Talk:Spygate (NFL)/Archive 1

lore?
Noticing that most NFL Team infoboxes have a line for lore (i.e. memorable/controversial/notable moments like the Freezer Bowl or Immaculate R[D]eception), and I'm thinking this would count as NFL lore. Or is several months after the actual occurence too soon? I'm going to put it in, but this is a notice for anyone who thinks that it is in fact too soon and wants to veto by taking it out. Saucy626 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could possibly see it for the Patriots, but definitely not for the Jets.  Pats 1  T / C  03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if you look at National Football League lore, lore is defined as "events [that] have become extremely famous, even mythical, in the history of the game." I believe that "events" are events that occur on the field during play. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, like the guarantee. Spygate should be considered more like a controversy in my opinion. --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The new revisions are poor
Personally, I think Pats1's revisions have diminished the original prose of the article. I think my original version was more descriptive and concise than the latest version. Some links have been removed, and there are several grammatically incorrect statements. Overall, the wording seems "sloppier" than the original version. Additionally, I'm uncertain as to why several portions of my version were labled as "POV" in one revision. I attempted to maintain a neutral prose in my original version. The introduction has been severely downsized, too. Personally, it severely downplays the Jets' role, and it places too much emphasis on New England. The revisions apparently display Pats1's original bias against this article, but I'll assume good faith. Overall, I'm uncomfortable about this new version. CVW (Talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go through point-by-point:
 * "significant NFL scandal" - "significant" rather POV - what qualifies significant or not?
 * "multiple teams" - the Jets were the accusers, but 100% of the focus was on the Patriots
 * "The effects from the scandal were profound, and it drove another divide between the Patriots' devoted fans and detractors." - original research, source provided on the next line only about Shula's comments - "profound" would be POV if it was sourced or not
 * "debate continues" - OR again
 * "The scandal emerges" - borderline POV heading, needs to be a bit more neutral than creative
 * "The NFL community was strongly polarized during the weeks after the scandal." - OR as novel synthesis of sources
 * "Don Shula famously said" - OR, who said it was famous?
 * "whether the Patriots' record was marred" - need multiple sources to support claim, and probably more descriptive sentence (marred how?)
 * The Jets had a very minor role. They simply made the accusations, and left the situation after that. The later accusations never really surfaced anything - the information provided was about all that came out. I don't see how "the revisions apparently display my original bias against this article." Please elaborate. If there are grammatical errors, please fix them as necessary.  Pats 1  T / C  21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay–I certainly understand your reasonings. I was correcting some errors, but you beat me. Thanks for the clarification. CVW (Talk) 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the ref/punctuation placement, WP:CITE says that they can go either inside of outside the punctuation as long as it's consistent throughout the article. It is now (and was before) so it's fine either way.  Pats 1  T / C  21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The POV words all appear to have been removed. I, as a neutral observer, just read the article (I don't have an opinion on the subject) and I don't see any obvious POV.  So, I'm removing the NPOV tag. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * It's the portion of the rule Belichick was referring to.  Pats 1  T / C  12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Two more things that warrant mentioning
The Packers and several other teams accused the Patriots of stealing signals from them. Also, shouldn't a section be added to the Super Bowl XXXVI article?  Enigma  message 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the report was later deemed false, no. It's fine here, but that doesn't mean it's applicable to Super Bowl XXXVI, New England Patriots, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, etc., etc. There could be a minor mention of those other accusations, but the initial problem with this article was that it had the potential of becoming a "New England Patriots criticism sink" - so much so that it was nominated for deletion. Therefore, every little comment made by LT or every accusation that pops up (and they do all the time on ProFootballTalk, etc. - i.e. there's no obligation to put the whole Ravens-Steelers spitting fiasco on any Wikipedia articles) doesn't mean they are relevant and notable in an article like this.  Pats 1  T / C  03:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's applicable to Super Bowl XXXVI because there was a class action lawsuit filed over that Super Bowl. It ultimately went nowhere, but there is a relationship. What report was later proved false? That the Packers claimed the Patriots stole signals from them?  Enigma  message 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Herald report was retracted, as was the lawsuit. Again, I'm not saying that's not notable for this article (it obviously is), but that doesn't mean a little blurb on the report/lawsuit (which was partly based on the report) and their retractions has to be added to every article with a relationship to Spygate or the Patriots, as a sort of "asterisk." I would argue that none of the other teams' accusations are notable as they never materialized and never took on any prominence in the press; at this point they are just PFT rumor material, whereas the Jets accusation obviously spawned a whole lot more.  Pats 1  T / C  12:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Specter/Comcast Issue
The inclusion of Specter's relationship with Comcast is completely inappropriate for this article. It implies Wikipedia is endorsing a conspiracy theory that Patriot fans have attested to which says that the whole Specter investigation is motivated by self-interest and jealousy. Wikipedia is not a forum for Patriot fans or anyone else to come forth and express their personal views, and I find it unsettling that this allegedly objective article implicitly verifies this completely unfounded theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I read the article, that statement jumped out at me as irrelevant. I don't know about any sort of conspiracy theory, but I read the paragraph several times trying to figure out why the sentence was even mentioned. I think the mention of comcasdt interrupts an otherwise smooth, NPOV, informative article with confusion and that it should be removed. BobertWABC (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * aggreed too. I just removed it, and also therfore resolved the last of the POV issues, so I removed that tag too. Charles (Kznf) (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Wow!!,,,I can't help think that the nit-picker who made this staemant is a biased pats hater... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.180 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article should be questioned???
I personally feel that a Patriots fan should not create, nor should they be responsible for maintaining such an article. I do not call into question Pats1's integrity. However I must insist this article be reviewed and maintained by a third party. The bottom line is any Patriots fan will tell you, that the Patriots never cheated, however the rest of the NFL might have something to say about that. As it does look suspicious that a Patriots fan created the Spygate article, and is maintaining it.--Subman758 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. NPOV is impossible. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That suggestion is irresponsible, uncivil, and downright ridiculous, nevermind that it stands against the very principles of Wikipedia. I request that you make a good faith strike-through of your comments.  Pats 1  T / C  20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncivil No The fact that the very fist person to respond is you Pats1, is exactly what I am talking about. I would feel the exact same way if it had been Tom Coughlin, and the New York Giants implicated in Spygate, and the article was write by a Giants fan.  As I said I DO NOT question your integrity, as far as I have seen, you have been a VERY FAIR editor. However the possibility of bias does exist.--Subman758 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That argument will NEVER fly on Wikipedia. It is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," not "the free encyclopedia that you can only edit if you don't have an interest in the subject matter." WP:COI only restricts editors from editing articles associated with their friends, family, or self. In fact, editors are encouraged to edit subjects of which they have a good knowledge of and a passion for. The only time editors aren't allowed to edit a particular subject (i.e. a topic ban) is when they are engaged in a continual edit dispute over the content of the article. I have NEVER, EVER seen an editor on Wikipedia discouraged from editing an article simply because they may be biased when editing the article - and keep in mind I've been on here for more than two years and I've been an administrator for almost a year. WP:NPOV applies equally to all articles for every editor, no matter how relevant or irrelevant to the editor's interests the article is. Your argument simply will not fly.  Pats 1  T / C  22:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That anyone can edit? Really? Then why do you revert changes that put the Patriots in a bad light? Could it be because you're a fan? Yes. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen. I want you to point out, sentence-by-sentence, word-by-word, where exactly I have made this article have a pro-Patriots point of view. I also want you to cite exactly where I have "reverted changes that put the Patriots in a bad light." Until you do that, I will stop responding to your baseless accusations.  Pats 1  T / C  16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have to. I'm not hear to edit you. I'm here to stop the bias. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse me of having bias without presenting proof. That is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Just because I wrote most of the article doesn't mean I have violated WP:OWN. Again, present proof of where I have violated that, or simply go away.  Pats 1  T / C  21:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And on that note, I should say that I've paid close attention to the neutrality of this article as I've written it (98% of the article was written by me, with some help from User:Stismail and a few others). I'm such a stickler for neutrality, especially in tone and diction, that I was accused of being too neutral once.  Pats 1  T / C  22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2000 and Specter's Comcast ties
At one point the article contends that an offensive player was asked to watch a video and relay the signals to his coach. But the information presented does not match the cite source and it does not match reality. The Patriots played the New York Jets on September 11, 2000, not the Bucs as stated on the page. The Pats played the Bucs on September 3rd, and the Pats lost. The article (source 67, http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/05/specter_calls_f.html) says that Specter was the one who used the wrong date, but still makes no mention of the fact that the Patriots somehow managed to lose a game in which they were allegedly anticipating 75 percent of the defensive calls.

As for Specter's Comcast ties, you have to mention it. There is no way to pretty it up or to say that it is irrelevant. Specter received more than a half a million dollars in campaign donations from Comcast and a law firm hired by Comcast (out of the 23 million dollars he raised), and Specter used his position to go after one a company Comcast was involved in a dispute with. That's a potential conflict of interest that can not and should not be ignored, although it should also not be presented as Specter's only motivation. He has been outspoken against the NFL's anti-trust exemptions since 1983. If it's not already on the cite list for this article, I'd suggest starting with the first story I saw about it, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dave_zirin/02/27/spygate/. 74.98.196.243 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=27686&pcid=47&rss=1
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-26 02:56:15, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-27 15:13:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-06-15 16:20:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/12/29/patriots_make_history_with_16_0_season/
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-26 02:56:15, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-27 15:13:59, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-06-15 16:20:52, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://wror.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&res=232996221&col=en-aud-pod_wror-ep&index=60&e=18272342&playIndex=56&il=en&num=5&s=PZSID_0000782178;105.7+WROR&start=57&expand=true&match=none&filter=0
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-26 02:56:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-27 15:13:59, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-06-15 16:21:02, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/sports/20006879.html
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-26 02:56:15, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-27 15:13:59, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-06-15 16:21:13, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth About Coaching & Trying To Win In The NFL
1. If a Super Bowl walk through video existed don't you think a copy would have surfaced by now, of course it would have and it would not matter anyways. 2. Every Head Coach & Coordinator covers their mouth when sending in plays via headset and they have been sending in plays via headset since 1989. Unless Belichick had a NASA camera it would be impossible to pick up. Maybe Belichick had the same camera the U.S. Marines used to get Osama Bin Laden. 3. Every team in the NFL videos every game. Against the Jets, the Patriots openly videoed in the wrong place in the stadium where the NFL said you can’t video from and by the way right next to the Jets videoing the game. 4. The Patriots and Rams played that November and the Rams only won by one score. If a team does not change their signals from game to game they are fools and deserve to lose. Bill Cowher and Jimmy Johnson admitted to stealing signs. Terry Bradshaw admitted the 1970's Steelers were on PED's. George Halas admitted he used to watch opponents practices with binoculars the day before games. In MLB they try to steal signs on every pitch. Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez were on PED's for World Series Championships. Half the NHL uses illegal sticks. NBA referees have thrown games. If you are not trying to know exactly what the other team is doing you are not trying to win. Same thing with PEDS, it is part of all sports. Bottom line is that it’s impossible to steal signals with a coach’s mouth covered and plays being sent in by headset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonnumber1sports (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes
After reviewing this article's page history for the past year, I have enabled pending changes. There are way too many unregistered users periodically inserting poorly sourced material, BLP violations and original research. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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

This whole article is incredibly inaccurate. It was not nor is not against NFL rules to tape defensive signals. Every part of this article that asserts or suggests that it is is factually incorrect. The Patriots were not punished for videotaping signals they were punished for videotaping the game from an unauthorized location. The location rule exists so that information from the taping is not relayed to coaches and players during the game. All game tape potentially contains defensive and offensive signals. This article was written by morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:B001:5600:213F:9FDB:F349:5DD8 (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Name of the article?
Why is it called a controversy? It was cheating and the coach heavily fined for such. It should be called a cheating incident. It's no longer controversial, rather a fact of history. The Dissident Aggressor 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously it cannot be named "Spygate" because that is currently a disambiguation page. Looking the page history, it appears to have been moved arbitrarily to "controversy" to be consistent with 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. As for a new page title, what do reliable sources commonly refer to it now (see also WP:COMMONAME)? "cheating incident", "scandal", or something else? I'm not going to arbitrarily support a title like "cheating incident" if it does not comply with WP:POVTITLE, WP:POVNAMING, WP:OR and the like. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that the rules were violated. " The act was deemed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to be in violation of league rules."  Call it a rules violation, but it's not a controversy (a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion)  There's no dispute, opinion or debate any more. Goodell settled it with without any doubt.  The Dissident Aggressor 18:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not answered my question: What do reliable sources commonly refer to it now? "cheating incident", "scandal", or something else? Again, a new name derived from reliable sources is preferable, rather than using descriptive titles that seems more created, or gives the appearance that it was created, by a handful of Wikipedia editors. See WP:POVTITLE. The appearance of POV/whitewashing/editorializing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it can work both ways, so it is important to just copy what reliable sources are calling it. Doing a Google search now, I get over 94,000 results with "spygate scandal" compared to about 22,000 for "spygate cheating incident" An article by Yahoo! Sports published a few weeks ago uses "Spygate scandal" in the headline. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about 'Spygate (NFL)'? --hippo43 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Other teams
Shouldn't this article talk about other team cheating in a different section. It looks like this article was written in a certen teams prospective, just wondering. 24.250.26.95 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about this specific case.  Pats 1  T / C  22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)