Talk:Brett Favre

Request

I know this is small, but the second sentence says "Favre started at the quarterback position for The University of Southern Mississippi for four years before being selected in the second round of the 1991 NFL Draft by the Atlanta Falcons(33rd Overall)." Could someone put a space between Atlant Falcons and (33rd overall) (note capitalization of overall). Thank you.The Original Editor (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the requested changes to the article Jons63 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!The Original Editor (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Asks For Release

Searched the obvious sites, nothing, so I won't add it, but it's all over YES Network and ESPN. Just a matter of time. J-Dog (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just updated the article with a source from ESPN. J-Dog (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a new section, seperate from the "Retirement" section. Hope this doesn't tick anyone off... I simply felt that this new info stands alone from his retirement, as it may eventually morph into a section titled "Unretirement." More will be revealed I guess, eh? J-Dog (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Releasing Him

The Packers are not going to release Brett. And He is not going to be the starting quarterback. Here Is The link I found. IM A BEAST http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ak7Mbx2Uc8Rh9eiYJo5SmJpDubYF?slug=ap-packers-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns and also here http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8335678/Sources:-Packers-won%27t-release-Favre?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=5

Chose which one you want. The Yahoo seems more reliable and has more information Albokid2468 (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the most recent condensed version in the article works best; let's leave it as it is for now. J-Dog (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't wikinews

This is an encyclopedia article, not a news summary. We don't need to have extensive coverage of every single detail of the current news surrounding Favre. We're ending up with much too much coverage of every news release and ESPN quote about this event. LEt's try to cut it back a bit, shall we? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, kudos to Gonzo for making necessary changes, and better articulating my concern below. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of the quotes and summations from Favre's interview with Greta Van Susteren could and should be more condense and concise. A little trimming is in order, no doubt, but this has also been the dominant story in sports for the past month and it should be given due space. I also believe strongly that it should contain short sub-subs on the tampering allegations and the reaction to the standoff (perhaps including among fans), as these have become central elements of the saga. As the issue reaches a resolution, one way or another, it will become easier to separate the wheat from the chaff and bring the subject into better proportion with the rest of the article. Certainly, blanking entire, well-cited sections of information is not the answer.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"but this has also been the dominant story in sports for the past month and it should be given due space" - well, as the dominant news story, it should go on wikinews. this much detail for something that is ongoing is inappropriate in a biographical encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I'm not suggesting no mention of these events, merely proportional mention. Just because it happens to be a "big" story in the media doesn't mean every detail needs to be covered in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jeez, dude you just explained exactly why I remove content. If I wanted to, I could write pages upon pages upon pages about Brett Favre, summaries of every game, of every little saga, but this is not a news source. You stated it is the "dominant story in sports for the past month and it should be given due space" Please read Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS You know what, when Brett Favre won the Super Bowl, what do you think was the dominant story? When he was addicted to vicotin, what was the biggest story, and so on and so forth. But we are an encyclopedia, which means we give an overview of a subject based on the entirety, not just recent events. In the scheme of things, Brett could just retire and end all this. Overall, this little episode is small in comparison to the big picture of Favre's whole amazing career. Try and think about the big picture. You state "become central elements of the saga." This isn't a story book, we don't report sagas, we create articles about subjects. You state "As the issue reaches a resolution, one way or another, it will become easier to separate the wheat from the chaff and bring the subject into better proportion with the rest of the article." No! we cannot sacrifice quality and then find the right way to do something. We need to do it now. You state "blanking entire, well-cited sections of information is not the answer" Yes it is, cutting and trimming down, and then slowly expanding to meet the needs of the article is exactly how things should be done. I could source and cite the most random aspects of Brett Favre, but you would certainly remove them because they have no place in the article. I mean seriously, a "Player reaction" section. Who cares what one or two random players have to say about this "saga?" It has nothing to do with the subject of this article. The content I removed was pointless to explaining the subject of this article. I ask that you revert your revert, and then we start working on the article instead of debating this stupid dispute. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is happening "now" doesn't mean that it can't be included in a Wikipedia entry. It's the content of the information that matters, as well as its verifiability (remember, Wikinews allows OR, Wikipedia does not -- precisely for reasons of reliability), not it's status as a current event. I haven't heard any objections to the verifiability or reliability of the information included. If you have a problem with the notability of certain information, then please, by all means, voice it, so that we discuss it and come to some resolution.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing the addition of the news, just the huge coverage it has gained in this article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel as if we're speaking past each other here. I resent you characterizing this as a "stupid" dispute (both here and on the page requesting protection for this article), just because we happen to disagree about something. I also don't appreciate your tendency to interject your comments above comments of mine that preceded yours in chronology. Doing so gives a misleading account of this discussion. I've said from the beginning that I'm in favor of condensing this section. What I am against is the wholesale blanking of well-cited information without raising specific objections to specific pieces of information other than to nakedly assert, unhelpfully, "this section is too long" or "we don't report sagas." Rather, let's collaborate here constructively and collectively decide which specific information should go (and why). Remember, the Wikipedia policy is to first attempt to fix problematic information; deletion is a last resort. I'm not wedded to the player reaction section; it's anecdotal, so I can see a legitimate basis for dumping it. But tampering charges are serious business, and I certainly believe that discussion is entitled to a sub-sub section, since it's essentially a branch of the larger unretirement story. Beyond that, what specifically do you object to?-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The "stupidity" of the debate has nothing to do with you or I. The stupidity is that we are arguing about the Brett Favre article while we could be improving it. I feel I am stupid for having this debate, nothing against you. The moving comments thing is due to the 7 or 8 edit conflicts I had while trying to post my reply. I tried my best to put them in the right order, but hell I am human and make mistakes. Again, no offense meant towards you. Blanking and deleting is never the last resort. The fact that this information is cited has no basis in this dispute. I could find a source that said that Brett Favre ate cereal on June 1 1996, the problem is that the information about cereal intake has little to no bearing on the article or its subject. The same thing applies here, the information is not relevant to the article. Starting over is the easiest way to fix a problem. I am not stating that the way I made it is anywhere close to right, I just stated that we need to cut some stuff out and then slowly expand and find a good level. Tampering charges are serious, in the business world or political world, but they again have very little basis in regards to Brett Favre. Those charges have to do with two organizations, it just happens that it involves Favre. I object to the content I removed, to state it simply. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have two admins who both have worked a hell of a lot on this article and Packers-related content for a long time both telling you that there is something wrong with these passages. Im not saying we are inherently right or anything, but at least give us the benefit of the doubt that we know what we are talking about. We have already had this debate about this article a while back, that this article contained every single statistic for Favre, and it was already decided that we need to keep this article from growing out of hand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you're raising a relevance objection. I don't have any problem with junking the player reaction section (as I said before, it was pretty arbitrary and anecdotal), but I do have a problem with regard to your deleting the information about the tampering charges. First, tampering is serious business in the NFL, as it can lead to a fine, and, more importantly, the loss of draft picks for the offending team. If true, it would also, in the eyes of some, reflect poorly on Favre's character. Second, I don't see how you can seriously contend that the Packers' tampering charges "have very little basis in regards to Brett Favre" -- Brett Favre is the very subject matter of the alleged tampering. By definition, it takes two to tamper, so if the Vikings did indeed tamper, it means Favre was complicit. The Packers are alleging that Favre plotted his return with the Vikings offensive coordinator, Bevell, who just happens to be a good friend of his; how does that not concern or involve Favre? Third, the information you deleted was not excessive, as the topic was dealt with in five relatively short and concise sentences. Fourth, the information clearly meets the notability standard. I really see no rational basis for your objection and believe wholeheartedly that the excised sentences on the tampering charges should be restored.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also dispute the notion that this is just some "news story" that doesn't deserve much attention in the context of a biographical article. A key subplot of this controversy is the effect it's having on Favre's legacy, particularly in Green Bay -- where he is/was revered.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the key dude, we dont know the impact of this saga. Let's wait until the end, and then expand the coverage if need be. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's like sticking your head in the sand and claiming ignorance. Do you honestly believe that when Favre is getting ready to give his Hall of Fame induction speech some years from now, that this is not going to be a topic of discussion in the larger Brett Favre-narrative? Like it or not, this issue has become a part of his legacy now, just like, as you pointed out, the Super Bowl victory, the 3 MVPs, the Vicodin addiction, and the Raiders game.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All that matters here is whether reliable sources claim this affects his legacy. Until that happens, your (or my) opinion on the matter is irrelevant. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, Im not debating the significance, I am saying, like Zim said, we need to wait until someone reliable tells us the affect it will have on his legacy. We cannot make a big deal about it (by writing paragraph after paragraph) until it has been solidified as a big deal by reliable sources. Tomorrow, Brett could say I want to retire, and this whole "saga" would have little to no bearing on him as a subject of public interest. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a plethora of reliable sources that discuss how this thing is damaging his legacy: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5], just to name a few. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I'm not suggesting no mention of these events, merely proportional mention. Just because it happens to be a "big" story in the media doesn't mean every detail needs to be covered in this encyclopedia. Further, your insinuation that there is an impact on Favre's legacy is your own POV, not itself a reason to include such volumous coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a news website

Ok guys, I wasn't going to weigh in on this page, I was just hoping things was cool down, but this is getting ridiculous. I would like to point everyone to Wikinews, the site where people can freely update and create news articles. We need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news service where the most current events are covered in extremely precise detail and are updated with every minute fact. Currently, the retirement, return to football, accusations, and player reaction (seriously?) sections are about half as long as his whole career section. This is over the top, especially the player reaction and accusations sections. I have removed a lot of content and encourage everyone to slow down and keep the additions to a minimum. We do not need to add a whole paragraph every time Favre changes his mind, cause that is going to lead to a lot of paragraphs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, freaky edit conflict with ZimZalaBim regarding the same thing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the whole retirement, return to football, etc. sections covered like 2 months, while the whole career section, which was only twice as long, covered like 18 years. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

I concur. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'll point out that Favre's best years are folded into a three paragraph "Super Bowl years" section, while one game in 2003 is given 2 paragraphs and five paragraphs are spent dissecting the 2007 season on an almost weekly basis. There are a lot of problems with perspective in this article, but just because one subject has been given enough treatment doesn't mean other subjects should be trimmed down to compensate.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS focus on the dispute at hand. We all know that this is being to widely covered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anybody invoking the "other stuff exists" argument. Again, what SPECIFIC parts of the information you blanked do you object to? So far, your whole position has been (to paraphrase), "I deleted it because the section is too long." That's fine. Again, as I've stated ad nauseum, I agree with that assessment. But before we start trimming, there needs to be some discussion of what should be trimmed. You seem to want to trim just for trimming's sake.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He did proper condensing, not just blanking (note how mention of the tampering case remains in his condensing). Also, he did note in the section above some specific items that were particularly problematic, such as the (irrelevant) "Players reactions" section. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My problems with the sections

• Here is my problems with the sections as they read before I trimmed. First off I want to state that at this time none of these subjects deserves it's own sub-section or sub-sub-section. Please note the section names, and that this content is under the "Professional career" section.

Professional career

Retirement

This section may be a little long, and probably will have to be trimmed a little, but I did not do that at this time, because that will take some work.

Possible return to football

This whole section was full of padding, such as direct quotes that just fluffed up the content, and other details that although cited, served very little to help explain the subject of the article. All they did was created a dramatic storyline/saga/news story. We don't want this. This is the section I feel needs to be rewritten and worked on.

Accusations of tampering by the Minnesota Vikings

This of course deserves a mention in the article, but it does not deserve its own sub-section in the "Professional career" section for Brett Favre. This has nothing to do with Favre's career, at all. It deserves a mention because the debate is about Favre. Thus I removed the heading, and removed "According to ESPN's John Clayton, the Packers believe the Vikings' alleged contact with Favre was part of a plan "to cause chaos within the Packers family during the summer." Both the Vikings and the NFL have declined to publicly address the allegations." and combined two of the sentences. Again, this one I will object to the addition of a section for this event unless or until this becomes a major part in the career of Favre (say for instance he ended up going to the Viking, god forbid).

Player reaction

This section is utterly pointless. A whole section devoted to two players reactions to the above section! This has no bearing on the subject of the article. Thus I removed it in its entirety and will object to its addition in the future.

• Those are my problems, along with the fact that the sections were just too plain long. This story can be told in a lot shorter writing, and being concise is much better than being wordy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My reaction:

(1) Possible return to football - I agree that this section is a little long at the moment. Some of the stuff from the Greta Van Susteren interview was superfluous; there are opportunities to make that information more condense and concise. I disagree, however, about the quotes being "padding": they are not excessive and they are very much informative, as they are the first (and only) comments from Favre's mouth on the matter and give an unaltered account of his intentions and feelings. I find your attempts to remove them thinly-disguised censorship of anything that could even remotely be viewed as reflecting negatively on the Packers.

(2) Accusations of tampering by the Minnesota Vikings - As I stated in the discussion above, I find it ridiculous and untenable that you could seriously argue, "this has nothing to do with Favre's career." Tampering requires two; if the Packers are charging the Vikings with tampering, it means they're charging Favre was complicit. Being that (1) Favre was the subject matter of the alleged tampering, (2) the person who allegedly tampered with Favre was one of his close friends, (3) if true, Favre would have been complicit, and (4) if true, it could, in the eyes of some, reflect poorly on his character, I find your objections utterly frivolous and suppressive.

(3) Player reaction - In hindsight, I agree this section was selective, anecdotal, and added little to the article. I have no objections to its deletion.

-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually

You know what, this is why I took this page off my watchlist some months ago. It's off my watchlist again. I am tired of trying to keep this article clean. Do what you want with the article, it's not worth it to me anymore. Feel free to revert to any version you want. Good luck with the article and have a good night. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was hoping we could resolve our differences and find some common ground. I must say, however, that I feel you have exhibited an attitude of entitlement with respect to this article that is neither helpful nor constructive. You seem to think that just because you are a Packers fan, you can assert "ownership" of this article, suppress anything that could be viewed as reflecting negatively on the Packers, and bully all other editors into getting your way. When others object, you throw your hands up and storm off in a huff. I tried to approach our impasse with a spirit of compromise and collaboration; I wish you would have done the same. When you voiced valid objections to the "Player reaction" section, I recognized that you were correct and acquiesced to its deletion. Your first move was to engage in ad hominem attacks and call our dispute "stupid" and "idiotic," then remain intransigent throughout. Perhaps you were just acting defensively in light of how often this article probably gets vandalized by trolls. Ultimately, I believe we both had the same goal -- to create the best and most informative Brett Favre article possible. I wish you well.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reequest for Comment on Coverage of Current News re: Possible Return to Football

Template:RFCbio This section is for comments on how the article should cover the current news regarding Favre's possible return to football. Discussion has taken place above by a limited number of editors at Talk:Brett Favre#This isn't wikinews, Talk:Brett Favre#This is not a news website and Talk:Brett Favre#My problems with the sections. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this was the state of the article before I trimmed it down, this was the state of the article after I trimmed it down. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AP source for actual timeline of events that took place

Have come across original AP source for events concerning Brett Favre that has taken place in short, concise, and detailed. It's in most newsrooms and in newspapers. It's worth taking a good look at. A lot of stuff is being text messaged and very little spoken. How such good detailed event reporting ocurred, this is the best I've ever seen. Check it out. Part of the URL is Packers-detail-timeline-of-Favre. I put the whole link in below. If MSN and Fox can use AP as a source and it's in the public domain, I'm sure it can be put in a/the Retirement section with a SHOW parameter.

[6] 's-decisions (Apparently originally sourced from AP writer Chris Jenkins 07-14-08) JBretSimmons (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We usually don't hide text in an article with {{hidden}}, as it defeats the purpose of an article. I really think it is fine for now, and maybe later when the full story comes out and Favre has made a decision we can clear some things up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Favre's GPB "LIFETIME CONTRACT" of 3/1/2001

Gonzo, the article is missing a very important event that is not mentioned (or I may have overlooked it). On 3/1/2001, Favre signed a "LIFETIME CONTRACT" with the Green Bay Packers.

The GBP are unique in that it's a small town that has an NFL team that is owned by entirely by shareholders. No other NFL team has this setup. This is very significant and should be in the article. IMHO, had the 9/11/2001 event occured earlier than 3/1/2001, I doubt if he would have had this extremely rare opportunity to have a lifetime contract, and be the legend QB that he is today. it warrants insertion if not there. Thanks. JBretSimmons (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...what?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a clarification and a reference. The contract Favre signed was technically a 10-year contract extension which was in the article, it was just touted as lifetime because it was supposed to be so long that Favre would retire first. Anyone interested should read this (search for "retire" in the text, an interesting quote by Favre). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference to Favre's unique contract structure within the "Possible Return" section since it is relevent to the controversy that surrounds it. I added a recent reference from NFL.com regarding how it impacts the possible return to football situation. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Chops to offer Favre Ice Hockey Contract

I respectfully request the inclusion of this information on this article:

On July 24, 2008, the American Hockey League's Iowa Chops President Steve Nitzel announced on the Chops website that the organization had offered Favre a contract to play for the team. The position and dollar amount was undisclosed, however, Nitzel said in the announcement that “We can offer him plenty of bone-crushing hits, read-and-react plays, and thousands of fans cheering for him, so what’s not to like about that? All we have to do is sharpen his skating skills and after that, his athletic instincts will take over and he’ll be one heck of a hockey player.” 75.152.139.164 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This joke is not worthy of inclusion. It's not relevant to his life.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is part of his history, like it or not. Maybe to you it's not relevant, but it should be in the article.75.152.139.164 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris is not saying it is not relevant to himself, he is saying it is not relevant to the article on Brett Favre. We cannot just add every single little fact about Favre on this page. This page is a summary and overview of his life, not a list of everything that has ever happened in his life. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke. How is this any different than me saying I'm offering Brett Favre a job mowing my lawn?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really a job that requires elite athleticism is it? Not worth a few hundred K a year is it?75.152.139.164 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's your only argument why my example differs from this story, you just proved why it's not notable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This publicity stunt has no place in the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I just thought wikipedia was built on pure, unbiased facts, rather than elitest wikipedian opinions. My bad.75.152.139.164 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You're not going to get your way by trying to insult people. Grandmasterka 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When did I insult anyone? I'll leave this as is, because I don't care enough to pursue it if there is that much kickback and people don't want it, but please don't put words in my mouth. Elitest is not an insult. I do, however, take the remark about offering Favre a job lawnmowing as an insult. Just because I don't have some fancy colorful name and only an IP does not mean you should have a double standard. I don't want a message-board-esque flame war here, so I'm going to leave it at that.

e·lit·ism [i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-] noun

1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.75.152.139.164 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Grandmasterka 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could offer a chuckle.75.152.139.164 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

Can one obtain a better photograph? That could be anybody frankly. It's largely a photograph of a helmet.204.126.250.84 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do. WP rules dictate that it be a photo that is licensed properly for free use in WP, which essentially narrows it down to photos that normal people take and they release for public use. No commercial photos, no photos taken by pro photographers, etc. Adam Weeden 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)