Talk:ProFootballTalk

Article contains obvious bias
This article reads like a commercial. The language used can only lead one to assume it was written by representatives of the web site itself. I suggest that an impartial third party help clean up this love fest.

Can we get the IP of the complainers and editors. It doesn't seem to be written as a favorable view of the site, but it does nail the overall format. The blog is more like an online radio show, and shows less "love" than the similar Jim Rome page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.143.66 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about being an advertisement
The page should be taken down since it is obviously an advertisment for the website. This will also continue with the tradition of deleting other football websites like TheHuddle.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbgiunta (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Biased article
This article is little more than a commercial. I do not think it follows wiki's neutral point of view policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.21.239 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

soo... do you think it should be deleted? Enigmaman 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it should probably be deleted. Do you have any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.21.239 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Not sure. I think it's worthy of having a wikipedia page about the website, but maybe it can be edited for neutrality. Just my opinion. More experienced editors may have a better idea of what to do. Enigmaman 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the site, but this might as well have been written by Florio himself. I think this defintely needs to be edited to remove the bias because as this profile will tell you profootballtalk.com itself supports unbiased opinions.


 * Seeing as the article appears to be sticking around, I'm going to edit the section that talks about Florio's criticisms of various personalities. I'm not convinced that the section even needs to be in there (or at least not be such a large part of the article), but since Florio posts his criticisms so liberally, I'm fine with it sticking around.  But as it is, the section veers away from merely listing Florio's opinions to being NPOV about the characters Florio's criticizing.  I'm just going to edit some of the wording to make it clear that these are MF's criticisms and not wiki's.Kaylorcc (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

keep it, but edit it
yes, its biased, but no ... it should not be deleted. It is however, no longer an advert as it was a couple months ago.

Delete this page
How do we add a poll for deletion??

Notes on Deletion and Alternatives
Good day! I've noted several people here expressing an interest in deleting this article. If you want, you can list it on WP:AFD. However, please note Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Profootballtalk.com seems to pass WP:WEB, it just doesn't do a good job referencing it.

I'm going to take a stab at cleaning up the article. Any opinions and edits are welcome! -- Irixman (t) (m) 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Len Pasquarelli should have more important things to do than bust on a wiki page, and be a coward about his IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.143.66 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All we know is that the site was released on November 1, 2001
To say it was "created" on that date is to imply that the decision to do the site, acquiring the hosting, and developing and opening the site was on November 1. There is nothing to suggest that. All we know for sure is that it was opened/released to the public on that date--because that's the day the first news item was posted. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * if the site isn't available to be accessed, then it isn't created yet according to common lingo. Enigmaman 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for that, or is that just how you and your friends speak? Without anything indicating one usage is significantly more common than the other, I think it's best if we word it in the least ambiguous, the least strictly incorrect way possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmweber (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * my friends? This is how it's generally referred to by everyone I've seen mention on the Internet. None of these people are my friends. Enigmaman 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Steeler fan?
Can we see a source for the Steeler fan comment about Mike Florio? On the site he routinely says he is without loyalties as far as NFL fandom goes. If there is no source it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepinion (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He said he liked the Steelers when he grew up in WV. Long time readers of the rumor mill know this. Lately, though, he's been more of a Patriots fan.  Enigma  message 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Biased and self-referential
Not only is this article biased, as other editors have noted, it's also ridiculously self-referential. It links to Mike Florio at least twice, yet Mike Florio redirects right back to Profootballtalk.com. I see no reason for these links. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited by target?
I did a little research into some of the anonymous edits. I think there is reason to believe the edits are actually being made my Mike Florio. I documented them here: http://exposepft.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-mike-florio-editing-his-own.html

I also emailed him to ask for comments. Is there a need to cite this concern? Or to report it? Rockitsauce (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike Florio responded with, "If i knew how to (and cared to) edit the thing it would be a lot more accurate than it currently is." I think this is a clear sign that the article needs many more edits. Rockitsauce (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

MDS
As Michael David Smith no longer writes for the site, I'm removing him from the staff section. I don't see any reason to list previous contributors to the site-- if anybody disagrees, I'm open for discussion, but former writers don't seem all that relevant. Kaylorcc (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated
Much of this information seems to be outdated, including the list of writers for the site. It should be updated. 199.16.135.29 (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Owners/ Investors
instead of complaining about this being a commercial, anybody have any information on them to include in the article? - - - see above for a for instance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.125 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)