in the outcome of the game."<insert footnote with link to one or two WP:RS> Equally if the consensus is to leave it out, I don't have a serious problem with that. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; it certainly is not "irrelevant speculation" to put the opinions of experts as to what would have happened absent the deflating. It's very relevant, just as Operation Sea Lion offers speculation as to what might have happened had Britain been conquered by the Germans(as well as the results of a speculative wargame). This is specifically permitted per policy, as cited at the top of this section. I may have missed it but I have not seen a policy-based argument that prohibits such information, only personal opinions of its "irrelevance". 331dot (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The disputed text is a silly attempt by Pats fans to divert attention from the only issue addressed in the Deflategate page: did the Pats cheat? The point to the speculative text is to say: "so what if Brady cheated, the Pats would have won anyway." That's a fundamentally wrongheaded argument, again based on pure speculation, to have in an article meant to investigate a factual issue: did the Pats cheat? Wikipedia editors should prevent Pats fans from making such edits.Ebw343 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand what the purpose of this article is; it is not "to investigate a factual issue". It is to comprehensively document a major scandal. As has been indicated already, policy allows for the speculative opinion of experts on a subject. I did find this Colts player stating that the Patriots simply outplayed the Colts. If you have experts that claim the opposite, that the Colts would have won the game absent the deflation, I would support posting that as well.  I still don't see a policy that supports your position. I've also given one example of such speculation present in another article.
 * Pats fans won't be prevented from editing this page any more than Democrats are prevented from editing the page about the Democratic Party, or people who like President Trump are prevented from editing his page, and so on. I could easily make the same claim about you; that you should be prevented from editing this page because you are opposed to the Patriots. I don't believe that at all. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The speculation included in Operation Sea Lion is OTHERSTUFF. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the information included should be of encyclopedia quality, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." WP:IINFO "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." WP:NOTEVERYTHING I added the bold to "accepted knowledge." The speculation that the Patriots use of illegally deflated footballs in the first half of the game had limited or no effect on the outcome of the game and is not accepted knowledge. This appears to be low quality  speculation presented without any documentation or research to show it is correct and does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's accepted knowledge when I don't see anyone in football or knowledgeable in football advocating the opposite position(that the Colts would have won the game absent the alleged deflation). The opinions of players in the game is certainly relevant even if anyone else's opinion isn't(which I don't concede). 331dot (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I obviously disagree that this is OTHERSTUFF(which is largely about AfDs) as it is an example of speculative content accepted elsewhere, which could just as easily be removed under the same rationale that is being advocated here. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That speculation was included in the article about Operation Sea Lion is not a valid reason that speculation should be included in the article about Deflategate. OTHERSTUFF Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's indicative of how articles in general are structured and what sorts of content is permitted and even expected; however we will have to disagree about that. I am aware of OTHERSTUFF which is about deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Came back to the pleasant surprise that the cabal of Pats fans reverting my edit have been silenced. Thanks guys 209.64.168.66 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Scientific Evidence in dispute
I would like to include a part about errors in the Wells Report. Specifically, Bill Belichick at his press conference mentioned gloving and Exponent found the effect wears off(I think this is already in the article). However, the Wells Report said that Jastremski inflated the footballs after the gloving. Since Exponent found that the effect wears off, this means that the pressure when the balls were measured by the referee Anderson would have been low. Yet since he found them to be OK, it means he must have been using the Logo Gauge to measure as this is the gauge that reads high(also in Wiki article). Implication is that Patriots did not cheat, based on results in rest of Exponent report. Brady's lawyer came close to establishing this entire defense in appeal hearing, then stumbled when a question was not properly answered and dropped the whole line of questioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.3.155 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be WP:OR. If you can find an article published in a WP:RS about this, you can cite that article, being very careful to avoid WP:SYNTH. Only say what the article you are citing says, do not imply anything else which you surmise as a result. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Misleading graphic

 * [[File:PatriotsStatistics.png]]

Image dates from 22 July 2016.

Rendering this as a line chart instead of a bar chart is classic chartjunk. The x-axis consists of independent measurements with no series relationship (unless—rarified pretext—there is an implied time sequence in the order the measurements are performed, but in that case the time domain is artificially normalized without comment). See also misleading graph, which presently doesn't cover this case, but it should, so I've also noted this image there. As a small note, surely the mean should be given to three digits instead of five (the gauge discrepancy alone is at the level of the first digit here, this sure isn't LIGO with 20 full digits of discrimination). &mdash; MaxEnt 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Incomprehensible didn't but did
According to NFL official Dean Blandino, referees do not log the pressure of the balls prior to the game, or check during the game, and did not do so in this case. Walt Anderson, the referee, gauged the footballs.

Edit war? One sentence each? I see no other comprehensible explanation. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the word "normally" or "usually" is missing before "check". The statement that they didn't log the pressures was correct, and the action of Anderson in checking them at halftime was an extraordinary action as a result of a complaint. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 00:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's changed to:
 * According to NFL official Dean Blandino, referees do not log the pressure of the balls prior to the game, and did not do so in this case.
 * That matches my understanding of events, and matches the cited reference. The fact that they normally didn't check the pressures is what has been reported elsewhere, but not in that citation. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
The neutrality of this article is seriously in doubt. At every opportunity it unquestioningly adopts the position of the NFL and it's proponents and minimizes, or even outright ignores, the numerous criticisms of the practices, claims and processes that should raise significant doubt in the mind of ANY truly non-neutral observer as to the conclusions put forward therefrom.

The Article, for example, fails to highlight the League's initial decision to employ Cornell University to conduct the scientific research before suddenly firing them and handing it over to Exponent, a "scientific" organisation that's mostly well known for producing reports of questionable scientific validity to order in support of whatever legal agenda their clients happen to require. That curious choice notwithstanding, even with such a disreputable agency taking over the "scientific", research the best "scientific" conclusion that they could hand to their employer STILL could only manage to conclude that: "...the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain." (Page 160, Paragraph 3, Line 1).

Unsurprisingly, this little tidbit has been buried by both Exponent (in their original report) the NFL, and all of their apologists, but it nevertheless highlights the rotten heart of the entire debacle: A hired-gun scientific agency, contracted to produce a "scientific" report to support the narrative of their client's choosing, when handed all of the available evidence, could still only manage to feebly admit that they could not reach the desired conclusion with the numbers and evidence that they were provided. NONE of this, significant information is even referenced in this ostensibly "neutral" article.

Furthermore, there is NEVER any indication given as to why, for example, the Wells Investigators took the Gameday Referee's memory of pre-game football pressures verbatim, unquestioned (to the 10th of a PSI!) but then chose to, in their conclusion, assert that his ability to properly recollect which of his own two, significantly distinguishable gauges he actually used must have been faulty (because if he did actually use the gauge that he said he remembered using, they wouldn't be able to reach the conclusion that their clients had instructed them to find -- i.e. that the footballs HAD to have been deflated and HAD to be significantly outside of established ranges for natural climatological deflation as per the Ideal Gas Law). To this day, they have never provided any evidence, substantiation, justification or rationale for their decision to unquestioningly accept a dozen or more football PSI readings to the 10th of a PSI, while simultaneously asserting that this same individual's remarkable memory could not possibly have been able to accurately recall which of his own two gauges he himself used to actually take measurements with that night.

Further, there is little mention, let alone credence given to scientists who've shown that the data collected is entirely consistent with what would be expected given the extant environmental conditions on the night. A truly NPOV article would obviously present ALL of the evidence, for and against, without leaning in either direction. THIS article, on the other hand, goes to lengths to minimize the numerous counter-arguments, and all but dismisses / ignores anything that's not wholly consistent with the demonstrably corrupt, dishonest and agenda-driven, narrative of the NFL... (which itself is another significantly relevant element of the narrative that's wholly absent from the Article).

The article also neglects to highlight the curiosity of Tom Brady being the first player, coach or person to have ever, in the entire history of the NFL, be penalised for being "more probably than not at least generally aware" that someone else may have been breaking the rules, even though the League has never been able to actually prove that such an infraction ever occurred.

There are innumerable questions still unanswered as to the choices, practices, actions, procedures, and inherent conflicts of interest demonstrated by the NFL in their pursuit of this unproven witch hunt, and this article all but glosses them over / ignores them and is, therefore, significantly non-neutral in its portrayal of the events it purports to relate. I don't think that the NFL itself would have had written it much differently had they employed the author to retcon history in their favour. 216.240.6.210 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Our job is not to analyze or criticize the NFL, Tom Brady, the Patriots, or anyone involved with this matter; only to summarize what independent reliable sources state about it. If there are independent sources that provide information that is missing and relevant to this article, there can likely be a place for it here if done in a neutral point of view.  But this article won't be turned into a NFL hit piece either. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh, whut?! "this article won't be turned into a NFL hit piece"?!? -- Non-sequitur much? Heck, did you even READ what I wrote? (like the TEN reputable-sourced references?)

I justly disputed the purported neutrality of this article due to its having leant so un-neutrally towards the demonstrably corrupt narrative that has been doggedly asserted by the NFL while (and this is being generous) also giving very short shrift to the substantial amount of evidence that at the very LEAST seriously calls that narrative into question.

I cited SEVERAL examples where systemic problems have been identified, and I included many disparate references to substantiate those arguments, and yet, the central tenet of the response that you decided to pen consisted of, "Our job is not to analyze or criticize the NFL..." Wow!

If only you had the intellectual integrity to give as much weight and consideration what you put at the END of that sentence (i.e. "[Our job is] only to summarize what independent reputable sources state about it") as you so obviously put on the beginning of it. Again, I cited TEN independent, reliable sources to substantiate that the veracity of the NFL&apos;s narrative (as it has so faithfully and dutifully been recounted here) is far from being demonstrated and as such, the article, as it stands, is not at all representative of a neutral summary of all disparate, independent, reputable sources' assessments as to the facts of the event itself. A state of affairs that your reply doesn't even acknowledge or address, which, essentially, serves to demonstrate my original point: Your (failed) "job" was to *fully* and *unbiasedly* summarize en toto, without taking sides, all of the facts of the described event as reported by recognized, accountable, reliable sources, and yet the article, as I have amply demonstrated, doesn&apos;t do that at all! It leaves out / overlooks at least half of the story and the facts, and that's why this article seriously fails to represent an NPOV assessment of it's subject... 216.240.6.210 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The biggest problem is in how the article is presented. The Top-most sections lay out the NFL's argument, unrebutted, with large section headings and a tone of infallibility as to the statements / claims being reported. Of the numerous criticisms that exist and have been levied, the ones that are included, instead of being presented in-context, alongside the NFL's argument, thereby preserving a neutral tone, are instead clumped together, in a mass of unhighlighted, unremarked, and downplayed prose tucked quietly between two other large-print sections. This is not a neutral presentation of the facts, its how you hide content you don't want people to pay attention to. 216.240.6.210 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No one is hiding anything. If you would calm down and reread what I wrote, I said "If there are independent sources that provide information that is missing and relevant to this article, there can likely be a place for it here if done in a neutral point of view." You are free to edit the article yourself, or suggest specific additions here. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)