![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I just reverted a pair of large edits (somewhat discussed above), which I feel strongly violate WP:NPOV. Please discuss them here, per WP:BRD, after reading WP:NPOV. The changes made were loaded with non-neutral opinions, that cannot stand. Tarl N. ( discuss) 19:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Very clearly the arcane definition of "neutral" that's ostensibly being asserted here has extraordinarily little to do with the common definition thereof; so, go ahead and slavishly shill for the NFL if you must, but the rampant intellectual bankruptcy being subscribed to in so doing is nevertheless put on broad display... A TRULY neutral article would dispassionately report ALL relevant information, especially taking pains to demonstrate that while the NFL certainly pushes a very specific narrative, actual facts, and numerous problems with that narrative exist such that it's veracity is VERY VERY VERY far from having been demonstrated.
Your witless, credulous, sycophantic subscription and promulgation of the NFL's narrative and consequent desire to censor the MANY MANY MANY valid criticisms thereof, while blithely allowing pejorative phrases as demonstrated below, amply demonstrates that promulgating genuine "neutrality" has nothing at all whatsoever to do with your agenda here.
To wit...
"The Exponent science report concluded that no credible environmental or physical factors within the game characteristics fully explain the additional loss of pressure in the Patriots footballs relative to the Colts footballs"
This, being a crafted paraphrasing of less than HALF of the referenced paragraph, quite UN-NEUTRALLY and deliberately selected to omit the opening sentence: "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain". This is CLEARLY an example of a NON-NEUTRAL presentation of the factual content of the referenced subject matter in order to substantiate a specific, predetermined narrative, and yet, you're all here witlessly arguing that black is white, and down is up and that a statement that's all but an editorial IS actually "neutral", but a sentence that more fully AND ACCURATELY incorporates the entirety of the referenced source material is not.
"Following the release of the report many commentators[who?] in other markets said it proved its case.[citation needed]"
Cripes, Wikipedia editors YEARS ago took the time to point out that this assertion is (and remains) unsubstantiated, but, apparently because YOU arbiters of some arcane flavour of "Neutrality" don't have any problem with it's vapid promulgation of the desired narrative, it has somehow been allowed to stand unchallenged.
"On the other hand Patriots fans, and New England media, tore into the report for various reasons including phrases like "more probable than not" and "generally aware" in relation to Tom Brady's knowledge of the situation"
Really? was it genuinely ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans" that tore into the report? Even the few contrary links that you've let through (though endeavoured to bury) demonstrate that this is a false claim, and yet, you assessors of "Neutrality" apparently don't have any problem at all with leaving in an ENTIRELY unsubstantiated, factually contradicted, phrase whose effect is to minimizes any apparent criticism of the report while also serving to denigrate any subsequent such valid criticisms as essentially being nothing more than, prejudiced, biased and therefore perfectly dismissable whinges of irrational fans and local media. But, again, you've genuinely attempted to claim that this article yet remains more "neutral" as it is?!?
"New England fans were furious at ESPN, especially at Chris Mortensen, for broadcasting news stories that were seen as painting the Patriots in a negative light"
Again, "New England fans"? Were they the only ones? Where's the substantiation for this prejudicial qualification? ...and how EXACTLY, especially without any substantiation whatsoever, is that phrasing "neutral"? Furthermore, the phrase, "that were seen as" is PURE EDITORIALISATION!! (Weasel words!!) The referenced tweets and articles ABSOLUTELY painted the Patriots in a negative light, but Mortensen nevertheless ultimately ended up deleting those tweets and ESPN even issued apologies and acknowledged their having failed numerous journalistic and editorial responsibilities in relation to their coverage during that time. ...all of which is incontrovertible fact, and yet the "neutral" article lets this minimized, milquetoasty, clearly biased editorialization stand wholly unchallenged, with you EVEN defending the unclarified use of interviews with Jerome Bettis and Mark Brunell, speaking ON ESPN, as PAID commentators, within days of the ACCUSATIONS being made, then relating their opinions [!!!!!!] that were based ENTIRELY on the limited, and now known-to-be-inaccurate, ESPN-reports as additional support for what is now-proven-to-be-incorrect information! AND AGAIN, YOU STILL CLAIM THAT THIS IS A *MORE* NEUTRAL DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO THE INCIDENT!!??! Also, you dismissively and derisively (and ignorantly!) dismissed ALL of my references as being "opinion based", well HOW THE EFF are the UNINFORMED *OPINIONS* of Bettis and Brunell NOT "opinion based" FFS?!!
"On May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote an article titled "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure"
How about you actually go and READ the article! If you bother, you'll find out that it NEVER USES the word(s) "cheat", "cheater" or "cheated" ANYWHERE, which means that the author's deliberate insertion of such a vitriolic and perjorative characterisation is, AGAIN, PURE, BIASED, EDITORIALISATION. Furthermore the section where this "summary" references the articles' conclusion is ACTUALLY only a reference to where it's QUOTING the Wells Report! The author of the piece didn't do his own investigation and draw a parallel conclusions independently (which is implied by the summary), they merely wrote an article reporting on the findings of the Wells Report and including this heavily slanted and inaccurate "summary" in this skewed form only serves to promulgate the NFL's narrative and appears to re-inforce that position with a 3rd party independent concurrence, when the referenced article DOES NO SUCH THING! Cripes, the article even goes to lengths to point out that the NFL's attorneys prevented the scientists who conducted the study from talking about it and that such an estoppel is somewhat suspicious and "generally a no-no in a field where transparency builds credibility." But somehow, in this purportedly "NEUTRAL" article, ALL of that context was deliberately omitted (and has now been censored) so that the actual content of the source material remains wholly misrepresented as independently supporting the established, NFL-friendly story.
"On May 14, attorney Daniel L. Goldberg prepared a document rebutting specific charges made in the Wells Report,[48] citing Nobel Prize winning scientist Roderick MacKinnon, who has financial ties to Robert Kraft.[49] Goldberg has represented the Patriots and was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.[50]"
Weird how, here, in THIS case, including the clauses, "who has financial ties to Robert Kraft.[49]" and "Goldberg has represented the Patriots and was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.[50]" to demonstrate a potential conflict of interest in this instance is a "neutral" argument (since you high-and-mighty arbiters of neutrality have clearly neither objected to nor removed it), but that every/any attempt to insert substantiated references that call into question the neutrality / partiality of Exponent or Wells are somehow, obviously "non-neutral"...
As I've demonstrated, there are NUMEROUS examples of such NON-NEUTRALITY throughout the article, and yet, here were are, with y'all patting each other on the back in a hypocritical, cognitively-derelict, fit of mental-masturbation and bald-faced doublethink. Odd how people ostensibly dedicated to erudition, "neutrality", and an unbiased presentation of fact have wantonly abandoned all of the above in order to polish and maintain the fictional integrity of the NFL's demonstrably corrupt narrative. Given the blatant and obvious hypocrisies and intellectual bankruptcy being demonstrated here, one can't help but wonder just how much the League donate(s/d) to Wikimedia Foundation... 216.240.6.210 ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
O.k. - Let me go through the above comments. I commented on WP:WALLOFTEXT, because I don't have infinite time. So I'll go through your comments paragraph at a time:
Very clearly the arcane definition of "neutral" that's ostensibly being asserted...Like it or not, Wikipedia has standards which must be followed. Being aggressively insulting merely irritates the people to whom you are directing the comments. Note that while Wikipedia allows anyone to make edits, it does not allow all edits to be made. And when people are actively disruptive, they will be barred from editing Wikipedia. Yes, we can track you even though you edit logged out.
Your witless, credulous, sycophantic ...Repetitive. You might read WP:NPA.
This, being a crafted paraphrasing of less than HALF of the referenced paragraph.... That's known as summarizing. It is not necessary to copy every word. Indeed, it's prohibited.
Wikipedia editors YEARS ago took the time to point out that this assertion is (and remains) unsubstantiated,...Which assertion are you referring to? Which editors are you referring to?
Really? was it genuinely ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans...The sentence does not say ONLY. That's your invention.
How about you actually go and READ the article!I reside in the Boston area, I read everything that came out on the subject, including the Wells report (in detail, the entire thing). I came to the conclusion that the referees were so sloppy that nobody can tell exactly what happened. I can also assert that partisans who assert they know exactly what happened are simply being ideologues who promulgate belief without reason. But those are personal opinions, which don't go into an article.
Weird how, here, in THIS case...Again, declaratory condemnation. I'm simply not interested in polemics. If you think there are specifics that are incorrect, and can provide reliable sources to that effect, we can work on that. But hysterical declarations of wrongdoing simply get you ignored.
As I've demonstrated, there are NUMEROUS examples of such NON-NEUTRALITY throughout the article...I don't work on "throughout the article". I work on specifics. Offer specifics (again, reliable sources), we can work on them. But given your history, we're going to have to go baby steps, item by item, because any massive edit to change the tone is simply going to get reverted.
If there was most stuff that you want addressed that got removed by undoing your damage to the talk page, please add them below. But again, we do this as volunteers, we don't take kindly to threats, screaming or insults. Neither do the administrators. Tarl N. ( discuss) 23:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, 2.5 years ago this statement's claims were called out for needing citations, but that never happened; so YTF is it still here? Beyond THAT, how do you rationally justify asserting that using the unsubstantiated, NNPOV, pejorative weasel words: "the naysayers" and another instance of employing the unsubstantiated call-out "especially the New England media" (as a means of tacitly undermining the subsequent comment) are representative of a "neutral" POV?!Many, especially the New England media, questioned exactly how "independent" Wells could truly be, as a result of his history with the NFL. Rather they, the naysayers, wanted to see a truly independent investigator, someone without ties to the NFL, to investigate this scandal as they felt the Patriots were at a disadvantage with the hiring of Wells. citation needed
Another cherry-picked pseudo quotation of just one selected element of the Exponent conclusion.This analysis concluded that no studied factors accounted for the loss of air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls.
No, it isn't: It relies solely upon a single report produced by a commissioned consulting agency with demonstrable credibility issues. This is a conflation that, again, only serves to create additional validation of the Well's report while efficiently glossing over the inherent problems that have already been identified. It's another example of an author specifically crafting language in a way to disingenuously advance a selected narrative that isn't fully representative of the underlying problems.The Wells report's physics argument, based on multiple experiments as well as theoretical modeling
Yet another cherry-picked, editorialised misrepresentation. The article never even uses the word "cheat" in any form, anywhere in it! That's clearly a massively pejorative, NNPOV insertion! Furthermore, the article includes NO original research, and so has absolutely no "conclusions" of its own whatsoever! It's simply a news article that reports what the then-recently-released Wells Report says! Even more illuminatingly, it actually goes out of its way to highlight that the NFL's attorneys took specific measures to prevent the scientists who conducted the study from talking about it publicly and they even went so far as to note that such an estoppel is a somewhat suspicious act and "generally a no-no in a field where transparency builds credibility." The summary painted here by the OP completely ignores this! and has been slanted to far afield that it is practically a fiction at this point!! [14]On May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote an article titled "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure.[42]
There, that's 9 to get us started, with citations! ... so where shall we begin? 216.240.6.210 ( talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Two weeks later and not a whisper of follow-up or indication of actual interest in cleaning up this abomination of an article. I suppose, when you've been schooled six-ways-to-Sunday, have absolutely nothing in the way of an erudite rebuttal, but are desperate to protect the skewed narrative of a multi-billion-dollar corporation, quietly slinking away into the dark is one of the few options left...
216.240.6.210 (
talk)
20:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This page has been submitted for formal Dispute Resolution - Resolution Noticeboard#Talk:Deflategate
Condensing rant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When I'd originally questioned the underlying motivations and intentions of this now well-shown-to-be intellectually-bankrupt cadre of witless idiots vis a vis their foundationless reasons for backstopping / upholding the NFL's interests at all costs, I was mostly being facetious. But when these three idiots' preoccupation with their own febrile, sanctimonious and WHOLLY IRRELEVANT feelings are then backed by a completely facile, asinine and genuinely fallacious combination of an appeal to populism ("the filing party is ignoring rough consensus" -- Argumentum Ad Populum) and prioritising a consideration of entirely worthless, utterly meaningless, and wholly irrelevant feelings over the precedence of ACTUAL FACTS, then one is forced into inferring that there must be some other, more intrinsically important (at least to the Wikimedia Foundation's interests I suppose?), factors in play whose service supersedes any actual or genuine interest in maintaining even a semblance of intellectual rigor or integrity. Disappointingly, when I launched an appeal for Official Dispute Resolution, I had naively expected that, in the service of Wikipedia's purportedly high ideals and ambitions, at the very least an IMPARTIAL, COMPREHENSIVE, IN-DEPTH, DISPASSIONATE AND EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS would then be conducted, stripped of all the worthless noise, then each be carefully weighed, investigated and/or dispassionately considered en toto, all in an effort to ultimately produce an erudite, well-reasoned, and well-substantiated neutral analysis of the dispute in order to actually, you know, ARBITRATE it!! Stunningly, instead of seeing such a thorough, efficacious and intellectually-rigorous effort, I got nothing but an extraordinarily-brief, superficial, bullshit, fallacy-laden, bureaucratic, and utterly WORTHLESS dismissal that was based upon nothing but the effing noise!!!! To wit, Robert McClenon, please go and actually learn WTF an Argumentum ad Populum fallacy is ( Argument from Popularity) because any ostensible arbiter of disputes who's evidently so utterly ignorant of basic logical fallacies that they'd actually assert one as their basis for adjudicating a dispute has, in so-doing, demonstrated naught else so well as that they're genuinely incompetent for the performance of such a function in any useful or meaningful way. Also, I'd be curious to understand YTF anyone (other than either a complete moron, or a corrupt servant of some ideal OTHER than intellectual integrity) would EVER even acknowledge, let alone care about the completely irrelevant feelings or emotions expressed by anyone in such a forum (not the least these so-called "editors") if they're ostensibly contemplating / considering only the FACTUALITY of an argument on an impartial basis!? I mean, anyone who's not 3/4ths braindead knows that FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR WORTHLESS FEELINGS OR SENTIMENTALITIES!!! right? Still, that being the case, and given your apparent position as someone of at least some ostensible importance to this site, I'm going to go ahead and presume that you're actually not SO entirely effing stupid that you'd be genuinely unaware of that axiom in relation to the pursuit of unbiasedly dispensing facts and impartial information. Of course, accepting that as true only ends up insinuating that there's a significant amount of disingenuousness in your previously asserted, intellectually-indefensible, maintenance of the status quo that was based entirely on nothing more than a completely vacuous, mealy-mouthed, cognitively-bankrupt and rationally unsupportable argument of freaking incivility FFS!! That you genuinely had the mendacity to write down such an utterly vapid, insipid and worthless rationale as the basis for disposing of the dispute can only leave an impartial observer wondering if you're actually that incompetent, or are just ethically compromised? Nevertheless, since there are clearly significantly more important (to the WMF?) factors that must be getting served by mounting such a unified and staunch (in spite of its baselessness!) effort to preserve / sanctify the extant, non-neutral, and biased language of this article (in clear and ardent support of the NFL's preferred narrative and in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated principles) it's quite apparent that attempting to induce any application of reason, facts and/or logic here is going to remain an ultimately futile, impotent and feckless effort. As such, with there being clearly no point in continuing to advocate for legitimate and needed corrections / improvements to the article with the aim of remediating such egregious violations of purported WMF policies in regard to content (like maintaining a NPOV), I don't see any use at all in continuing to figuratively bash my head against what is obviously a significant-though-utterly-irrational wall of baseless, logically-indefensible and intellectually-worthless intransigence. So kudos to all of you on effectively silencing/stymieing any attempt to introduce information that may call into question the legitimacy of a wealthy By every and any conceivably rational assessment, FACTS SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING IN CONSIDERATION HERE So the simple and obvious point that they're the ONE thing that you're all utterly and desperately unwilling to address, and that you're so casually willing to COMPLETELY and blithely overlook them (in favour of hauling out every/any baseless, idiotic, irrational and/or fallacious alternate excuse that you can dream-up) amply demonstrates the unbelievably monumental amount of outright and ignorant dishonesty that's hard at work here... So, in sum, I'll part by reminding every one of you apparently ignorant/corrupt ideologues that FICKLE, ANTI-INTELLECTUAL AND EPHEMERAL BULLSHIT LIKE "CIVILITY" AND, ESPECIALLY, YOUR PERPETUALLY-WORTHLESS "FEELINGS" ARE ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE OBJECTIVE OF CRAFTING A REPUTABLE KNOWLEDGEBASE / ENCYCLOPAEDIA; AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE!! Your nevertheless having repeatedly chosen to beat that asinine drum, so hard, and for so long, simply as a mechanism to avoid, at all costs, ever dealing with actual arguments that, above all else, you don't want to hear, or even acknowledge, while certainly being ultimately effective at achieving the goal of silencing me, nevertheless remains as a testament to the outrageously depraved depths of bald-faced, vulgar hypocrisy and unvarnished intellectual bankruptcy that were wantonly employed here to effect that outcome. I STILL DGAF about any of your feelings, and almost certainly never will (since they're STILL IRRELEVANT!!). All I've ever cared about was the facts; I just wish that I could have managed to actually find someone around here possessed of enough integrity to genuinely give a crap about them too... 216.240.6.210 ( talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
I find the picture of the stadium used in the article confusing. I get it, it's a generic stadium picture, but there is a bold caption immediately above the picture "Deflategate Game". The picture shows the stadium on a gorgeous early autumn afternoon, but the game was played on a cold January night, and the temperature was purportedly a factor in the event. Dickbalaska ( talk) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The article refers to a "Blakeman" on 4 instances. The article does not explain who is "Blakeman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E0C9:1C00:8C7B:2A93:EC30:A2E7 ( talk) 18:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
If the balls work better at a lower pressure then why in the heck do they inflate them to the higher pressure in the first place? Just granpa ( talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Please remove or revise unsubstantiated and incorrect claim: "... five of eleven footballs measured below 11.0 pounds, this being less than 90% of the officially mandated minimum pressure and a full two pounds below the claimed original inflation target (a magnitude of pressure loss difficult to account for through environmental factors alone)."
a) there's no source cited for this claim, b) the claim is wrong about the officially mandated pressure and, as a result, wrong about difficulting in accounting for the pressure. For the two-pounds part of the claim to be correct, the officially mandated pressure would have to be 13 psi. Prior to 2006 that 13 was the officially mandated pressure, but the game was played in 2015 and for that season section 15 of the NFL referee manual stated " (source: the NFL's official report on the scandal found here "If the pressure is below 12 ½, inflate the ball to 12 ½ " As a result, if teams submit balls at or below 12.5 psi, the target of the NFL becomes 12.5 on whatever gauge the referee is using. The NFL did not have a gauge calibration program: whatever pressure result from the uses of the gauge is the actual pressure targeted on any given game. The referee's intent was to use the so-called Logo gauge: the report says "Anderson's best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge" As a result of that intent and of Figure 13 in the NFL report stating that the actual pressure is equal to (the logo gauge readout + 0.2836)/1.050, the actual pressure being targeted under the NFL procedures that night was 12.17 psi. Thus the drop that needed to be explained was not two psi but rather slightly more than one psi. That drop is easily explained by science alone. Figure 21 in the NFL report show that a drop of 21 F (from 69 to 48) under approximate game conditions, including humidity and moisture, result in a drop of 1.21 psi for one of the actual Patriot footballs from the game. Thus at first blush the NFL lab data says there's nothing wrong with a ball being 11 psi. If you want to get fancy, the wet-bulb temperature that night was 45, so that night balls in the ball bag would be chilled to 45. Up until the final minute before inspection, the balls were stored in an area in which the HVAC maintains an average of 72.5. Thus its reasonable that the actual temperature drop was from about 72.5 to 45, prior to the ball having a chance to re-warm during halftime prior to measurement. That's 6.5 degrees more than was tested in Figure 21. Table 10 of the NFL's report indicate that the additional roughly 6.5 degree drop increases the pressure drop by another roughly 0.31 psi. Thus the witness testimony and data supports a natural drop of 1.21 + 0.31 = about 1.52 psi. Thus before warming up the balls should have had a pressure of about 10.65 psi. Witness accounts describe the balls as being in the bag prior to measurement, so their ability to warm up is dramatically less than the amounts shown in Figure 21, which was the result of testing one ball in the open. As a result, if anything 11 psi is oddly high rather than oddly low. The oddity is resolved by using Figure 21 to show that the balls for both teams warmed faster than they would if kept in the bag. The witness testimony of the balls being in the bag immediately prior to testing was incomplete, failing to have mentioned that the officials had for a while taken the balls out of the bag before putting them back into the wet bag. -ryoungnh Rob Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.106.181 ( talk) 11:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hefnerp2,
Hmanzo (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Riosmaureirac ( talk) 16:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hefnerp2,
Hmanzo (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jocelynwebber ( talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
What changes were made? 47.151.239.57 ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Klm757 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Klm757 ( talk) 19:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I just reverted a pair of large edits (somewhat discussed above), which I feel strongly violate WP:NPOV. Please discuss them here, per WP:BRD, after reading WP:NPOV. The changes made were loaded with non-neutral opinions, that cannot stand. Tarl N. ( discuss) 19:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Very clearly the arcane definition of "neutral" that's ostensibly being asserted here has extraordinarily little to do with the common definition thereof; so, go ahead and slavishly shill for the NFL if you must, but the rampant intellectual bankruptcy being subscribed to in so doing is nevertheless put on broad display... A TRULY neutral article would dispassionately report ALL relevant information, especially taking pains to demonstrate that while the NFL certainly pushes a very specific narrative, actual facts, and numerous problems with that narrative exist such that it's veracity is VERY VERY VERY far from having been demonstrated.
Your witless, credulous, sycophantic subscription and promulgation of the NFL's narrative and consequent desire to censor the MANY MANY MANY valid criticisms thereof, while blithely allowing pejorative phrases as demonstrated below, amply demonstrates that promulgating genuine "neutrality" has nothing at all whatsoever to do with your agenda here.
To wit...
"The Exponent science report concluded that no credible environmental or physical factors within the game characteristics fully explain the additional loss of pressure in the Patriots footballs relative to the Colts footballs"
This, being a crafted paraphrasing of less than HALF of the referenced paragraph, quite UN-NEUTRALLY and deliberately selected to omit the opening sentence: "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain". This is CLEARLY an example of a NON-NEUTRAL presentation of the factual content of the referenced subject matter in order to substantiate a specific, predetermined narrative, and yet, you're all here witlessly arguing that black is white, and down is up and that a statement that's all but an editorial IS actually "neutral", but a sentence that more fully AND ACCURATELY incorporates the entirety of the referenced source material is not.
"Following the release of the report many commentators[who?] in other markets said it proved its case.[citation needed]"
Cripes, Wikipedia editors YEARS ago took the time to point out that this assertion is (and remains) unsubstantiated, but, apparently because YOU arbiters of some arcane flavour of "Neutrality" don't have any problem with it's vapid promulgation of the desired narrative, it has somehow been allowed to stand unchallenged.
"On the other hand Patriots fans, and New England media, tore into the report for various reasons including phrases like "more probable than not" and "generally aware" in relation to Tom Brady's knowledge of the situation"
Really? was it genuinely ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans" that tore into the report? Even the few contrary links that you've let through (though endeavoured to bury) demonstrate that this is a false claim, and yet, you assessors of "Neutrality" apparently don't have any problem at all with leaving in an ENTIRELY unsubstantiated, factually contradicted, phrase whose effect is to minimizes any apparent criticism of the report while also serving to denigrate any subsequent such valid criticisms as essentially being nothing more than, prejudiced, biased and therefore perfectly dismissable whinges of irrational fans and local media. But, again, you've genuinely attempted to claim that this article yet remains more "neutral" as it is?!?
"New England fans were furious at ESPN, especially at Chris Mortensen, for broadcasting news stories that were seen as painting the Patriots in a negative light"
Again, "New England fans"? Were they the only ones? Where's the substantiation for this prejudicial qualification? ...and how EXACTLY, especially without any substantiation whatsoever, is that phrasing "neutral"? Furthermore, the phrase, "that were seen as" is PURE EDITORIALISATION!! (Weasel words!!) The referenced tweets and articles ABSOLUTELY painted the Patriots in a negative light, but Mortensen nevertheless ultimately ended up deleting those tweets and ESPN even issued apologies and acknowledged their having failed numerous journalistic and editorial responsibilities in relation to their coverage during that time. ...all of which is incontrovertible fact, and yet the "neutral" article lets this minimized, milquetoasty, clearly biased editorialization stand wholly unchallenged, with you EVEN defending the unclarified use of interviews with Jerome Bettis and Mark Brunell, speaking ON ESPN, as PAID commentators, within days of the ACCUSATIONS being made, then relating their opinions [!!!!!!] that were based ENTIRELY on the limited, and now known-to-be-inaccurate, ESPN-reports as additional support for what is now-proven-to-be-incorrect information! AND AGAIN, YOU STILL CLAIM THAT THIS IS A *MORE* NEUTRAL DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO THE INCIDENT!!??! Also, you dismissively and derisively (and ignorantly!) dismissed ALL of my references as being "opinion based", well HOW THE EFF are the UNINFORMED *OPINIONS* of Bettis and Brunell NOT "opinion based" FFS?!!
"On May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote an article titled "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure"
How about you actually go and READ the article! If you bother, you'll find out that it NEVER USES the word(s) "cheat", "cheater" or "cheated" ANYWHERE, which means that the author's deliberate insertion of such a vitriolic and perjorative characterisation is, AGAIN, PURE, BIASED, EDITORIALISATION. Furthermore the section where this "summary" references the articles' conclusion is ACTUALLY only a reference to where it's QUOTING the Wells Report! The author of the piece didn't do his own investigation and draw a parallel conclusions independently (which is implied by the summary), they merely wrote an article reporting on the findings of the Wells Report and including this heavily slanted and inaccurate "summary" in this skewed form only serves to promulgate the NFL's narrative and appears to re-inforce that position with a 3rd party independent concurrence, when the referenced article DOES NO SUCH THING! Cripes, the article even goes to lengths to point out that the NFL's attorneys prevented the scientists who conducted the study from talking about it and that such an estoppel is somewhat suspicious and "generally a no-no in a field where transparency builds credibility." But somehow, in this purportedly "NEUTRAL" article, ALL of that context was deliberately omitted (and has now been censored) so that the actual content of the source material remains wholly misrepresented as independently supporting the established, NFL-friendly story.
"On May 14, attorney Daniel L. Goldberg prepared a document rebutting specific charges made in the Wells Report,[48] citing Nobel Prize winning scientist Roderick MacKinnon, who has financial ties to Robert Kraft.[49] Goldberg has represented the Patriots and was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.[50]"
Weird how, here, in THIS case, including the clauses, "who has financial ties to Robert Kraft.[49]" and "Goldberg has represented the Patriots and was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.[50]" to demonstrate a potential conflict of interest in this instance is a "neutral" argument (since you high-and-mighty arbiters of neutrality have clearly neither objected to nor removed it), but that every/any attempt to insert substantiated references that call into question the neutrality / partiality of Exponent or Wells are somehow, obviously "non-neutral"...
As I've demonstrated, there are NUMEROUS examples of such NON-NEUTRALITY throughout the article, and yet, here were are, with y'all patting each other on the back in a hypocritical, cognitively-derelict, fit of mental-masturbation and bald-faced doublethink. Odd how people ostensibly dedicated to erudition, "neutrality", and an unbiased presentation of fact have wantonly abandoned all of the above in order to polish and maintain the fictional integrity of the NFL's demonstrably corrupt narrative. Given the blatant and obvious hypocrisies and intellectual bankruptcy being demonstrated here, one can't help but wonder just how much the League donate(s/d) to Wikimedia Foundation... 216.240.6.210 ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
O.k. - Let me go through the above comments. I commented on WP:WALLOFTEXT, because I don't have infinite time. So I'll go through your comments paragraph at a time:
Very clearly the arcane definition of "neutral" that's ostensibly being asserted...Like it or not, Wikipedia has standards which must be followed. Being aggressively insulting merely irritates the people to whom you are directing the comments. Note that while Wikipedia allows anyone to make edits, it does not allow all edits to be made. And when people are actively disruptive, they will be barred from editing Wikipedia. Yes, we can track you even though you edit logged out.
Your witless, credulous, sycophantic ...Repetitive. You might read WP:NPA.
This, being a crafted paraphrasing of less than HALF of the referenced paragraph.... That's known as summarizing. It is not necessary to copy every word. Indeed, it's prohibited.
Wikipedia editors YEARS ago took the time to point out that this assertion is (and remains) unsubstantiated,...Which assertion are you referring to? Which editors are you referring to?
Really? was it genuinely ONLY "New England media and Patriots fans...The sentence does not say ONLY. That's your invention.
How about you actually go and READ the article!I reside in the Boston area, I read everything that came out on the subject, including the Wells report (in detail, the entire thing). I came to the conclusion that the referees were so sloppy that nobody can tell exactly what happened. I can also assert that partisans who assert they know exactly what happened are simply being ideologues who promulgate belief without reason. But those are personal opinions, which don't go into an article.
Weird how, here, in THIS case...Again, declaratory condemnation. I'm simply not interested in polemics. If you think there are specifics that are incorrect, and can provide reliable sources to that effect, we can work on that. But hysterical declarations of wrongdoing simply get you ignored.
As I've demonstrated, there are NUMEROUS examples of such NON-NEUTRALITY throughout the article...I don't work on "throughout the article". I work on specifics. Offer specifics (again, reliable sources), we can work on them. But given your history, we're going to have to go baby steps, item by item, because any massive edit to change the tone is simply going to get reverted.
If there was most stuff that you want addressed that got removed by undoing your damage to the talk page, please add them below. But again, we do this as volunteers, we don't take kindly to threats, screaming or insults. Neither do the administrators. Tarl N. ( discuss) 23:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, 2.5 years ago this statement's claims were called out for needing citations, but that never happened; so YTF is it still here? Beyond THAT, how do you rationally justify asserting that using the unsubstantiated, NNPOV, pejorative weasel words: "the naysayers" and another instance of employing the unsubstantiated call-out "especially the New England media" (as a means of tacitly undermining the subsequent comment) are representative of a "neutral" POV?!Many, especially the New England media, questioned exactly how "independent" Wells could truly be, as a result of his history with the NFL. Rather they, the naysayers, wanted to see a truly independent investigator, someone without ties to the NFL, to investigate this scandal as they felt the Patriots were at a disadvantage with the hiring of Wells. citation needed
Another cherry-picked pseudo quotation of just one selected element of the Exponent conclusion.This analysis concluded that no studied factors accounted for the loss of air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls.
No, it isn't: It relies solely upon a single report produced by a commissioned consulting agency with demonstrable credibility issues. This is a conflation that, again, only serves to create additional validation of the Well's report while efficiently glossing over the inherent problems that have already been identified. It's another example of an author specifically crafting language in a way to disingenuously advance a selected narrative that isn't fully representative of the underlying problems.The Wells report's physics argument, based on multiple experiments as well as theoretical modeling
Yet another cherry-picked, editorialised misrepresentation. The article never even uses the word "cheat" in any form, anywhere in it! That's clearly a massively pejorative, NNPOV insertion! Furthermore, the article includes NO original research, and so has absolutely no "conclusions" of its own whatsoever! It's simply a news article that reports what the then-recently-released Wells Report says! Even more illuminatingly, it actually goes out of its way to highlight that the NFL's attorneys took specific measures to prevent the scientists who conducted the study from talking about it publicly and they even went so far as to note that such an estoppel is a somewhat suspicious act and "generally a no-no in a field where transparency builds credibility." The summary painted here by the OP completely ignores this! and has been slanted to far afield that it is practically a fiction at this point!! [14]On May 6, 2015, in reaction to the Wells Report, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote an article titled "In the End, Science Works Against the Patriots." The story took the position that the Patriots almost certainly cheated, and that the proof of it is that when accounting for warming during half-time prior to measurement, the ideal gas law could not explain the Patriots’ football pressure.[42]
There, that's 9 to get us started, with citations! ... so where shall we begin? 216.240.6.210 ( talk) 06:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Two weeks later and not a whisper of follow-up or indication of actual interest in cleaning up this abomination of an article. I suppose, when you've been schooled six-ways-to-Sunday, have absolutely nothing in the way of an erudite rebuttal, but are desperate to protect the skewed narrative of a multi-billion-dollar corporation, quietly slinking away into the dark is one of the few options left...
216.240.6.210 (
talk)
20:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This page has been submitted for formal Dispute Resolution - Resolution Noticeboard#Talk:Deflategate
Condensing rant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When I'd originally questioned the underlying motivations and intentions of this now well-shown-to-be intellectually-bankrupt cadre of witless idiots vis a vis their foundationless reasons for backstopping / upholding the NFL's interests at all costs, I was mostly being facetious. But when these three idiots' preoccupation with their own febrile, sanctimonious and WHOLLY IRRELEVANT feelings are then backed by a completely facile, asinine and genuinely fallacious combination of an appeal to populism ("the filing party is ignoring rough consensus" -- Argumentum Ad Populum) and prioritising a consideration of entirely worthless, utterly meaningless, and wholly irrelevant feelings over the precedence of ACTUAL FACTS, then one is forced into inferring that there must be some other, more intrinsically important (at least to the Wikimedia Foundation's interests I suppose?), factors in play whose service supersedes any actual or genuine interest in maintaining even a semblance of intellectual rigor or integrity. Disappointingly, when I launched an appeal for Official Dispute Resolution, I had naively expected that, in the service of Wikipedia's purportedly high ideals and ambitions, at the very least an IMPARTIAL, COMPREHENSIVE, IN-DEPTH, DISPASSIONATE AND EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS would then be conducted, stripped of all the worthless noise, then each be carefully weighed, investigated and/or dispassionately considered en toto, all in an effort to ultimately produce an erudite, well-reasoned, and well-substantiated neutral analysis of the dispute in order to actually, you know, ARBITRATE it!! Stunningly, instead of seeing such a thorough, efficacious and intellectually-rigorous effort, I got nothing but an extraordinarily-brief, superficial, bullshit, fallacy-laden, bureaucratic, and utterly WORTHLESS dismissal that was based upon nothing but the effing noise!!!! To wit, Robert McClenon, please go and actually learn WTF an Argumentum ad Populum fallacy is ( Argument from Popularity) because any ostensible arbiter of disputes who's evidently so utterly ignorant of basic logical fallacies that they'd actually assert one as their basis for adjudicating a dispute has, in so-doing, demonstrated naught else so well as that they're genuinely incompetent for the performance of such a function in any useful or meaningful way. Also, I'd be curious to understand YTF anyone (other than either a complete moron, or a corrupt servant of some ideal OTHER than intellectual integrity) would EVER even acknowledge, let alone care about the completely irrelevant feelings or emotions expressed by anyone in such a forum (not the least these so-called "editors") if they're ostensibly contemplating / considering only the FACTUALITY of an argument on an impartial basis!? I mean, anyone who's not 3/4ths braindead knows that FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR WORTHLESS FEELINGS OR SENTIMENTALITIES!!! right? Still, that being the case, and given your apparent position as someone of at least some ostensible importance to this site, I'm going to go ahead and presume that you're actually not SO entirely effing stupid that you'd be genuinely unaware of that axiom in relation to the pursuit of unbiasedly dispensing facts and impartial information. Of course, accepting that as true only ends up insinuating that there's a significant amount of disingenuousness in your previously asserted, intellectually-indefensible, maintenance of the status quo that was based entirely on nothing more than a completely vacuous, mealy-mouthed, cognitively-bankrupt and rationally unsupportable argument of freaking incivility FFS!! That you genuinely had the mendacity to write down such an utterly vapid, insipid and worthless rationale as the basis for disposing of the dispute can only leave an impartial observer wondering if you're actually that incompetent, or are just ethically compromised? Nevertheless, since there are clearly significantly more important (to the WMF?) factors that must be getting served by mounting such a unified and staunch (in spite of its baselessness!) effort to preserve / sanctify the extant, non-neutral, and biased language of this article (in clear and ardent support of the NFL's preferred narrative and in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated principles) it's quite apparent that attempting to induce any application of reason, facts and/or logic here is going to remain an ultimately futile, impotent and feckless effort. As such, with there being clearly no point in continuing to advocate for legitimate and needed corrections / improvements to the article with the aim of remediating such egregious violations of purported WMF policies in regard to content (like maintaining a NPOV), I don't see any use at all in continuing to figuratively bash my head against what is obviously a significant-though-utterly-irrational wall of baseless, logically-indefensible and intellectually-worthless intransigence. So kudos to all of you on effectively silencing/stymieing any attempt to introduce information that may call into question the legitimacy of a wealthy By every and any conceivably rational assessment, FACTS SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING IN CONSIDERATION HERE So the simple and obvious point that they're the ONE thing that you're all utterly and desperately unwilling to address, and that you're so casually willing to COMPLETELY and blithely overlook them (in favour of hauling out every/any baseless, idiotic, irrational and/or fallacious alternate excuse that you can dream-up) amply demonstrates the unbelievably monumental amount of outright and ignorant dishonesty that's hard at work here... So, in sum, I'll part by reminding every one of you apparently ignorant/corrupt ideologues that FICKLE, ANTI-INTELLECTUAL AND EPHEMERAL BULLSHIT LIKE "CIVILITY" AND, ESPECIALLY, YOUR PERPETUALLY-WORTHLESS "FEELINGS" ARE ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE OBJECTIVE OF CRAFTING A REPUTABLE KNOWLEDGEBASE / ENCYCLOPAEDIA; AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE!! Your nevertheless having repeatedly chosen to beat that asinine drum, so hard, and for so long, simply as a mechanism to avoid, at all costs, ever dealing with actual arguments that, above all else, you don't want to hear, or even acknowledge, while certainly being ultimately effective at achieving the goal of silencing me, nevertheless remains as a testament to the outrageously depraved depths of bald-faced, vulgar hypocrisy and unvarnished intellectual bankruptcy that were wantonly employed here to effect that outcome. I STILL DGAF about any of your feelings, and almost certainly never will (since they're STILL IRRELEVANT!!). All I've ever cared about was the facts; I just wish that I could have managed to actually find someone around here possessed of enough integrity to genuinely give a crap about them too... 216.240.6.210 ( talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
I find the picture of the stadium used in the article confusing. I get it, it's a generic stadium picture, but there is a bold caption immediately above the picture "Deflategate Game". The picture shows the stadium on a gorgeous early autumn afternoon, but the game was played on a cold January night, and the temperature was purportedly a factor in the event. Dickbalaska ( talk) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The article refers to a "Blakeman" on 4 instances. The article does not explain who is "Blakeman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E0C9:1C00:8C7B:2A93:EC30:A2E7 ( talk) 18:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
If the balls work better at a lower pressure then why in the heck do they inflate them to the higher pressure in the first place? Just granpa ( talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Please remove or revise unsubstantiated and incorrect claim: "... five of eleven footballs measured below 11.0 pounds, this being less than 90% of the officially mandated minimum pressure and a full two pounds below the claimed original inflation target (a magnitude of pressure loss difficult to account for through environmental factors alone)."
a) there's no source cited for this claim, b) the claim is wrong about the officially mandated pressure and, as a result, wrong about difficulting in accounting for the pressure. For the two-pounds part of the claim to be correct, the officially mandated pressure would have to be 13 psi. Prior to 2006 that 13 was the officially mandated pressure, but the game was played in 2015 and for that season section 15 of the NFL referee manual stated " (source: the NFL's official report on the scandal found here "If the pressure is below 12 ½, inflate the ball to 12 ½ " As a result, if teams submit balls at or below 12.5 psi, the target of the NFL becomes 12.5 on whatever gauge the referee is using. The NFL did not have a gauge calibration program: whatever pressure result from the uses of the gauge is the actual pressure targeted on any given game. The referee's intent was to use the so-called Logo gauge: the report says "Anderson's best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge" As a result of that intent and of Figure 13 in the NFL report stating that the actual pressure is equal to (the logo gauge readout + 0.2836)/1.050, the actual pressure being targeted under the NFL procedures that night was 12.17 psi. Thus the drop that needed to be explained was not two psi but rather slightly more than one psi. That drop is easily explained by science alone. Figure 21 in the NFL report show that a drop of 21 F (from 69 to 48) under approximate game conditions, including humidity and moisture, result in a drop of 1.21 psi for one of the actual Patriot footballs from the game. Thus at first blush the NFL lab data says there's nothing wrong with a ball being 11 psi. If you want to get fancy, the wet-bulb temperature that night was 45, so that night balls in the ball bag would be chilled to 45. Up until the final minute before inspection, the balls were stored in an area in which the HVAC maintains an average of 72.5. Thus its reasonable that the actual temperature drop was from about 72.5 to 45, prior to the ball having a chance to re-warm during halftime prior to measurement. That's 6.5 degrees more than was tested in Figure 21. Table 10 of the NFL's report indicate that the additional roughly 6.5 degree drop increases the pressure drop by another roughly 0.31 psi. Thus the witness testimony and data supports a natural drop of 1.21 + 0.31 = about 1.52 psi. Thus before warming up the balls should have had a pressure of about 10.65 psi. Witness accounts describe the balls as being in the bag prior to measurement, so their ability to warm up is dramatically less than the amounts shown in Figure 21, which was the result of testing one ball in the open. As a result, if anything 11 psi is oddly high rather than oddly low. The oddity is resolved by using Figure 21 to show that the balls for both teams warmed faster than they would if kept in the bag. The witness testimony of the balls being in the bag immediately prior to testing was incomplete, failing to have mentioned that the officials had for a while taken the balls out of the bag before putting them back into the wet bag. -ryoungnh Rob Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.106.181 ( talk) 11:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hefnerp2,
Hmanzo (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Riosmaureirac ( talk) 16:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hefnerp2,
Hmanzo (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jocelynwebber ( talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
What changes were made? 47.151.239.57 ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Klm757 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Klm757 ( talk) 19:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)