Talk:Tom Brady

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blake.lebbossiere001 (article contribs).

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Junípero Serra High School Hall of Fame in 2003

Is their a source for his sister Maureen getting inducted into the hall of fame? It's an all boys school I don't see how she could have gotten in and she isnt listed on the school webpage for it https://www.serrahs.com/athletics/athletics-awards-championships/halloffame/serra-hall-of-famers . Also the schools website says it was 2004 not 2003 when brady was inducted.

RacSocvvv (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like Maureen should be removed from that list. Maybe place a tag on her name? Tarl N. (discuss) 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@RacSocvvv: Flagged. I'll let someone more familiar with that hall of fame actually remove the mention. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Tarl N., just going to remove it until a source can be found. No reason to keep a dubious and unsourced claim up for months. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93:. Sounds good. Never did get around to tracking down who added it. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Touchdown Passes

The infobox and the text say that he has 559 touchdown passes, but the list of career touchdown pass leaders says 561. The text says that he is second in career touchdown passes. Is he first or second (until Sunday)? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

He also has 87 touchdown receivers, not 77 Zmanistheman (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the 2019 and 2020 season, Brady and Brees were going tit for tat on the Career TD pass record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:71:6250:F1C1:B32A:96E1:966E (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Why is his lead picture of him in a Tampa Bay uniform? He's played one year for Tampa and like 17 for New England. The image should be of him in a Patriots jersey. Ejkrause (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He's most notable (now) for being a Buccaneer, not a Patriot. Notability = most recent major accomplishment. Biden was a senator for 36 years, yet most articles will note him as the 46th president, even though he's only been a president for a couple weeks now. Trump was a reality show host for a decade, yet no lead is going mention he was a Reality Show host before being noted as the 45th president. Brady won the Super Bowl with the Buccaneers at the age of 43, his most notable and recent accomplishment. Not to mention he'll likely retire and be remembered as a Buccaneers legend. Once Brady retires, then the picture will likely be neutral with him wearing neither Patriots or Buccaneers gear(Like other players with notable careers on two or more teams). This is standard practice on Wikipedia.

RfC GOAT

Keep or remove the 'greatest of all time' sentence in the lede. Broadly construed, all formulations. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove from lede as this sentence is subject of excess tagging and weasel words, as we are attempting to summarize an opinion that is not yet consensus (despite being obvious that is probably one of the greatest). This can be better evaluated in the article itself. Its already pretty obvious he is great as all his major records are also contained in the lede, we don't need excess puffery. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove Greatest is vague puffery. We can simply list his accomplishments and people will get the idea. Citing 'many sports writers, commentators, and players' is bad practice overall. Bonewah (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove Not very encyclopediac. ~ HAL333 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep when supported by WP:WEIGHT of sources. Editors often misapply WP:WEASEL, which says: They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It's not weasel wording. We're not putting this in Wikipedia's voice. We are simply reporting that multiple sources say this, with references. And what "excess tagging"? Do you mean the sourcing? The multiple sources are presumably there because otherwise this would be puffery and weasel wording. Meters (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the article does not claim he is. The sentence clearly states that he is recognized as such by others and the sources are credible. It is part of his notability. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It's not un-encyclopedic to say he has been widely described by professionals with the literal word-for-word quote: "greatest-of-all-time". This isn't an adjective assigned by biased wiki editors, but from real journalists and his peers, both past and present. No one has an issue with Wayne Gretzky's article citing him as "the Great One." Mushh94 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Great One, The Boss, The King of Pop, etc are all nicknames. We are not discussing a nickname here. We are discussing if we want to say in wikivoice 'some people' (weasel) think Brady is the GOAT. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In many ways the "GOAT" is a nickname - not just an accolade - that has become synonymous with Brady. Mushh94 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, WEASEL does not say "never" like you are insisting that it does.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It is not opinion or puffery to say he is considered one of the greatest when reliable sources say so. Jtbobwaysf, you do not get to decide what is "puffery" and what is not. Reliable sources provide information, and Wikipedia is a medium for that information. This "greatest" language is standard practice throughout Wikipedia, otherwise articles like Michael Jordan, Christiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi need to be edited too. The fact that these athletes are considered some of the greatest of all time are one of the most important aspects about them. Gonk (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Modify - WP:Weasel, WP:PEACOCK, it should have a more specific attribution than many sportswriters and players like in the Michael Jordan example. Many sportswriters and players may consider another quarterback to be greater. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Many sportswriters and players may consider another quarterback to be greater. We reflect the WP:WEIGHT of the sources, not a WP:FALSEBALANCE of the fine opinions on all sides.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Can you point to a literature review that measures weight to establish this falsebalance? Because I can point to plenty of RS that puffs someone else even in the context of Brady.[1][2][3][4] All of this shit is clickbait recentism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Similar to what I stated over at the Lewis Hamilton "greatest" RfC: yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, etc. all have some form of "greatest" in their leads. If reliable sources are calling Tom Brady one of the "greatest," then I don't see why we should exclude "all formulations" of it from the lead. Some1 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep A significant number of reliable sources support it and other articles on similar figures include it. It's not puffery or weasel words, the sources are the ones saying that, not us, and it seems silly to shy away from acknowledging that. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The comments above have been gratuitous enough citing sources so I won't contribute anything more there. But the guy has more superbowl rings than any individual franchise. Yeah - that's heavily dependent on the team he plays for, but I'd say that alone justifies the statement. 66.31.211.75 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Wasn’t this already discussed excruciatingly circa 2019? By this point it just seems like the "he's not my GOAT, so he's not THE GOAT" peanut gallery. This is about professional opinions, not editors'. Trillfendi (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to saying is Brady GOAT, however I am opposed to putting these type of speculative non-consenus based opinions in wikipedia. They devalue the encyclopedic nature of the platform as they fly in the face of NPOV, especially as related BLPs, and even more when they are still active in the sport (leading to my hero will beat up your hero arguments). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean no POV at all. If the WP:WEIGHT of coverage describes a player as being the greatest, not mentioning that would be a non-neutral representation.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Removing the information entirely is even more non-neutral considering how many sources there are out there saying he is considered one of the greatest. Gonk (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. We know many WP:RSOPINION consider him the greatest but we do not know the weight without an actual literature review. This sort of thing is not usually done with sports, which involves so much peacockry. At least with Michael Jordan, the GOAT attribution came from the official website of the NBA. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

... we do not know the weight without an actual literature review: See Talk:Tom_Brady/Archives/2020/April#Greatest_QB_in_NFL_history.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No I mean an actual literature review published by a reliable source. Not wikipedia editors doing a google search for their position. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

AFC/NFC Champion

If were going to list Pro bowls etc Shouldn't being the AFC/NFC Champion for a total of 10x as a starting QB be listed as well? (for Career highlights and awards ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:4040:7400:144D:171F:65E3:A0C4 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, per WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

NFL records

His awards section contains superfluous information. These are statistics, not awards. "NFL RECORD 33 PLAYOFF WINS: MORE THAN ANY PLAYER OR HEAD COACH. NFL RECORD 12 CONSECUTIVE PLAYOFF APPEARANCES: TEAM, PLAYER OR HEAD COACH. NFL RECORD 10 SUPER BOWL APPEARANCES: MORE THAN ANY PLAYER OR HEAD COACH." Even if we're going to feature them in the career statistics section, it would be better to write this as "33 playoff wins" or "Most playoff wins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopymane (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone has already removed them.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Second paragraph states nine super bowl appearances and should be ten. "As the team's primary starter for 18 seasons,[a] Brady led the Patriots to a total of 17 division titles (including 11 consecutive from 2009 to 2019), 13 AFC Championship Games (including eight consecutive from 2011to 2018), ten Super Bowl appearances, and seven Super Bowl titles, all NFL records for a player and franchise. He joined the Buccaneers in 2020, where he led them to Super Bowl LV in his first season. His Super Bowl appearance with Tampa Bay is his record 10th individually.[13]" Deadmilkman4202112 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

National Championship

Please leave in the note about Brady winning a National Championship at Michigan in 1997.

Yes, he was the backup to Brian Greise, and didn't play much that year, but a ring is a ring, and an NCAA Title is certainly lede worthy.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not lede worthy because he did not play a role in that National Championship. The focus of the lede should be what he actually accomplished. It's a blip in the body of the article and therefore not lede worthy. Bluerules (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

An NCAA Title is lede worthy just in and of itself because of what it is..like I said, a ring is a ring. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't when Brady won seven rings in games he actually played in. Like I said, this exists only to confuse readers and give undue weight toward something barely touched upon in the article. Bluerules (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I tweaked things a bit to acknowledge the hardware, but not make it sound like he was the reason for it (he was the backup that year), but still the hardware in and of itself is lede worthy. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This information was excluded from previous versions for a reason - it is not lede worthy. What his lede worthy is his NFL successes. Bluerules (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't excluded so much as simply no one brought it up. And to say it confuses readers is a purely subjective opinion. At the end of the day, if we can mention he played college football in the lede, we can also mention he has a National Title to his credit as well...no logical sensible reason not to include it. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It was excluded because no one else considered it necessary. At the end of the day, you are trying to argue that being on a team that won a championship he didn't play in is on equal, or at least near weight to all the championships he won as a starter. It is a fact that he was a low pick and it is a fact that paring an accomplishment in college with mention of him being selected low is contradictory, hence the confusion. There is no logical, sensible reason to include something trivial in any lede, let alone one as large as Brady's. Bluerules (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

So what if he was a low pick? He is still a National Champion. And explain to me how it would "confuse" people to mention he won a ring (if you're on the team, you get a ring, period) and also his draft position...both things are true. The only one making a big stink about this is you because for whatever reason, you are hell bent on removing it like it didn't exist. Seriously, almost the entire lede is about his NFL career and rightly so...a mention in one sentence about winning a national title in college is NOT putting undue weight on anything, it is merely listing an accolade. Now if somebody took 2 whole paragraphs in the lede talking about his college career, then you'd have a point, but a quick mention - come on...you're making much ado about nothing. I'm not trying to have a fight with you, but you gotta have a little perspective here - a brief mention of a college accolade is not putting undue weight on it...one sentence ("Brady played college football in Michigan - where he has a 1997 National Championship to his credit...") compared to basically 3 whole paragraphs focusing on his NFL career is hardly undue weight. You're kinda going overboard on this. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

One, it is contradictory to match up a college accomplishment with being a low pick. Being a National Champion, especially for a quarterback, would normally raise a player's draft stock. So it would confuse readers without the additional context (the fact that he didn't actual play in said National Championship) why a National Champion quarterback wasn't taken until the sixth round. You say I'm "making a big stink about this", but look in the mirror. You are hell bent on including it when it does not have the necessary weight to warrant its inclusion, hence why it has never been in previous versions of the article. Also, look at the sentence without your insertion: "After playing college football at Michigan, Brady was selected 199th overall by the Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 NFL Draft, earning him a reputation as the NFL's biggest steal." Already, that's a mouthful. You are proposing to make it even longer, to the point where it's too long - and for what? Something that was a blip in Brady's life, something he didn't truly win. There already is a quick mention about his collegiate career in the same sentence and that's all that's needed. He didn't have the chance to prove himself at Michigan, was selected lowly, and established himself as the regarded greatest quarterback of all time. It's undue weight to throw in something that's a mere sentence in the body ("He was a backup quarterback for his first two years, while teammate and future NFL quarterback Brian Griese led the 1997 Wolverines to an undefeated season, which was capped by a victory in the Rose Bowl and a share of the national championship.") into the lede. And again, perspective - this is already a long sentence. It doesn't need to be any longer, especially with something that doesn't speak to what Brady is known for. Bluerules (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All -- Please see WP:3RR. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If other editors support this addition, I will not argue against the consensus. But I maintain that the sentence is too long with this addition. Bluerules (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not taking sides, just warning against edit warring. To my mind, Brady's participation in the 1997 season (15 total passes) is not lead-worthy. If more were to be added to the lead concerning his collegiate career, mention of his significant accomplishments as the starter in 1998 and 1999 would be more apt. His leading the 1999 team to a No. 5 ranking and a come-from-behind victory over Alabama in the 2000 Orange Bowl strike me as far more significant. Cbl62 (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur, although I see these as difficult additions due to the length of the current sentence and the amount of sentences already in the paragraph, as well as the aforementioned fact that he was still a low-regarded prospect. There could be a way to add it, but I'm currently not certain of how. Bluerules (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't being a National Champion - regardless of circumstances - trump anything else Brady did in college? It IS a ring. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't because as Cbl62 pointed out, he only had 15 total passes. What's more lede worthy are the accomplishments he took a key part in. Bluerules (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO, no. Brady was a backup who saw very little action in 1997. His role on the 1998 and 1999 teams is more significant. I would be fine with adding a couple sentences to the lead about his Michigan career, but those sentences should focus on his actual (and signifcant) accomplishments -- the 2020 Orange Bowl was IMO the real highlight of his collegiate career. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You can talk about the other stuff, that's fine, all I'm saying is that he does have a ring, and a quick mention of that wouldn't hurt. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It hurts if it bloats the lede. Bluerules (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Try this - Brady played collegiately at Michigan. Though he had some success and accolades - including being part of the 1997 National Champion team (as a backup), defeating Arkansas in the 1999 Citrus Bowl and a come-from-behind win in the 2000 Orange Bowl against Alabama - he was not a highly regarded NFL prospect. He would wind up going in the sixth round (199 overall) to the New England Patriots in the 2000 NFL Draft, where would wind up being considered on of the all-time steals of the draft. You touch on the highlights, but also mention his draft status. Doesn't confuse anybody, doesn't put undue weight on anything, just a quick synopsis that acknowledges his accolades while giving context. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "quick synopsis" when it extends one sentence into three sentences. It would bloat the paragraph and make the lede more difficult to read. The current paragraph is four sentences, which is a good size. Maybe when Brady retires, we can find a way to split it between the first and second sentences (as we'll have an accurate and full summary of his professional career by then), but right now, this is an unnecessary bloat. Bluerules (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

When you get right down to it, what matters is that it's acknowledged and on his record, which it is in the infobox and in the meat of the article. Being in the lede isn't really THAT important. I just take every revert personally, as in my mind I think, "Why does this editor reject my edit? What makes him think he's better than me?" I gotta quit doing that. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand as I've sometimes felt the same way about reversions. I'm glad we've come to an understanding and compromise; I agree that it belongs in the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

So...fist bump? Vmlhds (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Go Brady! Bluerules (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)