Can someone please edit Tom Brady's Wikipedia page

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I wish I knew how to, but I don't. In the intro:

As a result of his abundance of both regular and postseason accolades, many analysts and sports writers consider Brady as one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, if not the greatest.[3][4][5] Other analysts and sports writers consider Brady's legacy had been tarnished by his involvement in Deflategate.[6][7] Still others believe the "Deflategate" allegations to be based on spurious claims[8] and faulty science,[9] as well as blown out of proportion.[10]

Tom Brady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the articles cited about Brady's legacy is by CHRIS CHASE. This guy is not a serious writer and is a blogger who admits he hates Brady and is a fan of another team. He is wildly regarded as the most hated sports blogger in America:

The most hated blogger in America

How is his opinion I here when it represents a minuscule proportion of even the lowest ones out there? In fact, if you read the article, the ****roach even argues that appealing the suspension is what tarnishes Brady's legacy, an appeal that he later won. Wikipedia is the most viewed collection of information in the world, and we have message board homers in their moms basement as the source of opinions?

The other article was written by Mike Freeman just days after the lies began. It is clearly based on false assumptions and a false report from Mortensen and has been disproven. A year after that article, Freeman clearly stated Brady is the greatest quarterback ever:

Mike Freeman: Peyton Manning Not In Same Sentence As Tom Brady, Who’s Best Ever

Can anyone edit this? Even if I believed the lies, I have yet to find a respected writer who believes this at this time. This is an inaccurate passage and should not be on there.

Gee, I wonder why Patriots fans won't just drop it.

 

[Wheelman]

You can do it yourself...

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You can do it yourself...

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car! (I could but don't know how.)

 

[Fencer]

It's locked from editing, as a variety of controversial pages are.

 

[IllegalContact]

Who gives a ****

 

[anditsgood]

Who gives a ****

IIB as he asked someone to edit it

 

[Clonamery]

Who gives a ****

You don't because you're full of it.

 

[pwes]

Its Wikipedia... and they try to be as unbiased by offering both sides. So it is quite normal for them to show claims that someone believes he is guilty and others do not.

This is really nothing to get upset over.

 

[IllegalContact]

You don't because you're full of it.

jeez, that's stupid

 

[nabwong]

Firstly, wikipedia is not a credible source in academic circles.

Secondly, there's no secondly.

 

[Joey007]

That must be a new edit. I had not seen it in there beforehand.

 

[MassPats38]

 

[patchick]

Firstly, wikipedia is not a credible source in academic circles.

Secondly, there's no secondly.

If only the influence of a source were determined by whether it's "credible in academic circles." Wikipedia is the #1 place millions of people turn for information. It's enormously powerful.

A little story: years ago, before Wikipedia was as big a deal as it is now, my husband was trying to get a handle on its editing system and played a silly little joke. He was reading about a theory/system in his field that he didn't think much of, and added an obviously absurd "principle" to the Wikipedia description of it. (In football terms, it was like saying "A hallmark of the Erhardt-Perkins system is the belief that the team that outscores its opponent will usually have an advantage.")

A decade later he rediscovered his silly edit. It was still part of the Wikipedia page...and a Google search discovered it had spread to dozens of other descriptions of the theory, including handouts and Powerpoint presentations from college courses.

 

[nabwong]

If only the influence of a source were determined by whether it's "credible in academic circles." Wikipedia is the #1 place millions of people turn for information. It's enormously powerful.

A little story: years ago, before Wikipedia was as big a deal as it is now, my husband was trying to get a handle on its editing system and played a silly little joke. He was reading about a theory/system in his field that he didn't think much of, and added an obviously absurd "principle" to the Wikipedia description of it. (In football terms, it was like saying "A hallmark of the Erhardt-Perkins system is the belief that the team that outscores its opponent will usually have an advantage.")

A decade later he rediscovered his silly edit. It was still part of the Wikipedia page...and a Google search discovered it had spread to dozens of other descriptions of the theory, including handouts and Powerpoint presentations from college courses.

Isnt it ironic that the era of science has not brought about an era of truth. In fact, people of truth are the condemned and the people of lies are idolized. Status and money is perceived to be strengths and truth and honor are weaknesses.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Isnt it ironic that the era of science has not brought about an era of truth. In fact, people of truth are the condemned and the people of lies are idolized. Status and money is perceived to be strengths and truth and honor are weaknesses.

He's a witch! Burn him!! Burn!!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It's locked from editing, as a variety of controversial pages are.

It's locked from anonymous editing. Registered users can edit it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Its Wikipedia... and they try to be as unbiased

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Firstly, wikipedia is not a credible source in academic circles.

Secondly, there's no secondly.

I learned the hard way, investing personal time and making several factual contributions. Simple, basic, relevant edits and additions. Not only had most of them erased but I was warned for making reckless, unsupported statements ('the Earth is round, not flat'; 'the sky is blue, not hot pink with yellow polka dots')

There are some real whack jobs with senior editing authority there...seem to be Canadiens fans.

The Spygate and Deflategate sites are confirmed, undisputable major scandals more significant, relevant and substantive than any real sports event or result

On the Patriots' page, it was me who added the Raiders as an important historical rivalry, as I said, "punctuated by three crucial and seminal events" and you readers all know what those are [12/18/76, 8/12/78 and 1/19/02]. It was up for several months before being erased.

The Ravens are posted and the series described in detail. The first game of any real significance between the two occurred forty-seven years after the AFL's inaugural season. Nothing even remotely close to what happened in the Raiders series is there, or really even in the Jets or Colts series, the other two mentioned, either.

I can not find anything anywhere on Wikipedia about the Broncos' salary cap cheating which directly led to both of their first two "titles."

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

So, in the end, an opinion of an idiot troll who isn't even a sportswriter and freely admits fan bias, and the opinion of an actual writer who retracted his statement, are what most of the world sees when they click on Tom Brady's most commonly viewed source of information.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

how is this different than other wiki pages where fanatical ideologs spend their lives preserving "The Truth"?