Talk:Bill Belichick

message: Pats1 deleted my south park contribution as part of a larger edit on whether the investigation of spygate is ongoing even though the reference is independent of the truth of allegations (and they are true). The deletion was reverted and re-deleted it.  I don't see any talk on this page about it so I'm going to assume I'm in the right here.  South Park is an emmy-winning show with millions of viewers (3.1 million viewers per episode according to Fortune) and that's notable.  A news feed search for south park and Belichick will show that all sorts of sports news has covered the South Park reference. There is no reason that the episode that devoted almost half of its time to lampooning Belichick should be left out of this article.
mroconnell (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already included a mention in the media and entertainment section. I do agree it is worthy of inclusion here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think we should integrate those trivia bullets into the article, specifically as a response to spygate?  Since wikipedia policy is generally to integrate trivia and bulleted lists into paragraph text, that is what I propose we do.  This provides clear, contextual information on why the reference is important as opposed to just laundry listing it alongside some celebrity cameos.
mroconnell (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not consider it a trivia section despite that being the former name. It is all media/entertainment related and therefore worthy of its own section. It needs no alteration in my eyes.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your comment on Pat's talkpage and I see your point.  It definitely belongs in a trivia section on the Belichick page since the illegal sideline taping should be restricted to Belichick and the investigation.  Media responses should be in the media section.  I don't like that it's bullet points and wikipedia style guidelines differ with you on whether those need alterations, but at least you've convinced me that it belongs in a media/entertainment section.  Thanks for clearing it up for me mroconnell (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  I Also would have to agree.  Without naming names, SOME editors aggressively protect their teams.  Undoing edits while claiming original research and things of that nature.  The NFL pages seem to be very POV sometimes (not as bad as the Supply Side Economics articles though) - don't let that discourage you from keeping the article accurate, and keep up the good work!!
-Smack  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackalot (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am almost certain that Wikipedia policy is not totally against lists, and that it says some information is better presented as such. Given that all this stuff is loosely related by the fact it's entertainment related, but specifically it's about different things, I think a list works fine.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: south park

message: The criticisms section is non-Wiki, as it has to do with conjecture and hearsay. Wikipedia is NOT A NEWS MEDIA SOURCE. It is an encyclopedia of facts (we can verify he won Super Bowl XXXVIII as the Patriots' coach in 2001, we can NOT verify with any certainty whether he has Aspergers', or whether he fosters egocentric showmanship, etc. It's NOT Wiki policy. An encyclopedic entry must have a neutral point of view. To report on a meeting in which he "appears" standoff-ish is not relevant to an encyclopedic article. Stop re-adding conjecture until we get a ruling. WStewart07 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: The text below entered the article on April 4.  I've searched for confirmation of association between Belichick and Asperger's.  Additionally, even if it exists, it is framed as speculation, which does not merit inclusion.  I think rumor should only be included in articles where the rumor itself is central to the topic.
"Known for being one of the most reserved coaches in NFL history, especially to the press, his focus on the game of football have begun rumors that Belichick may have Asperger's Syndrome."
Tobycat 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors?

message: In my view, it appears as though some of the criticisms levied against Bill Belichick border on the unnecessary, and unfounded. Also, I contend that these criticisms could contain potentially libelous information. For instance, LaDanian Tomlinson's recent criticism was merely speculative, and probably not legitimate, as he made those comments visually upset after losing. Nor does he have any experience under Belichick to make that claim. Before his claim, there was no history or pattern of behavior in which the Patriots were criticized for being without class, and nor was there ever an accusation that such behavior stems from a team mentality Belichick cultivated. I move that the Tomlinson critique should be removed. WStewart07 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded Criticisms 

message: I'm certain that his family's original Croatian name has some sort of mark over the Cs.   This Google search sure makes it look like it's Beličič, so I'm going to go ahead and change it.   (UPDATE: I actually missed the distinction in his father's name, but apparently with three Is it's most often Biličić.   ARRRRGH!   My guess would be that latter one, since it appears to be a much more common Croatian surname.   But I'm going to leave in my first edit for the moment.)   Cheers, PhilipR 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Croatia; I'll go with that unless someone can correct me definitively. - PhilipR 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belicic 

message: "It said that Belichick got a contract extension in January 2006 but just recently they're saying that his contract expires this year, and that's when i saw that they extended it here. I noticed there was no source and i googled it, and I even checked the New England homepage and they don't have anything about it there. On the NE Patriots homepage it has articles dating back from the last decade so I'm sure it's not because the article was old. I'm pretty sure it's because it never happend. He never got a contract extension."
I don't know who wrote the above, but two things should be said:
*The Krafts have stated that they will not discuss the details of Belichick's contract with the media.
*Dan Pires (a Patriots beat reporter) and Len Pasquarelli of ESPN have reported that Belichick is under contract for 2007. Samer 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contract extension 

message: where he played center/tight end, alongside men such as his best friend, Alan Poon.
This statement was added, but there is no reason given for mentioning him. The fact that he is Belichick's friend is not, in and of itself, enough to justify including that information. [By comparison, Ernie Adams, another friend from Belichick's student days, is not yet mentioned, even though Adams currently works with Belichick.] Samer 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Poon 

message: Continuing the controversy over his after-game demeanor, on January 21, 2007, after losing the AFC Championship Game in Indianapolis to the Colts, Belichick seemingly snubbed exchanging post-game remarks with Peyton Manning, who simply patted him on his chest and moved on. Additionally, in a postgame interview with Solomon Wilcots from CBS, as well as at the post-game press conference, Belichick was noticeably terse and short with his answers. This no doubt only adds to the growing opinion that Belichick is ungracious, both in victory and defeat.10stone5 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Got a Source?

message: Al Groh was a position coach under Belichick in Cleveland, so he is part of both Parcel's and Belichick's trees
Belichick doesn't consider himself part of Parcel's tree, and considers his father to be his greatest mentor
The WhiteKongMan WhiteKongMan 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coaching Tree

message: The main article recap at right says that he was Head Coach of the Patriots from 91-95 when it was the Browns.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the team name goes to the coaching position underneath. Pats1 T/C 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it now.  It doesn't seem like this is the standard way it is done on other articles (Romeo Crennel, Brian Billick, Tony Dungy, Mike Shanahan).  Looks like the other way is clean and easy to follow.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This way isn't much different. It consolidates the the way the others are done, so all the tiles the coach had with one team are in one section of sorts. Pats1 T/C 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This way is sloppy. Either list organizations with respective dates (eg: New England: 91-95,20-p), or dates with respective organizations (91-95: New England, 20-p: New England). The list lacks consistency, especially when he jumps from pats to jets and back to pats. Either list by dates, or by organizations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.219.72 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree that this format is confusing.  I've modified it to match the examples Mufka gave above.  If someone really believes the old format was better, I guess they can change it back, but this seems to be more consistent with the other coaches' articles.Zerempil (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that... I agree that it's better this way. Merveilleux (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: Specifically for BSD987 - Just so that we can have a "meeting of the minds" here, the Pats have already, as of this evening, attained the "perfect season" that they were shooting for. Their win against the NY Giants closes the regular season for this team at 16 and 0. The playoffs are considered "post-season". Also, the "two other teams" entry that you made has no source. This is contrary to what is being reported by SI, the NFL, and CNN. If you are referencing PRE-Superbowl era records, then there is only ONE other team that has had undefeated seasons, and that's the Chicago Bears, in 1934 and 1942. (I looked. ) Edit Centric (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Season close 

message: In the section about illegal sideline videotaping, information about Spygate is deliberately being withheld.  Namely, the investigation by Senator Specter.  It should at least be reported, as it is not opinion, but simply a factual series of events.  Withholding information compromises an article's neutrality as much as including information does, and so this section shall be flagged until the issue is resolved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the Specter information has been added.  I think the tag should be removed now - the article seems balanced as a whole, and the spygate incident seems pretty inclusive, not to mention there is an entire article devoted especially to Spygate.  Thoughts?  Smackalot (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Easily. I will definitely support this.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spygate 

message: The Belichick article should include some mention of his iconic grey hoodie.  It is very well known throughout New England, and I think I even read that the Patriots Proshop sells more Belichick hoodies than Tom Brady Jerseys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.107.21 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this date, 'hoodie' is not found in the article. -- AstroU (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoodie 

message: just a small error i saw. the oilers-bills game is referenced as 35-3 at halftime. it was 28-3 at half with houston scoring early in the third quarter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.6.64 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  score error 

message: Al Groh should be listed as an assistant coach of Belichick's who became a head coach in the NFL.  Groh spent a year coaching the Jets in 2000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.136.6 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaching tree error 

message: Under this heading the writing is rambling and nonsensical. For starters, there is no division between seasons. There's just a sentence such as, "The Patriots again went 14-2." It sounds like somebody started out wanting to document each season in detail but got tired of doing so shortly after Super Bowl with the Rams. Jaylectricity (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New England Patriots 

message: I don't have the time or energy to fix it - but the dates are all messed up.  The dates in the article saying when he was the head coach of cleveland do not agree with the stuff on the right.  What gives? 24.29.19.67 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your monitor, most likely. Do the bottom years line up with the bottom title? Pats1 T/C 16:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

text: — DeeJayK (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Same problem here, the dates and coaching positions don't line up.  I edited it to fix it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Belichick&oldid=619208923), but someone else reverted it because after my edit, apparently the dates and coaching positions didn't line up for them.  I'm guessing the problem may be that the text aligns differently for different browsers, maybe even different OS'es?  I'm using Firefox 31 on Linux Mint 17 Xfce, and in the current article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Belichick&oldid=619331917) the dates do not line up correctly for me. N3bulous (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates all wrong 

message: Above there appeared to be consensus that it should be mentioned in the lead but now it doesn't appear there? Enigmamsg 05:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't. -- AstroU (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a late reply, but you can't just ignore a consensus because you don't like the result. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was in 2008 (when spygate was in the news). The complaint was five years later. The response was another two years later yet. This current update to the section is a full decade after the original discussion. I think you'd need to start a new discussion. My guess at this time is you wouldn't get consensus that spygate defines Belichick's career & life enough to merit a spot in the lede. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spygate 

message: This coach is frequently referred to as Belicheat for his 2007 convicted scandal and later scandals.
Belicheat (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the template, you need to suggest a complete and specific change.  What reliable sources do you have for that, and what exactly do you want the addition to say?331dot (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  05:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015 

message: Calidum added a lede rewrite tag a few weeks ago. What needs to be rewritten about the lede? It's not the best lede I've ever seen, but far from the worst. It seems to do a reasonable job of highlighting the most important things from the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  The tag clearly requests the placer to start a discussion on the talk page to express their concerns.  Since that wasn't done, and since we cannot read minds, there is no way to know how to make fixes he is requesting.  If anyone has fixes they need, they can either do it themselves or tell us here on the talk page.  --Jayron32 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite lede? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120324190324/http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/spo/2008/02/03-33/Annapolis-XOXO-Bill-Belichick.html?ne=1 to http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/spo/2008/02/03-33/Annapolis-XOXO-Bill-Belichick.html?ne=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived link works, original link is probably permanently dead. How do we replace the original link with just the archive version? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090104212114/http://falcon.heraldinteractive.com:80/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1071126&format=&page=3&listingType=trak to http://falcon.heraldinteractive.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1071126&format=&page=3&listingType=trak#articleFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Failed. The wayback machine does not have a copy of the article, the Boston Herald replaced it with a notice that articles are taken down within 7 days. Anyone know how to find a good copy? I'll revert the change back to the dead link. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323203559/http://www.andover.edu/Alumni/HallofHonor/Pages/PastRecipients.aspx to http://www.andover.edu/Alumni/HallofHonor/Pages/PastRecipients.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602084910/http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=coachbio&bio=506 to http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=coachbio&bio=506
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929012115/http://sports.yahoo.com:80/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html to https://sports.yahoo.com/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=89292&SPID=10649&ATCLID=204972981&DB_OEM_ID=17300
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There has recently been some vandalism by 50.133.146.198 that need to be reviewed. I undid them, but my revert was inserted into the queue also. The vandalism appears to be mixing up numbers, no sources or cites were provided. 50.133.146.198 has been warned.L3X1 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers changed look to reflect the latest victory by the Patriots. I backed out your reversion, the result looks correct to me - is there anything specific you think is wrong? Tarl N. (discuss) 22:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the fact that the integers remained, but were swapped around. If they are indeed correct, thank you, and sorry. :) L3X1 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending revisions and recent vandalism 

message: I guess that kind of statement is subjective, sort of like asking what the greatest band is ever, but there are several articles citing Bill as possibly the most successful coach of all time in the NFL. Is there a way we can add this sort of statement to the lead? 
                    "making Belichick arguably the most successful coach of all time". 
We might be able to add that line after the part where it says his Super Bowl appearances. Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to say that he is the most successful, it should be done in a way that doesn't seem like it's our opinion; "many sportswriters/coaches/commentators/whoever consider him the most successful coach of all time" or something like that. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most successful coach of all time 

message: There has been some back-and-forth on the coaching tree section. The way it is right now is indeed undue, takes far too much room in the article. But the relationships between coaches, showing influence of one coach over another, I believe is relevant. Possibly this section could be re-arranged to be an actual tree (for example, something like Julio-Claudian family tree might be worthwhile). Tarl N. (discuss) 19:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that as an improvement over the way it is currently.  I don't think that the information should be removed outright, mainly for a couple reasons; his relationships and the people he has influenced are notable and it helps people find associated articles. I don't feel any of the policies/guidelines cited by the person seeking the change are applicable here. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree with  that something needs to be done here. Possibly one way to deal with that is to move that information to a separate article with only a brief summary here. But it needs to be discussed. It appears similar information was present in other head coach articles and was removed there too, and there is an allusion that a discussion took place elsewhere we haven't seen. Let's get a pointer to that discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I said to discuss it at WT:NFL as nobody will see it here. I also gave my reasons for the deletion and I don't think it's relevant as it takes too much space and is just a trivial list, which has no sources or any other encyclopedic value. We don't need such lists as it isn't a statistical database. All that information in prose would be perfect, but not this current nonsense. So far this is the only article where someone objected to such removal. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

text: (ec)I wouldn't mind a separate article either, I simply think the information should not just be wiped out. In my initial revert I had asked if a consensus had been established elsewhere in my edit summary; if there is, I would be interested in seeing it. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The people Belichick(and every head coach) has mentored/influenced is not a collection of statistics or cruft.  It goes to his role in the league and sport. It shouldn't just be wiped out, even if it is conveyed differently. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw, and have objected, to the similar removal at Sean Payton. There is certainly no consensus for removing entirely this relevant, significant information from coaching articles, nor should there be. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing relevant or significant about these lists apart from being useless trivia. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't useless trivia that coaches have had influence on the league through personnel that they have worked with and mentored that have gone on to bigger or just different things. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I said to discuss it at WT:NFL as nobody will see it here.. For the record, this is the first I've seen mention of WT:NFL as the venue for this. I don't see a discussion there about removing such material. You had indicated you were responding to a complaint, I can't find it there. Can you point to the complaint you were responding to and the discussion in question? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You should really read before making up stuff, which I didn't say. Matters like this are ALWAYS discussed at WT:NFL. Moreover, I didn't say anything about any discussion there. You do know what and advice is? I'm not surprised since you have ZERO messages at the project and don't know how it works. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you think I'm making up. You commented that you had said to discuss this at WT:NFL, and I commented that I hadn't seen where you said that. I then went there, and didn't find anything about this subject. Earlier you had said: I'm not the one objecting to it, implying that your removal of content was the result of a complaint elsewhere. I'm simply trying to find out where the discussions you are referring to took place, so I can understand what went on. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But you did made up or most likely you read it in the wrong way and you assume that I said what I didn't. Look at article's history and you'll see this advice. I already notified the WP:NFL of this discussion. Hopefully someone from there will come here. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to WP:AGF, but your hostility is making that difficult. *WHAT* do think I made up? As best I can tell, my quotes from you are precise cut-and-pastes. Regardless, can you please answer the question of where the discussions in question took place, so we can figure out what you are talking about? Tarl N. (discuss) 07:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I'm not hostile. 2. I didn't say there was a discussion. It's you who made that up. 3. I specifically stated a few times (or advised) that these discussions are usually made at WikiProject National Football League. My wording was clear – "And discuss on the project's talk page since you don't agree with this". So I don't really understand why you make up stuff? – Sabbatino (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  O.k. - I think I'm better understanding events. In reply to my comment WP:BRD. You were bold and deleted, were reverted, now let's discuss. Discussion occurs before bold edit is taken., you re-reverted, replying I'm not the one objecting to it. I understood that to mean your actions were the result of a complaint, and as a result, in some way WP:BRD didn't apply. If there had not been a discussion, I'm at a loss for what "I'm not the one objecting" referred to. Later, in this discussion, you said I said to discuss it at WT:NFL , which I understood to mean you had written somewhere to discuss it at WT:NFL, so I brought to your attention that we hadn't seen it, so presumably you were mixing up where you had said that earlier. If you hadn't written that somewhere, I'm at a loss to what "I said" is supposed to mean. As for the discussion on the work genealogy, I'll discuss that on WT:NFL later today, now that a conversation has started there. Tarl N. (discuss) 11:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I'm not the one objecting to it – you were objecting to my edit. I could not possibly object to myself, can I? 2. I said to discuss it at WT:NFL – it's clear what I wanted to say with this, which meant that NFL-related discussions are started at WP:NFL and not on one individual's article since this affects more articles. But enough of off topic and just admit that you completely misunderstood. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: This discussion affects more than just this article, so it should really be taking place at WT:NFL. However, since Sabbatino's request to take the discussion there has been ignored, I will contribute here instead. I think the section about Belichick's coaching tree is excessive; a long list of coaches/assistant coaches/executives who happen to have worked with/under Belichick has no encyclopaedic value unless someone can provide a source that Belichick had a considerable influence on their career during time together. – PeeJay 10:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one has ignored anything; the onus is on the person making the change to defend it and find the appropriate venue to do so.  Googling "Bill Belichick influence" brings up many results, at least some of which discuss his influence on personnel and the sport. Listing the people he has hired or permitted to remain(he has the powers of general manager) shows this influence.  Having his professional associations also makes it easy to find associated articles. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean. There's no evidence that Belichick's coaching/management style has had any impact on the way most of the people mentioned in that sprawling list conduct their coaching/management - at least, no evidence included in this article. At the minute, this is just a list of people who have worked with him - not encyclopaedic at all. – PeeJay 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your views- though different people hold value in different things.  I would just like to see some accommodation made, even if that means conveying this information differently as someone suggested above.  Thanks  331dot (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Conveying the info differently is definitely the way forward; however, I think a full list of every coach/executive who has worked under Belichick and went on to work elsewhere in football is overkill and tantamount to listcruft. Unless you can demonstrate that Belichick's methods were either adopted or explicitly ignored by those coaches/execs, what's the point in mentioning them, other than to say "these guys also worked with him"? – PeeJay 12:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: That said, I'm sure the info exists to go in depth on each of these guys; however, including that info in this article would put undue weight on Belichick's coaching tree with respect to his overall biography; hence, I would suggest that it would be entirely possible to do a proper Coaching tree of Bill Belichick article. – PeeJay 12:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I"ve responded at WT:NFL now that a discussion is under way there. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaching tree 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Belichick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925061717/http://www.patriots.com/team/coaches/bill-belichick/5c49726a-15ad-4e5a-9246-a30417694eb0 to http://www.patriots.com/team/coaches/bill-belichick/5c49726a-15ad-4e5a-9246-a30417694eb0
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://sports.yahoo.com/news/belichick-fined-50k-shanahan-25k-174534755--nfl.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021091850/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/16/%E2%80%9Ca-football-life-bill-belichick%E2%80%9D-most-watched-documentary-ever-on-nfl-network/103978/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/16/%E2%80%9Ca-football-life-bill-belichick%E2%80%9D-most-watched-documentary-ever-on-nfl-network/103978/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We've had a couple of edit changing the text to say that Belichick now ranks 3rd in all-time wins. I suspect it's accurate, since 237 regular season through 2016 plus 26 post-season plus 8 so far this season adds up to 271, one more than Landry. But I haven't seen a cite for that. Anyone got an article stating the change in rankings? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a cite. I'll fix the article with the reference. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking in all-time wins 

message: I recommend adding Belichick's history as head coach of the Jets in 1997 and 2000 into the infobox. This history is notable. It resulted in the Jets giving up four draft picks in 1997, and then the Patriots giving up five draft picks in 2000. This history is often as being significant in understanding Belichick's history. Davidwbaker (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , infoboxes are not comprehensive and do not have to contain every part of a career.  The article text covers the period well. It's confusing to squeeze into the infobox and he never actually performed any coaching activities as the Jet's head coach. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that infoboxes are not meant to be a complete list, just a summary.  He did not perform any actions as Jets head coach on either occasion, and what his Jets HC status did lead to is best summarized in the article. I'm also fairly sure Belichick doesn't put Jets head coach on his resume. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Conciseness of infobox was my reason for reverting the change; that information belongs in the body of the article, not in the infoboxes. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History as Head Coach of the Jets 

message: See above  Antidoaks (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should bill b have 292 wins ?  

message: On the recent addition of Lambeau and Halas's names to the lead section, it seems a level of unecessary detail to add to the lead.  The lead is supposed to be a summary, and not exhaustive of every trivial detail.  The lead section, and especially the lead paragraph, isn't needed to cover this amount of detail.  The information is already covered in the body of the article and as such, doesn't need to be in the lead.  Mentioning his general place in the pantheon of winning coaches, in a general sense, is all that is needed for the lead.  The lead doesn't need to reproduce the full text of every record and accomplishment he has had.  --Jayron32 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I second these comments. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

text: That makes sense to me, especially since the immediately preceding sentence in the lead contains the basic information "winning a record six Super Bowls." Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I’d like to know why a quote from a three year old source when Bill had only 4 titles is better than a more recent one when he has six. Belichick was said to be one of only five head coaches with four or more titles back when he only had four because that was his place in history. Now he’s only one of three coaches with six titles which seems a lot more relevant and updated. I understand why they both shouldn’t be on there but I think the more recent quote is more accurate. The Patriots shouldn’t be considered one of six teams with four or more Super Bowl wins when they’re tied for first. Bmorrow151 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The point Jayron32 is making is that the names of other coaches do not need to be in the lead; only a general statement needs to be there, with the specifics in the article itself(citations do not need to be in the lead either). 331dot (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I understand,  but if every reader puts the information they want to find easily in the lead, the lead ceases to be a lead and just duplicates the article. Wikipedia wants readers to be able to find information, but it still wants to be an encyclopedia with articles structured appropriately. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the addition of the specific names of Lambeau and Halas to lead section, as opposed to elsewhere in the article 

message: Article states it is 5, but it is six. Rick Forzano is absent, but he was the coach of the Lions in 1976 before resigning after starting the season 1-3. Tommy Hudspeth took over for Forzano. See here for more info.108.21.182.146 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on list of coaches Belichick has coached under 

message: In addition to the coaches listed in the article, there are three more coaches that should be added: 1) Rod Dowhower was the Browns QB coach in 1994 under Belichick and then became the Vanderbilt Commodores head coach from 1995-1996. Two, Woody Widenhofer was the Browns LB coach in 1993-1994 under Belichick, and was later the Vanderbilt Commodores head coach from 1997-2001. Third, Rick Venturi, was a defensive coach under Belichick in 1994-1995 and was the interim HC for the New Orleans Saints in 1996 (8 games). All, should be added to Belichick's coaching tree (certainly Dowhower and Widenhofer, and I would add Venturi, too).108.21.182.146 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional branches of the Belichick coaching tree 

message: Change the playoff record in the profile box to 31-12 69.125.96.254 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020 

message: Five assistant coaches under Belichick have become NCAA head coaches:
*Nick Saban- Michigan State (1995-1999), LSU (2000-2004), Alabama (2007-present)
*Pat Hill- Fresno State (1997-2011)
*Kirk Ferentz- Iowa (1999-present)
*Charlie Weis- Notre Dame (2005-2009), Kansas (2012-2014)
*Bill O'Brien- Penn State (2012-2013) Shayter82 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020 

message: there’s a line in the section about his first season with the patriots that says “To date, this is his only losing season with the Patriots”. someone oughta update that now that the Pats lost their 9th game in 2020. Sebnewell88 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove the line; you are welcome to make edits yourself, if you wish. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  losing season 

message: Update 2020 record to 7-9 50.105.81.191 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: The source is still at 6-9. TimSmit (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2021 

message: New England Patriots (1996)
After his dismissal by the Cleveland Browns,
should be his dismissal by Baltimore or Art Modell. He was fired after Baltimore was created  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.21.183 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: please edit

message: Under coaching records on the sidebar Belichick is mentioned as: "Most NFL championships: 6 (tied)"
However he outright owns the NFL championships record, as the tied 6 is with Paul Brown who has 3 AAFC titles and 3 NFL titles. The closest to Bill's 6 NFL titles is therefore Lombardi who has 5 NFL titles (including 2 Super Bowls pre-merger) and George Halas who has 5 titles (all pre-AFL).
Therefore it should read: "Most NFL Championships: 6"
With the '(tied)' removed HitchikersPie (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Sounds reasonable. Sam Sailor 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021 

message: Bill Belichick was not fired by the Browns he was fired after the team moved in 1995 to Baltimore. Art Modell was no longer the owner of the Cleveland Browns he was in Baltimore as Ravens owner when Belichick was fired. 71.29.168.144 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022 

message: Under Belichick’s coaching career, I’m looking at the sub-subsection titled, “Starting Brady over Bledsoe, ‘Patriot Way’, first three Super Bowl wins: 2001-2004.”
But two of those three topics are never mentioned at all in the content that follows. There’s no mention of the “Patriot Way” (whatever that is). And the discussion of the Patriots’ 2001 season goes by so quickly that we’re already at the Tuck Rule game (January 2002) by the end of the first sentence. There is no mention of Drew Bledsoe, his Week 2 injury, or his being replaced by Brady. At least non in this section. (This “sub-sub-section”, technically.)
Sounds like a bit of false advertising to me. The title of that mini-section is being a bit of a snake oil salesman, since it promised three topics but only delivered one of them.
Anyway, someone needs to either shorten the title of this sub-subsection (it could just be “First three Super Bowl wins: 2001-04”) or add the promised topics to the content of said sub-subsection.
If we’re doing the latter, then we need to see discussion of Drew Bledsoe’s injury, the ensuing quarterback controversy, and the so-called “Patriot Way”. If it’s in the title, then it needs to be in the content too.
Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section that doesn’t live up to its title 

message: If Bill Belichick isn't the actual general manager, de jure and all, should "de facto general manager" be included in the article? Big boi00 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De facto general manager? 

message: I understand it adds to his legacy having 8 rings, but generally people don't think of defensive coordinator rings when thinking of nfl coaches. Is it really worthy mentioning on intro page paragraph that he has 8? Maybe just stick wirh saying 6? Thoughts anybody? 2600:1702:5D4B:6800:F732:A83:EEF3:1829 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 rings as coordinator worth mentioning? 

message: Multiple media outlets reporting.
 
Should be inserted FergusArgyll (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone did already. I added the sources. Should prob add more sources in a day or two after the press conference FergusArgyll (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out as Patriots HC 

message: to fix grammar and spelling Eman69998 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Eman69998: Please be more specific about the request you're making. What is the grammar and spelling that you believe is an issue? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024