Talk:New England Patriots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The GM Thing

For future reference, it should be noted that the team has no General Manager. Scott Pioli is the VP of Player Personnel, and Belichick is the Head Coach. Pioli's job desription from Patriots.com is this "As vice president of player personnel, Pioli's responsibilities include overseeing the college draft and free agency, as well as serving as the Patriots' primary contract negotiator. Since he arrived in New England, he has shown a propensity for finding veteran free agents who can contribute and play important roles in building playoff-contending teams."

Personally, I think we shouldn't use the term GM, and instead have Scott Pioli listed as Personnel Director WhiteKongMan 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Though the team doesn't have a formal General Manager position, it is Belichick who fits the description best, not Pioli.

"After significant input from Pioli -- who also manages the cap and negotiates contracts -- Belichick has final say." (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/nunyo_demasio/01/12/patriots/index.html?section=si_latest)

1. Belichick has final say over contract, personnel, and draft decisions.
2. Belichick is paid the salary of a coach and general manager.
3. Pioli is a deputy to Belichick.

Samopolis 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to believe the Patriots website rather than than an SI article. Also, if you think about why was Pioli awarded the Executive of the year award twice if he were only the assistant. It would be like giving an Oscar for Best Director to the Director of Cinematography.199.94.73.221 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Heres a direct quote from Belichick hiring Pioli from the book patriot reign. "I can't do Scott's job, and he can't do mine. We work perfectly together" This quote seems to go with the idea that Pioli is more in charge of personnel, but wut should i know, i only interned with the teamMrscottjackson 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Patriots website doesn't say Scott Pioli is general manager, it only describes what he does. The SI article doesn't say big man is the general manager, but it illustrates the FACT that he has final authority over contract, personnel, and draft decisions (the Patriots will confirm this). I've also read Michael Holley's book 'Patriot Reign' and the only thing that quote says is that they have different jobs. In fact, the book later on specifies that Belichick is the one in charge, even if he allows Pioli autonomy and a good share of the credit.

My original point stands: the best approximation to GM for the Patriots is Bill Belichick. 24.23.148.53 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the League has said that Belichick is the de facto general manager when they gave him such a high fine over spygate. They said that levying such a unprecedented fine was because his actions reflected his position as both coach and general manager — 71.192.65.23 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Jefferson

I always enjoyed watching him play, but is he really a notable alumni?

Logos

Is it legal for us to include these logos? They are copyrighted, is it acceptable for us to put them here? -- Zoe

I think as long as its not generating any profit, its ok.

Probably covered under Fair Use. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from the Patriots official website:

Q. May I download images or graphics for use on my own web site? A. Patriots.com encourages fans to create their own personal sites about the Patriots. You may download graphics and images from this site for personal, non-commercial use. If your site, however, is commercial in any way, use of Patriots images, graphics, or logos is expressly forbidden.

--Max2400 (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That is non-commercial use policy, which is only specific to Patriots.com photos and graphics. This is a broader discussion on organization logos in general, which are almost always accepted on Wikipedia as long as they come with an appropriate fair use rationale. Pats1 ^T/C 02:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Action Required

Someone with a license pls get rid of the last sentence about the patenting of 'that 19-0 thing'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.45.175 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Event Tag

I'm a huge fan of the Pats and I love to see them get coverage, but the current events tag doesn't belong on this article. As described on Template talk:Current:

The tag was created for two reasons:

• So that users would know that the article was undergoing major revisions as events were happening.
• So that editors would know the same so that they could keep that in mind if/when they decided to add to or edit the article.

It was originally designed for short-term use as a warning for editors and readers if an event was occurring right that very second (or very, very recently).

The information on this article isn't changing rapidly and there doesn't seem to be a problem with edit conflicts. However, if someone wanted to put the tag back up for Super Bowl Sunday only, I don't think that would be a problem. Carrp 14:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My favorite NFL team! Patricknoddy 17:28 February 7, 2005 (EST)

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Tedy Bruschi's status

FWIW, it is correct that Tedy Bruschi has stated that he plans to sit out the 2005 season. That said, his current status--PUP, or Physically Unable to Perform--allows him to come back midway through the season. stismail

Which he did. See [Tedy Bruschi Activated of Injured Reserve]jfg284

Putting the history section into a separate article

Since the history section of this article is getting long, I might split this into a separate article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Game by game

The history section of this article is getting ridiculous. We do not need a summary of each game for the 2005 season. --Cholmes75 17:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Greatest lineman of all time?

John Hannah was a guard, right? This might be reaching, but has anyone ever hear of this obscure LEFT TACKLE named Anthony Munoz??????? Your kidding right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.206.62 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not To Be Forgotten

I personally like this section and have added to it myself, but in doing so a question occured to me: how do we determine who is "not to be forgotten?" Isn't that a little bit POV by definition?jfg284

sort of POV, i guess, but i guess we just do it by consensus. If someone makes an unreasonable addition, then we take it off. i think it should stay "not to be forgotten" and not changed to Alumni.--Alhutch 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree...the change to "alumni" makes it more POV, in my mind. The teams in its 46th season (right? well, roughly, in any case), so there have been a lot of players who've moved through the system. Will anyone remember Matt Bahr, placekicker of the mid to late 90s? Probably not. Yet it's liklely he'll never be added to a section entitled "alumni." at least "not to be forgotten" makes it clear at the outset that these really were exceptional members of the team. And also, although its a touch POV, you bring up a good point that if someone WERE to add matt bahr with the claim that he was an influential member of the squad that lost to the packers in the super bowl, the consensus would be to take him off. and it's a good section, so i agree it should stay; i was really just wondering how it was that it was justified. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How is alumni more POV than "not to be forgotten?" Alumni is a "one who is a former member, employee, contributor" according to Merriam Webster's dictionary [1]. The definition and use of "forgotten" in this situation is very subjective. The list is really notable former players, so reffering to them as alumni, or even "former players" would be more in keeping with WP policy than using "not to be forgotten." Just because most sports pages have "not to be forgotten" doesn't make it right. I will propose a across the board change to those pages which use the terminology. Granted the section itself is POV, as with your point about Matt Bahr, but using subjective words in the heading shouldn't be the answer. For now can we at least agree to "Notable alumni?" That wouldn't change the intent of the list and would better describe it with less opinionated language. In the end its all POV, but at least we will be calling it for what it is. Assawyer 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"In the end its all POV, but at least we will be calling it for what it is."

Exactly why i prefered "not to be forgotten" over "alumni." However, I do like "notable alumni," as it does purport a reason to list them without the name being nearly as POV. I'll support it. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 21:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will change it, and hopefully people will agree that its more in line with what the subsection is all about. Assawyer 22:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unverified claims

At 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC), an anonymous IP user added some unverified content about when the team was being owned by James Busch Orthwein. [2] Most of the content has no sources and does not seem to follow a Neutral point of view. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like another anonymous IP removed some of the questionable, unverified content [3], but not all of it... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Look slike the original anonymous IP user restored the questionable content again [4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 and beyond

This seems to be getting kind of long, especially as a sub-subheader. Do we really need information about individual games (such as the game vs. the colts and the wild-card playoff game)? Perhaps there should be a separate Patriots 2005 season in review article or just remove some of the excess stuff. Gflores ^Talk 18:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• There has been discussion on this topic, both on this article's rejected FA nomination and a WikiProject discussion. There seems to be consensus that the history should focus more on summaries and high points of the season, but nobody is really willing to start the clean up until February when the season is over. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• to add to that, i think the title should be changed. as the 2005/6 season is over, "2005 and beyond" doesnt seem as appropriate to me. i suggest a 2005 section and then perhaps a "future" section of some kind. i havent put much thought into it, it just occured to me after looking at the last few edits (mostly changes of the title to reflect the "end" of the "dynasty". (Such as "Transition and dethronation - 2005 and beyond" and "End of a Dynasty - 2005")--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Altough, is the dynasty really ended yet? It is called a dynasty by most people because they won three out of four NFL Championships. That second year, they didn't even make the playoffs. This year they did (winning their division). So if they happen to win it all next year, it would mean the start of a new dynasty? No, it would be said they won 4 of 6 years. And who knows after that. To say the dynasty is over is still premature. I'd say they still have two more years to win another Championship before we can say for sure the dynasty is really over. And I never called it a dynasty to begin with. 4 years does not establish a "dynasty". Just my thoughts though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"end of a dynasty" is inappropriate. I agree with Voldemort. We can't see into the future.--Alhutch 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we all have different ideas on what is a dynasty. I feel that one must win the majority of the super bowls over a period of time to be considered a dynasty, with a minimum of two in three years. Right now, they are at three in five years (including this season). In my opinion, they have another shot. This logic seems to stand, so I will rename the section. Deckiller 04:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a few sub-sub-sub headers to help organization, and simply named the seasons "The XXXX season" until we reach an agreement. Deckiller 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I cut "The Patriots later signed receiver Reche Caldwell, cornerback Eric Warfield, safety Tebucky Jones, and kicker Martin Gramatica." Two of the players were cut, one is on IR, and who knows what the 4th will amount to. This was never as significant as listing major players that left the team.

NO MESSING WITH THE ARTICLE!

The name of the team is the "New England Patriots." Also, the name of their mascot is "Pat Patriot." Whoever snuck into the article and messed it up is a vandal. That's vandalism on Wikipedia's watch!

Information to be added

Several FA voters have said that they object to the FA status of this article unless business-related events are covered in more detail. Therefore, here is a "to-do" list for tonight"

1. Explain the reason behind stadium shifts of the 1960s
2. Explain one or two key injuries to the team
3. Develop on the sexual harrassment case.
4. Explain the Sullivan issues of the late 1980s and how this led into the new ownerships between Kraft and the saint louis owner.
5. Explain the saint louis ownership and how Kraft saved the team from a move.
6. Perhaps another 2-3 sentences on Kraft, Gillette, and maybe coaching changes during the 1960s.
7. Sellout streak

Deckiller 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Two and a half items to go. Deckiller 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

Hey, we did it; we brought this article to FA status. However, there are still some minor fixes and additions to be made so that we satisfy all people who voted; it's only fair. There's always work to be done. Anyway, I'd like to go through a list of people who deserve barnstars and congratulations for their work and criticism: Alakazam, Assawyer, Thethinredline, Spangineer, Monicasdude, Zzyzx11, Gflores, Maclean25, Wayward, anon edits, and anyone else I forgot to mention (I'll try and add as many names as I can once I start digging). Let's keep it up, keep improving and editing, fix any stray objections, and really make this article shine! Deckiller 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Current staff section

Just an observation: I noticed that the addition of the "Current staff" section was reverted [5]. I am relatively neutral on that addition, but since that same user added it to the rest of the NFL team articles, the question that popped into my head is: What going to happen when a bunch of anonymous users or newbies are going to come by when the 2006 season is underway and wonder "Why isn't a current staff section on the Pats page (my team's page) like all of the rest of the NFL team articles? ... I might as well add it since no one else has...", and the like. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to list "current staff" since they do play an important role for the football operations of the team, and we have a box for the players. InTheFlesh? 20:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I removed it is because there was no prior discussion (I want to make sure massive changes are discussed, since it's an FA). I do agree that we should have it. Deckiller 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

HOWEVER, I think we should only add it at the start of training camp; by then, there won't be as many (if any) TBA entries. Deckiller 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Watson

Benjamin Watson is listed as "Benjamin"--his preferred name--on the Pats' roster page. I see no reason why this page should say "Ben". Samer 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WHY is this a featured article??? —This unsigned comment was added by 68.163.144.87 (talk • contribs) .

• A featured article is an article on Wikipedia that has been has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. All featured articles must comply with our featured article criteria. An archive of the nomination and vote has been posted here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

General Manager

It is a common misconception that Scott Pioli is the general manager of the Patriots. In fact, he is the Vice President of Player Personnel. Bill Belichick is the general manager with final say over all personnel decisions. I don't have the citations, but a search of Google will show this to be true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.82.112 (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Independence Day

You expect me to believe that the Patriots had their first workout on Independence Day? Give me a break.

Please read the source. — Deckiller 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

America's Team???

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the nickname for the Dallas Cowboys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ychennay (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

It is

Media section

To me it seems like a whole host of information that isn't encyclopaedic, and is quasi-advertising. Maybe keep it down to just an external link. I'll remove it, but if anyone objects, this is the place. Thethinredline 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jets Patriots Section

I've added a section on common players between the Jets and Patriots. While this may seem trivial to some, this is a relevant topic due to the coaching changes between the two teams. I know there are more players, I just can't think of them at the time. Please try to add to the list, as I'm sure there are more.

It's way too trivial, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article restoration

Sometime soon, I'm going to do a major cleanup of this article to restore the post-FAC polish. I'm not taking it to FAR though, because it's not that bad and there's already enough to worry about on the FAR backlog. — Deckiller 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with images

A review of the use of images in all Featured Articles is currently ongoing. A few issues have been brought up in regards to this article. Please see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey#Sport and games for a description of the issues. Feel free to address the issues and leave a comment on the survey page. Any questions to me personally can be left on my talk page. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. As an aside, I'm going to place this article on FAR once I'm done with the Woonsocket, Rhode Island FA push; I feel that I need to work on it more to attain "modern" standards, but I really don't have the time right now. — Deckiller 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Logos and Uniforms Section

Since the entire section on the logos and uniforms is presented on its own separate page, I suggest that all that should be on the main page is the link to the secondary page, a la the strategy section. Or, as a compromise, a more concise logos and uniforms section on the main page. Pats1 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Marquise Hill

I added about his death in 2000-present. any comments?--Gingerbreadmann 01:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the 2007 New England Patriots season, since this article is a brief overview of Patriots history. See WP:RECENTISM. Quadzilla99 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the update. but i'm sure someone else will write another thing about him. should there be a link to it somewhere obvious? thanks--Gingerbreadmann 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I just requested that this article be permanently semi-protected, as alot of anon editors vandalize this page. Black Harry (T|C) 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We were denied b/c the Admin didn't find enough evidence, If this keeps up I'll reapply. Black Harry 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, as an admin myself, less than 10 vandal edits per day is not enough for page protection. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay I didn't realize what the rule of thumb was for page protecting. Not sure what IMO means though. Black Harry 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"In My Opinion..." Pats1 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is a high-rate of vandalism from multiple users and IP addresses. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested page protection again, since most, if not all, edits by IP users are vandalism. Its highly disruptive to have to revert changes made by vandals. BH (T|C) 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected for two weeks. BH (T|C) 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

the cheating thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/sports/football/11patriots.html?em&ex=1189656000&en=d15e95c2c5789f60&ei=5087%0A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's entertaining that an issue where a first round draft pick was taken away from a team, and also a united states sentator became involved is not mentioned, or even referenced at all. There should definately be at least a link to the spygate article in the "see also" section. Rtconner (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, links contained within team templates at the bottom of the article aren't included in the "See also" section. Pats1 ^T/C 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a nfl blog that has more info on that cheating scandle. will this help for another source?

http://www.nflblitznews.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo34432000 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Videotape Incident Reference Copyright Violation

The paragraph listed in 2000-Present which mentions the videotape incident is directly copied from Chris Mortenson's article on ESPN.com:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677. This should be rewritten --Cdman882 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

well something should go in there...i mean its a pretty significant right? this will be remember for a long time...you cant just ignore it and pretend its not a big deal. i mean now everyone who already didnt like the pats has fuel for fire. Robkehr 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone can go ahead and add info on the incident if they wish. But this time it shouldn't be copied and pasted directly from another source. Sasha Callahan 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the Broncos once lost a draft pick for salary cap violations, and the Steelers lost one for illegal off-season workouts. Neither event is mentioned in the respective articles. So I'm not sure this really needs to be added. I also think people should review WP:RECENT. Sasha Callahan 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is currently a featured article, I suggest any addition be brief as possible and more details should be added to History of the New England Patriots and 2007 New England Patriots season. See WP:WIAFA and WP:RECENT for more information. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ill add the info to the steelers page concerning their 1978 minicamp violation where they wore...pads... im unaware of a broncos salary cap violation, but that happens alot so i wouldnt be surprised. Robkehr 05:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Broncos lost two third round picks for going over the cap to keep Elway, and ended winning the Super Bowl they year they broke the cap. Sasha Callahan 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the videotaping was found to have no effect on the outcome of the game 72.79.230.52 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Anonymous. This is speculative and should not be included.

I think it should be noted that they had to break the rules in order to stop the last place Lions:http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_6910464.

Shouldn't there still be some comment on the taping scandal?? Sure it shouldn't be cut and pasted from an unreferenced source, but there should at least be comment on one of the biggest scandal in the NFL? Wikinick99 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Year of Inception

The New England Patriots began in 1959, not 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.57.237 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Section title at 2007 New England Patriots season

Over at 2007 New England Patriots season there is some disagreement over the title of the section describing the signal videotaping incident during the Jets game. One option is "Illegal Videotaping Incident" while another option is "Signal Videotaping Incident". In my opinion, "signal" is a better and more descriptive term than "illegal" as it conveys more information. I think any discussion of legality belongs in the section's text, not the title. Thoughts? Chaz ^Beckett 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link: 2007 New England Patriots season

Smart. Is this standard operating procedure for other sports teams? It absolutely should be. --146.115.115.184 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kickoff return leaders

I am trying to understand why Jon Vaughn was not credited as being one of the kickoff return leaders in his best years. Please see the last paragraph in his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 04:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved at Talk:National_Football_League#Kickoff_return_leaders.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

dynasty statement

This sentence in the lead: "Their recent success has prompted many to dub the team as a modern NFL dynasty." is a weasel statement, not that I disagree. Anyone have a suggestion to replace it with, maybe a good quote from a sportswriter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrac (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's some good quotes in this article, written after the Pats won their 3rd title. Chaz ^Beckett 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, what do you think of replacing it with this: As Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy wrote after the Super Bowl XXXIX win: "And the New England Patriots of the 21st century are established as an NFL dynasty on a par with the Packers of the 1960s, the Steelers of the '70s, the 49ers of the '80s, and the Cowboys of the '90s." Vrac (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

End Zone Militia

ESPN named it as one of the top ten celebrations of 2007, not the top one...it was clearly stated that the list was in no particular order. Fix it.

This appears to have been fixed as of 12/27/07. Ψν^Psi_nu 16:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of history section

Hi all: This is the first time I've read over this article, which is actually quite excellent. However, the timeline organization of the history seemed a bit incoherent when I read it over. (The "breakpoints" of 1994 and 2001 seem to be especially key, but were lost in the old timeline.) I have attempted to give it better logical flow by moving the dates around a bit and giving them titles. Feel free to alter to better versions if you think it works better (not that I could prevent it :) ).

Also, despite the objections some might have to the somewhat negative inclusion, I thought it necessary to include the stuff on the nickname "The Patsies" in the early '70s section. I grew up in MA in that time, and the Patriots WERE The Patsies to those of us who suffered through those years. I think it's a real part of their history that current fans of the Patriots might not fully understand...

Thanks, Ψν^Psi_nu 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again... I'd like for someone other than Pats1 to look at the changes I made... they were reverted pretty much in full, and while some of them I'm OK with, most are kind of (thinking of a word) Machiavellian (?). Thanks... Ψν^Psi_nu 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you go point-by-point? Pats1 ^T/C 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I have to... you mean each change? (I may have to generalize on some of the timeline stuff.) Thanks, Ψν^Psi_nu 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not each change, just where you disagree. Pats1 ^T/C 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of history section - edit rationale (see above)

Let's start out with a point of introduction... I went to my first Patriots game in 1968 - we had cars back then, honest - and have been a fan ever since (grew up in Peabody, MA, and even still pronounce "Peabody" with the correct North Shore intonation). While I love the current Pats, and they're only one step below in my Hierarchy of Life Obsessions than my religion (which, of course, is the Boston Red Sox as worshipped at the Temple of Fenway Park), I sense somewhat of a lack of historical (pre-2001) perspective in this page. (Still damn good, at least post-2001, though.)

I'm going to sort of do this quickly (note added later by me: ha - like a New England sports fan can do anything in a non-obsessive manner) and at the highest level. Stuff not mentioned here is detail I'll get into later (if I get a reasonable discussion here) or stuff I'm neither here nor there about the reversion (e.g., 12th Player Award - this should be somewhere, but perhaps not on the "main" Pats page).

• Moving the paragraph beginning "The team's on-field performance and attendance improved drastically over the decade...." under "1997-2000" to Intro, or earlier in history. (Note - it appears that the correct header for 2000-present is missing; this is the heading under which it was originally placed.) Doesn't make a lot of sense at end of "present history", as it really pertains to stuff that began in 1994-1996 and is not really well placed as the most current historical reference (i.e., at the end of xxxx-present). Also see rationale for a "1994-1997 or 1994-2000" section below under "History evoluton".

• History evolution I've tried to do this by significant breakpoints. There are three that IMHO I consider indisputable:
  • 1969 move to the NFL
  • 1994 purchase by Kraft
  • 2001: Brady goes in for Bledsoe

These are all massive turning points in the history of the team, at least temporally. (For example, Brady being the "cause" of the post-2001 success is arguable, but that moment is indelibly when "it all changed")

I'd add these as other intermediate important points of change:

• • 1976: Pats finally have a stellar season and make the playoffs - no longer pure laughingstocks (see "The Patsies" below)
  • 1985: Pats finally achieve national "legitimacy" by making the Super Bowl (then promptly almost blow it by getting mauled by the Bears)
  • 1997: Pats move out of Parcells-Kraft bickering stage and begin ascent to the dynasty

Thus, I reorganized the history along those lines. You'd have to look at my primary reorg edit as a standalone page to get a sense of how I did it, since it was, erm, rather ham-handedly reverted and I don't wish to get into reversion wars by trying to bring it back.

• Titles on time periods Small point, but I think it helps make it look a lot clearer and more logical (and for anyone that cares, professional), but that's just my opinion. I'm not asserting they are necessarily the right titles, but they're not POV by any stretch (I mean, read 'em - they're supposed to reflect the historical basis).

• References to "The Patsies". ||begin rant'|| Come on now. Find me a real Pats fan over 40 that doesn't remember when that was the name you called them. Someone out there will hear a "click" in their brain when I just mention the three names "Eddie, Mark, and Jim". If you heard that click, you probably STILL slip and call them the Patsies, even to this day. (How is there NO WP page on "The Sports Huddle, anyway?") ||end rant||

In any case, regardless of any hackles it raises in newbie Pats fans, it's a real part of their history, and should be represented. (Also, my seconds on the reference somewhere above to the comment on the old Pats' logo being a symbol of incompetence - it really was, folks, although it's still way better than RoboPat.) This change is the one to which I'm referring.

OK, OK, I'm done. There were some other minor changes, but whatever. Hope this gets a little more serious consideration this time around. Thanks, Ψν^Psi_nu 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

• • And my last words in response, promise... can we hear from others? Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's how I see things:

• The paragraph about the post-1994(?) sellouts is too specific an information nugget to be in the intro/lead paragraph. Its general point certainly is acceptable there, but with the paragraph before it and after it (XXXI and then XXXVI-XXIX), it would be redundant. Pats1 ^T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To be clear (which I wasn't), I don't disagree with the contention that it doesn't belong in the intro - that's a style call. I do think at the very end of team history is inappropriate. I'll let others think and offer a change later. Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• The 1985-92 and 93-96 and 97-99 cutoffs are simply by coaching changes. As you certainly know, there's a considerable difference between 1992/MacPherson and 1993/Parcells/Bledsoe. While Kraft didn't officially own the team until 1994, the real Kraft/Parcells/Bledsoe era began in 1993. As far as 2000 vs. 2001 is concerned, there was again a huge difference in 1999/Carroll/Grier and 2000/Belichick/Pioli. And of course Brady was drafted in 2000, and Belichick stripped the team to skin and bones for the 2000 season before building it back up for 2001. So it wasn't like the moment Mo Lewis destroyed Bledsoe and Brady came in the era began. Pats1 ^T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere between just the two of us. While I disagree with your catergorization, we can't really compare them dispassionately. Yours and mine are on two completely different bases. Yours is on coaching breakpoints and things that are more well-known amongst a smaller group of real team fans; mine was an attempt to bring it more into line with f"casual fan"/public perception of the team (and its "big moments"). There are arguments for and against either. Let's see what others have to say. Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Heading/Era designations are considered to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR per a recent discussion on Talk:Miami Dolphins. Things like "first decade" are fine, but just restate the obvious. "A decade of instability" or "Patsies" is much more objective and place a label on an era that isn't a fact/truth like the years themselves are. As far as the "Patsies" things goes, feel free to add something neutral back that is well-sourced, but remember any fans of any two sports teams will always find a way to poke fun at the other, whether it be Doophins, Jest, Criminals, Cocaines, etc. Pats1 ^T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (laughing a bit) OK, I guess I'm not gonna win this one either. If we can't call a decade when team management, future certainty, etc. was very unstable "a decade of instability", maybe we've got too many rules. (No dig on you personally there, more on the WP multiplicity-of-rules stranglehold that prevents any reasonable attempt to "be bold in editing". It's a bit of a farce for them to state that the way WP has evolved, not that I'm bitter that I spent a bunch of time on this.) Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• • On "Patsies", yeah, I'll get a source and put it in appropriately. That's probably the right call. Maybe I can include the helmet "image" issue as well. Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • I've now done this. I also added mention of Sam "Bam" Cunningham, who was probably the most popular player of the early '70s (Hannah was probably the best in historical retrospect, but less visible in his time than a running back). Ψν^Psi_nu 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• The 12th player award is notable enough for inclusion in player and season articles (i.e. Wes Welker and 2007 New England Patriots season), but it's not notable and important enough for the main season article. Pats1 ^T/C 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I just thought (still think) the information is too good to just throw away. Is there a place to put it that's linked to the Pats but not the Pats main page? I can definitely imagine wanting to look up that list. Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • External links may be a good idea. Pats1 ^T/C 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done now (crowd goes wild), but others please chime in. My overall message is that I still think this could use some reorganization to be a little more (coherent?) (cohesive?) (something). But with the couple of exceptions above, I'll leave it as it. Thanks...

P.S. Love the Pats 1 sig colors, BTW. Ψν^Psi_nu 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- Go Pats! Pats1 ^T/C 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see people willing to work on this featured article after I went on to pursue other projects. With a separate page for history, balance in the history section can become a large topic of debate. Initially, the 2001-present section was half this size, so the early history seemed well balanced (details went to the subarticle). — Deckiller 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Uniforms

They don't wear them too often, but shouldn't their red (throwback) uniforms be shown on the page? Moose Sheriff (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They wore them once in 2002 for Thanksgiving. They're not an alternate. Pats1 ^T/C 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

their current alts are silver (just looks like a dirty white jersey), but the word is next year they will go to red alts, maybe pat the patriot throwbacks68.109.185.65 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

the rumor-rumor that i've heard is that next year to honor the 50th anniversary of the AFL all the original teams will be wearing throwbacks (ie Tennessee Titans wearing Houston Oilers) including the Patriots reviving the Red Pat Patriot-era jerseys

they will be wearing it in the 2009 season —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjm555 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tightening up the History section

We have the daughter article, why not use it? Per summary style, it is generally a good idea to substantially shorten the main article once the daughter article is created. This History section is NOT substantially shorter than the article that has been split off. That article also lacks a WP:LEAD. I propose we create a short 3-5 paragraph summary of the teams history (one section, not broken down like now, but 1 section, 3-5 paragraphs) and use that text for both the lead at the History article AND for the entire History section here. This article is already huge, and we should use the daughter articles for what they are intended... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; this article has become somewhat bloated since the FA push. — Deckiller 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats1, you take good care of all of these Patriots articles. What think you? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the history section was shortened before when the separate article was created, but I agree that it is still too long and in many ways mirrors the other article. Pats1 ^T/C 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will get on it then. Look for my spiffy new version in about 15-30 minutes or so. If it looks good, we can port it over to the history article as its (now nonexistent) lead section. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did it. What do you all think? Tweak as necessary, but I think I hit all of the high points without going into any deep detail. Such details can be left for the History article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good at a quick glance. There's still a bit of work to be done to update this FA, and I only wish I had the time to invest in it again. — Deckiller 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we get an established editor to revert the vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.5.221 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What vandalism? Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have two. BTW, what vandalism? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Patriots" script logo

Can anyone upload the Patriots script logo? --Howard the Duck 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl Loss

The recent Super Bowl loss is a highly significant event in the history of the Patriots franchise. The opening section discusses the "dynasty" status of the Patriots, but hardly mentions the effect of the recent loss. This page has featured status for fair and proper discussion of important Patriots facts. However, the page now feels unbalanced and biased due to its brief and perfunctory coverage of this highly significant loss. It is beginning to feel like a protected fan page, as opposed to a balanced and factual discussion of important facts relating to the Patriots. Obviously the page should be protected from vandalism by Giants fans, but this page needs to acknowledge that the Patriots lost a game that many football experts are calling one of the greatest upsets of all time. 137.159.153.35 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)DLOMME 02/06/08

Yup. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Taunting Disguised as Factual Information

Looking through the history of edits since the Super Bowl, a lot of information that's being added (and much of it since deleted) may be true, but the inclusion of it into the article seems more like a subtle attempt at taunting. Is it really relevant that the Patriots are the first 18-1 team NOT to win the Super Bowl? Who cares? And believe me, I'm no Patriots fan (they've been a thorn in my team's side since last season's playoffs), but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a fan forum. This page should be locked from any further edits for awhile, unless something TRULY relevant to the Patriots should suddenly occur. ChargersFan (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, protection is not something to be taken lightly. Being an admin (and even though I am a die-hard Pats fan myself), the level of problematic edits to this article, while high, is not so bad that we haven't been able to keep up with it by rollbacks and undos. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I've nominated the article for Featured Article review since a lot of the content that was there when it was nominated has now been moved elsewhere. AlexJ (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This article is starting to get vandilized again. If it were up to me I would make it temporarly semiprotected. I wonder why vandilism is returning to it. Get over it people, the superbowl's over!!!Excitinginterception7 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to request semi-protection? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias??

The Franchise history section seems to be a little biased against the Patriots. Whenever a Superbowl loss is mentioned, the opposing team and score are given. When it gets to the part about the Patriots winning Superbowls not only are the teams/scores not given, but it doesn't even say that they won them. ie: "Under Belichick, the team went to three Super Bowls in four years..." It should be consistant one way or the other.

The sentence, "The Patriots, however, were defeated by the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII, after winning the first 18 games of their 2007 season." is very clumsily tacked on to the first section. I think it warrants another sentence or 2 or at least the deletion of the word "however" as the sentence before it has nothing to do with the 2007 season. I -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.128.35 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Patriots only team without city/ state name?

The Patriots are the only team in the NFL whose name includes the name of a region, rather than a city or state name. If nicknames are also excluded (Golden State Warriors), the Patriots are the only team in and of the four Major League Sports in the USA (football, baseball, basketball and hockey) not to have the name of a city or state in their title.

Can someone with editing credentials please add this? I think it's notable, because so many people comment on the fact that they're not the "Boston Patriots (anymore), or the "Massachusetts Patriots," and because it's unusual (actually, unique to the Patriots) in all of sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? there is no actual city called "Tampa Bay", it's Tampa. Tampa Bay itself refers to the body of water, not the city. Pharos04 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good point -- I didn't think of that! Still, the name of the city (Tampa) is included in the name of the team. I still think it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no such state as Carolina, either. Pats1 ^T/C 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, there's also the Oorang Indians, who were named after a dog kennel; and the Staten Island Stapletons, Brooklyn Lions and Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL), all of whom played in NYC after consolidation. In the case of Staten Island, the borough in which the Stapletons played was then known as Richmond. Staten Island, like New England, was the name of a region. More recently, the New York Giants and New York Jets have played outside both the city and state of New York. "New York" essentially refers to a region; namely, the New York Metropolitan Area. Then, in addition to the Bucs, we also have the Carolina Panthers. The Pats are not really as unusual as they seem. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff: your historical info is interesting but irrelevant. And New York is not the name of the region, it is the name of the city! They just happen to play over state lines. Just think about people from Jersey- they do not refer to themselves as being in "New York." Carolina is a fair point, but again it is part of a state name. New England remains the only NFL team (current) not having a city or state name as part of the team name. Please keep additional comments limited to current teams- I don't want to hear about some minor league17th century chess team. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make this simple: If you can find this claim in a reliable source, then add it to the article. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about some unsourced, meaningless and potentially untrue claims to uniqueness for the Pats. My suggestions above were merely to suggest that this claim isn't particularly notable... as you yourself concur by disparaging these exceptions. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As proof that it's both unique and interesting see this Yahoo! trivia segment: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070209200428AAfrhnc

Also, see this article from the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E4D91530F932A35755C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Is this a "reliable" enough source for you? After all, it represents the entire "region" known as "New York."  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is quite possibly true, and yet insanely trivial and not at all really relevent to the article. As has already been mentioned, there are other regionally named teams (Carolina, Tampa Bay) and you REALLY have to put some rather silly qualifications to make New England unique in that regard... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was settled! It's in the NY Times. I'm going to put it back. Please don't delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It only says that New England is not a state name. True, but the Patriots are not unique in that regard. We don't need a source to say that or not to say that. The words New England also have two "e"s in it. Do we need to note that?!? Simply because it is true that New England is not a state or a city does not make it especially important; nor is it unique, as Tampa Bay is not a city or a state, and Carolina is not a city or a state. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is often noted by commentators and journalists...even Andy Rooney called attention to it in his 60 Minutes piece on the Superbowl. Would someone just settle this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.234.250 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Andy Rooney's mention of this factoid actually proves its triviality. Lambertman (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tampa is actually the the Tampa - "Bay Buccaneers." and Carolina doesn't count as a football team, problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.128.35 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This would have to be the funniest sections i have read on wikipedia. Because New England has the same first name as New York, we might as well mention that as well Jeff. Cmon, this is an encyclopedia, not 1000 interesting facts according to Jeff! Oz Juice24 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

German article

The German article reached the FA-status I think... Maybe someone should translate the article from German so we can promote it again, who'll do? --80.138.55.130 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be an excessive amount of unnecessary work. A few changes here would be all that is necessary. -Zomic13 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

German article reached FA

Could someone implent the template please? --Thalan (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots

FYI the above article that is is being discussed for deletion. Please feel free to voice your opinions here. Thanks,--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Playoff appearances

Add the total number of playoff appearances for the team in the sidebar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.40.66 (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Winning Streak

Official regular season-only winning streak from the end of the 2006 season to the beginning of the 2008 season ended at 21 games. It is currently listed as an active streak of 19 games, which was true at the onset of the season but has since changed. I am unable to edit this article, so if someone with the ability to do so could modify this piece of information, I'd be grateful. It's at the beginning of the article, and as far as I know may or may not also be somewhere else in there. Thanks. 136.159.128.188 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm very new to this whole editing wikipedia thing but I just noticed a small error....

While looking at the main page of this article the jerseys are those of the Browns and not the Patriots. However after clicking on the image it does display the Patriots' jerseys. Just thought this might be good to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.19.200 (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention whatsoever of the cheating??

The Chicago White Sox team page refers to the old "Black Sox" scandal repeatedly, yet any and all mention, even to the slightest degree, of the "Spygate" scandal has been completely kept off of this page, even though every NFL fan (except for Patriots fans) agrees that this brings their "championships" into question.

It's hilarious that one person (it's not difficult to guess who if you look in the "history" section) seems to be making this page his or her personal advertisement for his or her favorite team. What happened to NPOV? Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.16.82 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should begin the article with "The New England Patriots are an American football team implicated in the Spygate scandal in 2007. They are a member of the AFC East..." Give me a break. The entire article isn't defined by that one event, and it's debatable whether the Super Bowls are either, no matter how much you want them to be. "Repeatedly mentioning" it would be your way of "putting an asterisk" on everything, which would truly be a pervision of NPOV. Pats1 ^T/C 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to start the article with it -- or to make it the focus of the article. But it's absurd, and it cheapens the entry, to COMPLETELY leave out ANY MENTION of one of the biggest NFL scandals in recent history (and really, in league history). I couldn't care less about the Patriots, but I do feel bad when Wikipedia is compromised by the obsession of one person to try and sanitize an encyclopedia entry in order to keep out relevant FACTS that might just happen to be an embarrassment to the organization. It simply smacks of Big Brother and the "Ministry of Truth" to try and hide unpleasant truths. I guess I'll go to the entry for the Vietnam War and just edit out any reference to the My Lai massacre because it might make the US look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.16.82 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is not the end-all, be-all of the Patriots on Wikipedia. In fact, the intro and the short history section are miniscule to the rest of the content that's out there. Spygate (I was so biased I wrote 99% of that article and included it on the Patriots' navbox) is mentioned in proper context on History of the New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, and 2007 New England Patriots season. But it's not used as an "asterisk" as many would want it to be; it simply has no place being mentioned on Super Bowl XXXVI, or 2001 New England Patriots season, or Tom Brady, for example. It's mentioned where it belongs, not where people want it to belong. It's something that happened in the 2007 season and chiefly involved one person, Belichick. Propogating it so that it's all of the sudden mentioned on Pat Patriot, Charlie Weis, Gil Santos, Patriot Place, etc. is not following NPOV. Pats1 ^T/C 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe all that tripe you just wrote? You're an admitted fan, you are biased. You are leaving Spygate out on purpose. Do you think we don't see your bias? Do you really think that the biggest fine in NFL history is not noteworthy on the offending team's page? Completely, wholly intellecutally dishonest.

Right, because the first-round draft pick the Dolphins surrendered as part of the Don Shula tampering scandal is really mentioned on the Dolphins' intro: "For most of their history, the Dolphins were coached by Don Shula, the most successful head coach in professional football history. His Dolphins teams posted losing records in only two of his 26 seasons with the club. Six future Hall of Fame members played for Miami during the 1970s, including running back Larry Csonka and quarterback Bob Griese. During the 1980s and 1990s quarterback Dan Marino became the most prolific passer in NFL history, breaking numerous league passing records. He led the Dolphins to five division titles, 10 playoff appearances and Super Bowl XIX before retiring after the 1999 season." ....Please. I've told you before, the history section on this main article is comparatively tiny to the amount of content on sub-articles. In fact, this article (New England Patriots) used to be a featured article on Wikipedia. Recently, that classification was removed because so much content was moved off this main article and onto sub-articles. Only the major points of the franchise's history (literally, a few paragraphs) are contained here. Your argument just doesn't fly, I'm sorry. I also suggest reading WP:CIVIL, because this is the second time in as many weeks you have personnally gone after me and questioned my integrity. Don't do it again. Pats1 ^T/C 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The biggest cheating scandal in the history of the NFL, and you say it doesn't even need a single paragraph on the offending team? Ludicrous. If you have something to add about the Dolphins, thhen add that stuff to the Dolphin's page. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, there's five small paragraphs just on this article. The entire history section of this article is almost as large as most intros. It's tiny. If it was larger, Spygate would be mentioned, of course. But the entire Belichick era gets something like four sentences, there's a hell of a lot more than Spygate that's missing in those four sentences. You need to pick one here. Either you need to argue that the entire history section of this article gets expanded and Spygate gets included, or just accept the fact that the history section on this article is extremely brief. You can't say that Spygate needs to be included in what is nothing more than a quick overview of the franchise's history, dedicating just a few short sentences to even the most important era in the team's history. Why do you continue to ignore the vast quantity of material at History of the New England Patriots, 2007 New England Patriots season, and Spygate? You act like New England Patriots is the only article out there on the Patriots. Pats1 ^T/C 21:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. ONE SINGLE PERSON can undo any or all contributions to an article, and permanently keep it to their liking. All it takes is time to get into he Wikipedia clique. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you for also repsonding to something I wrote 18 months ago on the Spygate talk page. Nobody is listening. Pats1 ^T/C 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this page is incomplete. Their legacy is Spygate, nothing more, nothing less. I don't even mind the patriots, but ask anyone who follows football and ask them to summarize the patriots they would use the word "cheat", "cheaters" or "spygate" in the first 5 words, probably ahead of Brady or Superbowl, so to leave it out would be like leaving out Kobe's rape charge. It is who they are as much as the Superbowls (if you cheated to win them, then they're insignificant anyway). Unfortunate coverup guys, have some class and admit what everyone knows, your team cheated, got caught...and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.222.58 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but it is entirely original research and your own thoughts. Nevermind the fact that it's wrong and the significance of the entire episode has been overstated (hence the 18-1 2007 season which came AFTER they were caught using the third camera...) - but that's a discussion for another day. Pats1 ^T/C 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not Original Research, it's documented fact. It was a very significant episode, but I can see how that you're in denial about it because you're such a fan. Roger Goodell said:

"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots. " http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338

I'm sorry, but "their legacy is Spygate, nothing more, nothing less" is your own opinion. Thus, it qualifies as original research. Pats1 ^T/C 21:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Patriots were fined the maximum allowed, docked draft picks. A Google search of Patriots cheat results in 680,000+ results. And you're doing to try to say with a straight face that it was "overstated"? Really? Please. stop. digging.

Please don't rob the world of the truth about the Patriots because you're a fan. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've really robbed the world of truth because I spent hundreds of hours doing research and collecting sources for Spygate and wrote almost all 6,500 words of that article by myself, including every interview and every detail, many of which you've obviously neglected to learn. Maybe I shouldn't have wasted my time and just wrote a paragraph sentence about "how the Patriots cheated and why that was the singular reason they won every single game in their history" and left it at that, because apparently that's as deep as you're willing to go. Look, if I wasn't involved in this argument, I would have slapped you with a block days ago because of your WP:CIVIL violations; attack the content and not the contributor. To date, you've done nothing but attack my credibility and present absolutely no textual evidence ("the content") to support it. Please, I beg you: read Spygate (your pathetically shallow knowledge on the subject proves that) and show me exactly where I violated WP:NPOV. Pats1 ^T/C 21:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Indianapolis Colts have the NFL winning streak record - 22 games - as of 12/25/09.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfThurman (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Only regular season. The Pats still hold the regular season and playoff winning streak, 21 games, set from 2003-04. The Colts lost in the playoffs last season, as did the Patriots in 2006 and 2007 when they set the 21-game regular season record. Pats1 ^T/C 12:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Until today, the reference to Pats win streak record was (over the past 4-weeks) erroneous b/c it stated that their 18 game regular season streak was the NFL record whereas the record is held by the Indianapolis Colts (currently 22 successive wins). Especially, records need greater attention to review and updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfThurman (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In reality, that reference was three years old because the 2003-04 Pats set two records: regular season winning streak (18) and regular season and playoffs streak (21). The 2006-08 Pats broke the 18-game winning streak with a 21 game streak of their own, which was broken by the Colts in 2008-09 (22+). However, the Pats' OTHER 21 game winning streak still stands. Pats1 ^T/C 00:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why mention winning streaks on a team's page at all? Why would a meaningless winning streak deserve to be mentioned on a team's main page, but not a scandal that brought about the largest fine in NFL history, as well as the invovlement of a US Senator (who was also the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee). So why mention the winning streak? After all, this article is not the end-all, be-all of the Patriots on Wikipedia. In fact, the intro is miniscule compared to the rest of the content that's out there. So why waste space mentioning a winning streak? Certainly this is mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the longest winning streaks in sports. That's where a factoid like that belongs -- not where Patriots fans simply want it to be (on the team page). ChargersFan (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the sarcasm is lovely. How about you go make more of a point. Pats1 ^T/C 03:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am with the anonymous editor. This is the largest cheating scandal in the history of the NFL. This isn't the criticismcruft you'll see on the rest of Wikipedia. No need to make it the headline or anything, but it most certainly deserves a mention. This is not a knock on the Pats; it's simply reporting a very large scandal that's still not died down 2 years later in terms of animosity created. In other words, it is by no means a violation of WP:UNDUE to mention it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems this subject has been throughly disscussed here and something of a stalemate has been reached. I just thought I would add my two cents. I'm from Britian and last season was my first watching NFL. Today I was looking at NFL.com and reading some comments between Jets fans and Pats fans. The jets fans accused the Pats of being cheats. I had no idea about the spygate scandal, so naturally came on wikipedia to find out more. I couldn't find any mention of any cheating on the main Patriots page and in fact the only confrimation I had cheating had happened was on this disscussion page. I feel it should at least be mentioned in the history section. 95.146.64.60 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And the Denver Broncos history section, which is about six times larger than this one, makes no mention of their salary cap circumvention penalties in the late 1990s when they won two Super Bowls. The Miami Dolphins history section, which is about ten times larger than this one, devotes one sentence to when they were docked a first round pick in the early 1970s for tampering with Don Shula. But apparently since this was more recent it deserves mention in a history section that wouldn't even be big enough to fill up the blurb of a book on their history. Pats1 ^T/C 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then those articles should be edited to include mention of any scandals involving those teams. All it takes is one sentence in the history section linking the page about the scandal. (which I understand from above you wrote.) 95.146.64.60 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Pats1", you should be ashamed of yourself, and you should be ashamed of the sports team that whose history you're attempting to whitewash. Who do you think you are, the Iraqi Information Minister? How long do you think you can deny reality, and do you actually think you're fooling anyone? I came here to read about the scandal, and I'm flabbergasted that it's not mentioned. So I read the talk page, and found your desperate excuses and cynical rhetorical maneuvers to whitewash this wikipedia page, and I'm disgusted that you're fighting so hard to prevent the truth from being mentioned. The objective truth and the integrity of Wikipedia is much more important than your misplaced PRIDE and hubris. If you were born in another part of the country, you'd be trying to whitewash and carry the water for a different football team anyway. Your pride doesn't matter because you're clearly not capable of objectivity, and there should be a well documented SCANDALS section in this article no matter how much it hurts your tender feelings. Because that's what many people are coming here looking for: the truth. You're wasting your time on a lost cause, because the cat is out of the bag, and you attempt to whitewash the malfeasance of cheaters makes it look even worse. Surely you can find some other cheaters who need you to carry their water and whitewash their crimes more than the New England Patriots do, so please go spend your time on a more worthy cause. Xardox (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you a troll from ESPN.com? Wikipedia has plenty of information about Spygate. There is no rational basis to make it a large part of an article about the Pats other than to mention it and link to an article about it. It is impossible to disagree unless you are insane. Get a life.71.81.54.171 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

regular-season win streak

needs to be changed colts have the record at 23 regular-season wins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.202.79 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The Colts broke the Pats' record of 21 straight regular season ONLY wins (2006-08). The Pats broke their own record of 18 straight in 2003-04. However, the record mentioned here is the one the Patriots STILL hold - regular season AND playoff wins, 21: 2003-04. Both the 2006-08 Patriots and 2008-09 Colts lost playoff games to break up those streaks. Pats1 ^T/C 12:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pats, since it is a fact the patriots got caught and penalized for videotaping, why not include it... Michael Vick's bio talks about his dogfighting in the second sentence. Barry Bonds'(who has never actually been caught or admitted to anything) bio mentions Balco in the third paragraph. Now I realize for a team maybe it shouldn't be one of the first things mentioned, but it has to be mentioned. By omitting it, you are speaking volumes to your character and your team's. You can take a giant leap forward for yourself and admit your team cheated, and got caught, write the facts please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.222.58 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from YoungerElder95, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 86 superbowl loss. put in a the date (January 26, 1986)

YoungerElder95 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

distance from Boston

The distance from Foxborough to Boston is much closer to 30 miles and it is not generally thought of as a suburb. I am from there I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.146.195 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JERODCAN, 14 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Patriots have won 13 division championships... Not 12

JERODCAN (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The information has been updated. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where To Watch The Pats Online

I am a huge Pats fan but had to move out to Cali for my job so being able to watch them is very hard. What are places that people watch football online? I used two sites last year, atdhe.net (but this site was shut down now) by the US gov, and then there was this football forum I used where people would share links with others on where to watch football online. Any other good places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.24.140 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 89.242.218.55, 29 July 2011

Please add the fact that Chad Ochocinco is part of the New England Patriots squad he was acquired in a trade with the Cincinnati Bengals which give them 2 late round draft picks in the 2012 and 2013 NFL draft.

89.242.218.55 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. If you read the current content of this article, only a basic, overall summary of the team's history is included. Such season-by-season transactions are instead moved to both the more detailed History of the New England Patriots article or the season articles such as 2011 New England Patriots season. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Current Roster

Apparently since the Patriots have practiced using a base 4-3 for the first couple days of training camp, someone has updated the roster section and changed all the positions to what they thought might happen should the team actually change to the 4-3. This has not officially happened yet if at all and the teams website also correctly lists the linebackers and defensive line positions. Wait until an actual game to make these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckaaarei (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Spygate

Spygate needs to be more prominently mentioned in all Patriots articles. It would be doing an article about Richard Nixon, but not mentioning Watergate. There needs to a major NPOV assessment in regard to Patriots fans or staff trying to erase history. --JLAmidei (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What is currently here is trying to sum up the entire Pats history into six paragraphs -- all the main points that define the franchise. I'm not sure how it can be worked into that last paragraph as it is currently written. Any suggestions are welcome. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

All Patriots articles need a prominent mentioning of "Spygate?" I think it is you who need to check for a neutral point of view.71.81.54.171 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under the Cheerleading/Mascots section, it is worth noting that the end zone militia is called the End Zone Militia, http://www.endzonemilitia.com/football.asp 76.118.170.241 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the QB's name be Tom Brady instead of Tom Baby? Seriously this is poor.

Chargers?

The Chargers are no longer considered a rival. Through the history of Pats football, there have been greater rivals. Even when there was a "rivalry" it was one-sided and minor. This is likely an edit from a Chargers fan and is biased. Patriots fans do not care about the Chargers more than any other team. Even when they beat them multiple times a few years ago, it was only Merriman and Tomlinson that Pats fans didn't care for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutsjackson (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Roster Navbox

The Patriots' roster navbox is broken, as can be seen on the individual players' pages. Any idea why this is or how it can be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNOMN8R3.14 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fight Song?

I wanted to discuss here before I made any actions on the page itself, but I wanted to remove the 'Fight Song' mentioned in the article.

As as Patriots season ticket holder, I can attest to the fact that 'Shipping Up to Boston' isn't their official song/fight song. Yes, it's played on occasion, but no more than any other song on the PA system. Anyone in the market will tell you that song is most related to the Boston Red Sox and their former closing pitcher Jonathan Papelbon. If anything, he official song for the Patriots would be the 'O Fortuna' or 'Crazy Train' as those are played before every game as the players are running onto the field. Also, the paragraph states " It was named as the official fight song in 2011 by Rob Gronkowski and Wes Welker". This statement is unsourced, and a few different serches on the web offered nothing even close to this to back this up.

I wanted to throw it out to anyone who might be able to provide sources to back any of this up, but if it's well and good with you all, I'm planning to remove this section, as I question it's validity. Wrel (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections, so I removed the section. Wrel (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Team colors are wrong

Someone changed the colors and did a terrible job at it. They have no orange in their primary colors. Who did this? I'm trying to fix it, but I can't seem to access this. Srsrox (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind, figured it out. Fixed. Srsrox (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2013

How can this page not have anything about the cheating scandal the Patriots were caught in? Can't rewrite history by blowing it under the table. If that is not mentioned then all of Wikipedia has no credibility. 24.18.5.186 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. RudolfRed (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The 21 game winning streak

The 21 game winning streak was broken by the Pittsburgh Steelers in a home game in Pittsburgh. The date was October 31, 2004 and the Steelers were picked to lose by a large margin. I know this to be a fact because I was at the game and it was a great game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lori pitte (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit requested to Patriots Hall of Fame

Troy Brown was inducted to the team's hall of fame in 2012. See Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.82.202.5 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Patriots - Dolphins Rivalry

I think this needs to have a section, especially over the Ravens rivalry. I would put it over the Colts rivalry too. I might be an old Pat fan but no one can deny this is a much bigger rivalry and has a lot more history. Things that should be touched upon:

- Miami's winning streak against the Pats in the Orange Bowl

- The Patriot's upset victory at the Orange Bowl in the 1985 AFC Championship Game (first win there since 1966; many consider the '85 Bears-Dolphins rematch to be the greatest missed opportunity in NFL history; and we should probably cover the close game in Miami that regular season when the Dolphins won 30-27 in Miami)

- The Snow Plow game

- Miami's surprising comeback late in the 2004 season

- The Wildcat game (Miami introduced the wildcat in the NFL by unleashing it against the Pats in the beginning of the 2008 season, winning 38-13)

- Dan Marino vs Drew Bledsoe opening day in 1994(?)

- Don Shula being able to rig the schedule because he was on the competition committee so that Miami wouldn't have to play in New England in December (and thus the Pats would play in warm-weather Miami in December; should note Shula also did this with the Bills, Colts, and Jets as well)

There's more but this is just off the top of my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.141.113 (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pats

The pats are the best team in the nfl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.178.185 (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

List of New England Patriots players

Thought I would get some feedback from you all regarding the list of Pats players article. I feel the article is unworkable now. If all past players are added, then all the awards info will make the article way too long. I thought I would keep it simple and sortable. Example below. Thoughts??????.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Player	Number	Position	Former school	First season	Last season
Rabih Abdullah	27	Running back	Lehigh	2004	2004
Bobby Abrams	50	Linebacker	Michigan	1995	1995
Ron Acks	51	Linebacker	Illinois	1972	1973
Bob Adams	80	Tight end	Pacific	1973	1974
Julius Adams	85	Defensive lineman	Texas Southern	1971	1987
Sam Adams, Sr.	61	Guard	Prairie View	1972	1980
Titus Adams	62	Defensive end	Nebraska	2008	2008
Danny Aiken	48	Long snapper	Virginia	2011	present
Kamar Aiken	16	Wide receiver	UCF	2011	present
Don Allard	12	Quarterback	Boston College	1962	1962
Danny Amendola	80	Wide receiver	Texas Tech	2009	present
Kyle Arrington	25	Cornerback	Hofstra	2009	present
Jake Ballard	88	Tight end	Ohio State	2010	present
Marcus Benard	58	Defensive lineman	Jackson State	2009	present
Jake Bequette	92	Defensive end	Arkansas	2012	present
Michael Bishop	7	Quarterback	Kansas State	1999	2000
Drew Bledsoe	11	Quarterback	Washington State	1993	2002
Bob Bleier	10	Quarterback	Richmond	1987	1987
Legarrette Blount	29	Running back	Oregon	2010	present
Brandon Bolden	38	Running back	Mississippi	2012	present
Tom Brady	12	Quarterback	Michigan	2000	present
Marcus Cannon	61	Offensive lineman	TCU	2011	present
Jeff Carlson	17	Quarterback	Weber State	1992	1992
Matt Cassel	16	Quarterback	USC	2005	2008
Matt Cavanaugh	12	Quarterback	Pitt	1978	1982
Marquice Cole	23	Cornerback	Northwestern	2009	present
Dan Connolly	63	Offensive lineman	SE Missouri State	2008	present
King Corcoran	15	Quarterback	Maryland	1968	1968
Jermaine Cunningham	96	Defensive end	Florida	2010	present
Rohan Davey	6	Quarterback	LSU	2002	2004
Alfonzo Dennard	37	Cornerback	Nebraska	2012	present
James Develin	46	Running back	Brown	2012	present
Tom Dimitroff, Sr.	15	Quarterback	Miami (OH)	1960	1960

One of the most biased pages on Wikipedia

Will not even attempt to read anymore or stick around to see what you tools have to say.

This article is one of the most biased article ever protected by one or two people. Spygate not mentioned ONCE? God damn sure it doesn't define the franchise as a whole but it happened and whether or not you believe it, they did it and were punished for it.

You people protecting this article...you're the scum of the human race. I hope you die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.154.69 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you fell that way. There is a whole separate article on the Spygate. It is also mentioned on the detailed History of the New England Patriots page, which is linked from that history section here. What is currently here is trying to sum up the entire Pats history in into six paragraphs -- all the main points that define the franchise. As you mentioned, Spygate does not define the entire franchise, so that is the primary reason why it is not in those six paragraphs. Since you are not going to be sticking around, I'm not sure how we can negotiate this issue, or how it can be worked into that paragraph. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Radio section

The radio broadcast section is completely out of date.

It lists WBZ as the flagship station with Gill and Gino as the broadcasters. All three are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.185.77 (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually while you are correct in saying that Gil; and Gino are no longer the "voices" of the Pats as broadcasters, you are wrong in saying that WBZ is no longer the flagship station. All games are still broadcast on WBZ-FM 98.5 also known as The Sports Hub, which is owned by CBS. The fact that CBS appears to be trying to make the local FCC call letters of the station a non-entity is irrelevant. Being a business they (CBS) seem to be more about branding than goodwill and I'm speaking in business/professional terms; (i.e. marketing/accounting). If you websearch wbz.com you get re-directed to boston.cbslocal.com, but to locals it will always be WBZ AM or FM regardless of what CBS thinks or wants or how they want to design the related stations' website. </ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBZ-FM </ref>http://boston.cbslocal.com/station/985-the-sports-hub/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblegacy (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

8.1 needs editing

Here is the first statement of 8.1 as of a few seconds ago: "The widespread growth of mobile devices and social media have cause The Patriots to expand its team update information into other platforms."

Here is a list of problems: (1) The subject, "growth," does not match the plural verb, "have." (2) The past participle of "cause" is "caused," not "cause." (3) I don't know that mobile devices have grown. I think they've decreased in size. Their use, however, has increased. (4) The article before "Patriots" (the "The") is capitalized although elsewhere in the article it's not. (5) The use of the singular "its" is inconsistent with the use of "Patriots" as a plural elsewhere (but consistent with other Wikipedia pages--see, for example, the Kansas City Chiefs page). (6) As a whole, I don't think the sentence makes all that much sense. What are the "other" platforms? Granted, the next sentence lists some examples, but this sentence, in and of itself, seems awkward at best. (7) I'm not sure about this point, but should the factual claim that there has been "widespread growth" in two areas be footnoted for a source? The same is true for the fact that this growth is in fact what caused the expansion. Again, I'll emphasize that I'm not sure about the Wikipedia policy for footnoting factual claims. (8) Is "expand" really the right verb here? Is the club expanding its "team update information"? Or is it merely releasing it to other fora?

I'm not sure I'd keep this section, but that's not my decision to make. I would, at the very least, recommend changing this sentence to make the grammar less awful. 70.211.4.153 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Phil

Gil Santos now in Patriots Hall

Hey all, huge patriots fan and was at the induction of long time broadcaster Gil Santos, the "voice of the Patriots" at the hall last year, and notice he is missing from the "contributors" section of the hall listing on this page. I believe that his election and induction have earned him a place here too, and would've fixed it myself but its a protected page. Thanks for your time, hopefully he gets added to the wiki soon. Have a good one and go pats!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.174.46 (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to the intro sentence

"The New England Patriots are a professional American football team based in the Greater Boston area. This is slightly misleading as the term greater Boston is now commonly used interchangeably with Metro Boston .Perhaps a better description would be "The New England Patriots are a professional American football team. They Patriots play their home games at Gillette Stadium in the town of Foxborough, Massachusetts located roughly equidistant between Boston Ma and Providence RI." According to the patriots history this is why they changed the name to The N.E Patriots . Just my 2 cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.61.41 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ty Law jersey number incorrect under "Hall of Famers"

Ty Law is listed as number 26, but that was his jersey number when he played for the Denver Broncos, not the Patriots. He wore number 24 during his tenure with the New England Patriots. Ytse Frobozz (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just fixed it. --Jayron32 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)