Talk:Green Bay Packers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Green Bay Packers was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for Green Bay Packers: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


Update with playoff loss to Giants.

Contents

[edit] Nathan Abrams & George Whitney Calhoun

I would argue George Whitney Calhoun was not a founder of the Green Bay Packers, and if anything, Nathan Abrams was. George Whitney Calhoun's contributions are obvious, and important, but I don't think he can be considered a founder of the Packers. Either Curly Lambeau should be listed as the sole founder of the Packers, or with Nathan Abrams, which is more accurate, but certainly not George Whitney Calhoun. For reference please see 'The History of the Green Bay Packers: The Lambeau Years, Book I (Part I)' by Larry D. Names.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyBlood (talk • contribs) 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Founding: 1922 Scandal

The article says " Financial troubles plagued the team and the franchise was lost the same year, although Lambeau found new backers the next year and regained the franchise."

The article really doesn't address that the franchise was lost because of the college player scandal, and implies that that it was lost due to financial reasons instead. As I understand it, the Packers asked for permission to withdraw from the NFL after the scandal, and it was granted. They were the only NFL team to ever do so.

The article should delve more deeply into this interesting part of the Packers history —- hopefully someone with more knowledge of the entire college player situation can edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmathu (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] championships correct?

the packers won the nfl championship in 65, 66, and 67, and won the superbowl in 66 and 67, but why arent the nfl championships listed for 66 and 67? technically super bowls 1-4 were just novelty games, and to prove this, go to the kansas city chiefs page, or the "championships by franchise" page, and you will see the losers of super bowl 1-4 as "champions" for that year, which i think is bogus.. so basically, if you won super bowl 1-4, then your AFL or NFL championship doesnt count, only the super bowl, and the reverse is also true, if you lose the super bowl, you are still the AFL or NFL champion.. does this make any sense? if you think about it, i would think that we should list the 66 and 67 nfl championships (which i added with an asterisk), and also list the super bowls, but somehow put something there explaining that the superbowls were meaningless.. if this isnt done, they somebody needs to go tell the chiefs, raiders, etc, that they were not champions of 66, 67, etc.. i know we have to go by what the nfl says, but i believe the packers should be at 14 championships, including 66-67 as FOUR, because they won their league, then won the superbowl both years.. bottom line: just because you won the super bowl, doesnt mean you dont get to count/list your nfl/afl championship, and/or just because you lost the superbowl, doesnt mean you get to be on the same pedestal of "champion" as the super bowl winner.. this all makes sense, right? any thoughts? 76.217.95.98 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The merger was not final until the 1970 season. The leagues agreed on two things in the interim - a common draft (to end the bidding for players) and what became the Super Bowl. In its first years, it was called the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game," implying that the two teams were league champions. Thus, instead of being "AFL World Champions" in 1966, the Chiefs were merely "AFL Champions." The same thing goes today, a team that wins the Super Bowl can also claim the championship of the AFC or NFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBear (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unique? No - Original.. Yes

One unique feature of the Green Bay Packers loyalty to their fans is the "Lambeau Leap",

It originated in Green Bay... it came from them... but its far from unique to them only. See any Randy Moss touchdown in the Metrodome for an example of it not being unique to Green Bay only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.234.128.56 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Comment from 6/9/2004

I'm not sure i agree with this: "The Packers are now the only publicly owned company with shares to buy and sell and a board of directors in professional sports."

What about the Boston Celtics, Florida Panthers, and Cleveland Indians? I thought these are all or were publicly traded.

The Boston Celtics are owned by Wycliffe Grousbeck. The Florida Panthers are owned by Alan Cohen. The Cleveland Indians are owned by Larry Dolan. While some teams have been publicly owned in the past, the Packers are the only major professional sports team that is now publicly owned. - Sperril 08:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
And Manchester United. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Manchester United is owned by Malcolm Glazer. He also owns the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Sperril 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We should make clear what exactly "publicly owned" means. Any company trading on the stock exchange could be considered publicly owned, as opposed to a private company or partnership. - Matthew238 06:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You get no argument from me on that point. Sperril 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is often confusion in the media on this point. "Publicy owned" is true enough in that stock was put up for general sale. But it is not traded, so the term "public" in that sense is not right. "Non-profit corporation with stock that can't be sold" is correct. "Community owned" is correct but somewhat misleading in that many feel a municipality owns the team. The heart of the story is that regular people in the area rescued the franchise several times over the years, purely to keep football in the area. Any idea of profit was kept out. The League under Commissioner Bell at first, recognized this and supported the franchise. The sharing of revenue in more recent times continued this favorable treatment of the NFL toward this franchise. Many say because of the tradition behind the team and the small town it is in, that the continuation of the franchise pays tribute to the origins of the League. The Bears also represent this tradition, but the Packers are small town, non-profit. They did not have a huge city like Chicago to draw from. This story goes on with all the details of the statewide campaign to support the stadium renovations, to build up financial reserves to preserve the franchise. It was a close call. How much of this should go into the article takes more judgment than I have. I am very impressed with the comments here and the care people take on this site. Ggetzin 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

re: wearing cheeseheads "something Packer fans do to satire the "cheesehead" designation put on them by others." I'm not sure I agree with this. What is your basis for saying so? I've been a lifetime Packer fan and never heard that we started wearing cheeseheads as an expression of satire. --michael t zimmer 02:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

To some extent it's like "reclaiming" an insult or a slur (though to a lesser degree than, for example, a racial slur). As a Wisconsin native, I didn't really embrace the "cheesehead" nickname until I moved out of state. I think the way the article itself is currently phrased is fine. --gohlkus 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I get my hands on some Packers stock or get on the season ticket waiting list? --Derrickbecker74 21:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to get stock, I think you would have to wait until the next auction of stock(but they don't plan these every year the last one was in 1998), so it could be hard to get your hands on it.--Dp462090 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cannot sell shares

The Packers are publicly owned, but not publicly traded. When the stocks are issued, they may be purchased, but cannot be re-sold.

I believe there is some sort of rule that no one individual can own more than 10%, insuring that the people of Green Bay own the Packers.
Shareholder information can be found here http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.122.48 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Cannot be resold? This is not exactly true. Private sales of Packer stock occur all the time, often for much more than the face value of the stock itself. If you look in the Green Bay Gazette or other newpaper classified sections, occassionally there are ads for shares. More often these transactions take place out of the limelight with those hurting for cash selling them to acquaintences or other family members. The most common way shares are acquired is through gifts to newborn children or as probate settlements - the same as season ticket rights. Packer shares are very highly treasured and people will keep them even if they are starving and homeless. Since all transfers have to be registered in case of a loss of the certificate or theft, the Packers organization would have the exact figures on how many change hands each year. i4 22:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why buy shares?

Why would someone buy shares in something if you get neither dividends or an increase in share price. Is the only benefit of owning shares the ability to vote for the teams leadership? - Matthew238 06:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they wanted to help contribute to the team financially; perhaps pride; perhaps bragging rights among one's peers; many reasons... mtz206 15:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I can only speak for my own personal experience, but that's a pretty good summary. --Chancemichaels 13:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
What about Packer Pride? --Sk8ski 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's first on mtz206's list. --Chancemichaels 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Owning shares is mainly an issue of pride and contribution to the team. It is true shareholders can take action to direct the team, like any corporation. Besides voting for the Board there is the possibility of moving for bylaws. There was a movement to save the stadium in the late 90's when the Board was contemplating destroying it. At least one shareholder threatened to take action. Lambeau Field was restored and saved. The stockholders probably could force sale of the team but this will never happen. If it did the proceeds would all go to charity. Most fans feel as if they are shareholders in spirit, which they are. It is truly a community owned team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggetzin (talk • contribs)
I'm not aware of any desire to "destroy" the stadium, or that it was "saved" by shareholder action. They needed to raise money for renovations, and issued more shares to accomplish that. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There definitely were plans in the late 90's by the administration to tear down the old stadium and build a new one on the same site. At first the Packer head office claimed the structure would not hold the planned expansion. I suspect there was an uproar from the fans that stopped the initial plans.

Ggetzin 02:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding plans of a completely new stadium see the Green Bay Press Gazette, Birth of new Lambeau, April 2, 1999. These were Village proposals but also the team's choice at the time. Ggetzin 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If you don't bleed Green & Gold, you couldn't possibly understand the depth of the love for the Packer Organization by it's fans. I know of people who would sell their own mothers to get tickets to Packer games - it's that serious. Fan-ATICS or Cult is almost a more appropriate term than Fan when it comes to those who follow the team faithfully - and they are Legion. When the Packers play away games, very often there are 20,000 or more Packer fans at each and every one of those away games when the traveling fans are added to the huge local Packer fan base that exists in every city in America. I have seen games where the Packer fans outnumber the local fans at times, like when Tampa Bay was really bad. The Wisconsin fans combine trips to warm-weather climes with attendance at games and plan their vacations AROUND the chance to see the Packers in a visiting stadium. This isn't particular only to the Packers either. Last week, (09/08/07), when the U of WI Badgers played UNLV, 40,000 Badger fans were running around Las Vegas in Red & White apparel and sold out Sam Boyd Stadium - something not all that common in Las Vegas. In fact, the only 4 sellouts, (38,000+ seats with temporary end zone bleachers just for the Badger games) at Sam Boyd Stadium - for the UNLV Running Rebels - were all against Wisconsin. Cheeseheads look upon the Packers as family members, often as a favored 1st born. Like the Jesuits, they indoctrinate their children from birth and inculcate a love of the Packers that transcends eventual adult places of residence and lasts until, and perhaps beyond, death itself. (At least the common oval "G" tattoos on many of them do.) LOL - I hope that helps some understand WHY people would shell out $200 for what is essentially a worthless piece of wallpaper. i4 23:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season results incorrect?

The season by season results section does not match that at packers.com for several years. (See 1921 & 1922 as an example. Packers.com has 1921 at 3-2-2 and 1922 at 5-3-3, where this article currently has 3-2-1 and 4-3-3 respectively)

Does anyone know of a reason for this discrepency? Is there a reason why these numbers here don't agree with packers.com? If there doesn't seem to be a reason, I'll go ahead and make them agree with packers.com. --Garihood Mar. 13, 2006

  • NFL.com lists the Packers record for 1921 at 3-2-1 [1] and 4-3-3 in 1921 [2], so that is probably the reference that was used. Of course, the 1920s was still a period when professional football was rather unstable and thus the Packers probably played opponents outside of the league. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks my assumption was correct when I took a look at the records on Packers.com. According to the site's database, the Packers played a 1921 game versus the Racine Legion, who during that year was not part of the NFL. So that is probably why the Packers count that game but the NFL does not. Therefore, if you are going to make the numbers on the Wikipedia article agree with the data on Packers.com, you will have to mark it with asterisks and footnotes, or else another user is going to change the data back to the official NFL numbers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the page, but the end result looks awfully busy. Is there's a preferred way of formatting this? --Garihood Mar. 14, 2006

  • Yes. For official NFL playoff games, it seems more users are doing something like on the Steelers and Seahawks: List only the regular season records in the W-L-T columns, and then list the result of every playoff game in the "Playoffs" column. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks much better as you have modified it. --Garihood Mar. 13, 2006

The Season-by-Season should be on the main page, rather than in a separate page, to keep with the standard format for NFL pages set up by the WikiProject. The template is that of the Pats, which keeps the SBS on the main page. I'm going to add the table to the main page in keeping with that policy, but further comments would be appreciated. Kermitmorningstar 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Bears article has season-by-season on another page and that article is a featured article...having the season-by-season for storied and historically old team like the Packers would make the article have one big table in the middle of the article discouraging readers by the large break so please don't add it. --Happyman22 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's really long, I don't think it should be in the main article. The Packers have many more years than the Patriots and it should merit its own article. Shouldn't this be discussed before you make the article longer than the suggested limit? How about cleaning up the history section first, and summarizing it and add to the History of the Green Bay Packers so there's possibly room for the long table?++aviper2k7++ 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article/players lists too long

I think this article is too long and needs to be split up - these various player lists are much too long and burden the article. Perhaps have a link from the main GBP article to "Current GBP roster" and "Notable GBP players," which would include the Hall of Famers, retired numbers, etc. Further, I question the very existence of the "Not to be forgotten" section. Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about these players' contributions to the team, it seems like nothing more than a repository of players who fans' happened to like/remember. --mtz206 13:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have anything insightful to say other than I agree. The page is way too long. Kevin82485 (Talk) March 29,2006
When dealing with nearly 90 years of history, in a sport where the players turn over rapidly - , unlike baseball, and there is a huge amount of current popular interest, there are going to be a lot of individual stories of interest and a lot of team history in general. The Chicago Bears page is similarly long, if not longer, and with good reason - they also have a lot of history to tell. i4 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schedule

I'm not very good with html...so I was wondering if some who knows more than me would be interested in creating a schedule to put on the Packers wiki web page for the 2006 season. Their preason schedule was recently released and I think it would be informative to put things like a schedule on their wiki page. Kevin82485 (Talk) March 29,2006

As long as nobody does what was discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 New England Patriots Schedule: Somebody devoted an entire article to just the Patriots' 2005 16-game regular season schedule. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You should also be prepared that other users might remove such a schedule on this article under Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. If you ever read Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results, you would know that there is still a continued controversy among editors as to whether reports of non-championship sporting event results should be the subject of Wikipedia articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As someone who references Wiki for articles I write each week on football for a Packer fan club web site, I use the seasonal record information quite a bit, but rarely do I look for anything about individual games in a season for any team unless the particular game was of note, such as the one nobody wanted to win between the Colts and Chiefs in the 1995-1996 AFC Divisional round. 5 missed FGs by K.C. and a few by Indy as well? Gotta be the worst game in history to have watched and I did an article mentioning it. I would argue FOR the inclusion of season records but against the inclusion of individual game listings for any season but the current and one year past. People do occassionally look up last year's individual games for talking points. i4 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Warner

Where it says that the Atlanta Falcons are owned by Time Warner, I don't believe that is correct. I was under the impression that the owner was only in negotiations with Time Warner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.25.137 (talk • contribs) .

  • The article currently says that the Braves are owned by Time Warner, which is correct; Time Warner has owned the Braves baseball team since the 1970s. The Falcons are currently owned by Arthur Blank. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Still Missing

I feel there is not enough information here about the lean years between the Lombardi championships and the Brett Favre era. I will add a few sentences, and do some editing.

Andrew Szanton, 4/06

UGH! As a Packer fan, please DON'T. LMAO Most of us would rather forget that period. Muahahahaha i4 03:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article failed the ga noms due to lack of references. Tarret 13:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the standards are. Some references seem a little loose, like the nicknames. There is discussion of names that were used by fans, players and press in the 20's other than Packers, but there probably was never any official name other than Packers. Probably by the forties at the latest, the name was cemented, more likely in the early thirties. There are books on the Packers and a team historian to document this. Ggetzin 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed useless disambig

I removed the following from the top of the article:

Note: Basketball teams from Chicago and Anderson once used the name Packers as well.

There is no need for that notice at the top. Neither of those two teams is connected to the Green Bay Packers in any way (indeed they didn't even play the same sport, let alone in the same league), and there is no reason to expect that anybody looking for the Chicago Packers or the Anderson Packers would type in or look under the phrase "Green Bay Packers". The fact that they used the same team nickname is not a commonality that demands disambiguation, unless you think that Chicago Bears, Los Angeles Kings, and Detroit Lions should also list any and all other well known sports teams that shared their nickname at the top.

This seems pretty straightforward and obvious to me but I figured I'd put a note up on the talk page since that line looks like it was at the top of the article for a long time. — GT 22:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • However, the Packers page is currently a redirect to here. Therefore I have to restore and clarify the dab msg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That makes more sense. I personally hate those sorts of messages as they call attention from the article even if you didn't type in "Packers" (i.e. why would I care about the Anderson Packers if I specifically typed in Green Bay Packers?) but in this case it appears to be warranted. I'm glad we clarified this. — GT 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If you did not notice, I now simplified the dab msg and moved the entires of Anderson Packers and Chicago Packers to the already existing Packer dab page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • That is perfect! Thanks for working on this. — GT 22:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform History

This is a hard to research subject, the colors of the uniforms. Or it was until the team put a nice history of the uniforms in the programs over the last several years. This confirms green and gold from 1935, on and off. Kelly green and gold in 35 and 36 with a darker green used thereafter. One year green satin uniforms were used and then dropped due to the excessive heat from them. Green and white was used in the early 50's with Coach Ronzani. The first white away jerseys in the NFL were used with green numbers by Lambeau in 1939. The Packer Hall of Fame has a nice assortment of these uniforms. The early 60's Lombardi teams kept certain blue and gold items, like stocking caps, jackets and silk like capes that were almost purple. Once in a while you can see someone wearing one of these capes at Lambeau. They were sold or auctioned off cheap a number of years ago. I guess I have never seen a comprehensive documentation of the uniforms. There were many variants. Ggetzin 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a pretty good summary at The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database. --Chancemichaels 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Split players?

I noticed the template for the Packers had a link to Green Bay Packers players, which is currently not used. Should the current players and draft picks and such in the Packers article be split into this article?--Aviper2k7 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PackerForum.com

I noticed that their link has been removed yet again. Could one of the admins possibly contact them and ask them to cease and desist in constantly re-adding their link? Just a thought. -JakeApple 16:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bunch of different IP's, and it's getting ridiculous, I agree.--aviper2k7(talk) 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked that website, and couldn't find an email address anywhere. Surprise, surprise. -JakeApple 02:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Hoeffel and Willard Ryan

According to these October 2001 articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Willard Ryan served as coach of the Packers in 1919 and Joe Hoeffel did so in 1921:

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/oct01/lambeau28102701.asp

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/oct01/2lamsid28102701.asp

Hoeffel's son, also named Joe Hoeffel, was my representative in the U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania for a few years, and I added this bit of information about his grandfather to his Wikipedia entry. The second of the above two links from the Milwaukee paper mentions his grandson, and I considered the article to be a credible source. RSLitman 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active NFL record?

The article states that thirteen consecutive non-losing seasons from 1992-2004 was an active record. Does that mean that the Packers had the longest "current" streak of non-losing seasons going into the 2005 season? I ask this because it's not the longest overall streak of non-losing seasons. The 49ers had sixteen consecutive seasons of at least ten wins from 1983-1998.Politician818 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, "active" means "ongoing as of this time". The S.F. 49's snapped their streak with a 4-12 record in 1999 & have had only 2 winning seasons since. NFL's LONGEST STREAK OF WINNING SEASONS: The Cowboys' streak of 20 consecutive winning seasons, from 1966 through 1985, is the third longest in professional sports history. Only baseball's New York Yankees (39 straight winning seasons, 1926-64) and hockey's Montreal Canadians (32 from 1951-52 through 1982-83) surpassed the Cowboys' accomplishment. After the Cowboys posted a 7-9 record in 1986, the San Francisco 49ers' 16 straight winning campaigns (1983-98) represented the NFL's longest active streak. I believe the Philadelphia Eagles and Denver Broncos each are at 7 consecutive winning seasons, including an 8-8 record for Denver in 2001. i4 03:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA 2nd

Pretty good start, but very weak compare to the Bears and Patriots FAs I failed this article for a number of reasons.

  • No fair use rationales for images
  • Trivia sections aren't recomended
  • Needs a strong copyedit all over, many one sentence paragraphs. Some sections violate WP:NPOV, The Lean years after Lombardi section reads from the POV of a disgrunted Packers fan.
  • There some sections that the article should have like a Statistics and records and In Pop Culture section, a section on Lambeau Field is needed.
  • Still needs more refs, I counted a couple of citation needs around and a couple of the refs doesn't looks like realible sources to me, ref formatting can be better as well.

Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I added a to-do list on the top of the article so hopefully everyone will work on it and this article will gain GA status.++aviper2k7++ 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"They are considered the best and the largest fan base in the NFL."

Not only is that a blatant POV, it's not even true. I'd say Colts or Steelers fans get that rep, I may be wrong but it's NOT the Packers. --Bears54 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement is POV and the section needs rewording, but every year the Packers are among the top five teams popularity-wise, often at number one and number two. This year before the 2006 season they ranked #4 for popularity. In 2005 they ranked #1. In 2004 they ranked #1. In 2002 they tied for #1. In 2002 they ranked #1. Their popularity is consistently ranked one of the top teams. I'll reword the section later.++aviper2k7++ 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that they're a big fan base, I was talking about them being called the best. Sorry for the confusion. --Bears54 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the statement. In any individual year the Packers may be 1st, or 3rd, or even 5th in sales of merchandise, which is how the popularity of professional football teams is likely measured by the NFL. But overall, year after year, their cummulative dedication to the Packers combines to put them well above any other NFL teams. This is mostly due to the unflagging loyalty of the fans who will support & cheer for a losing 4-12 squad as though they were 12-4. Bandwagon fans exist everywhere, which accounts for the rise of sales for teams like the Colts, who are fairly popular right now, but when the Colts fall on hard times again their stadium will be empty and the merchandise sales will fall off significantly. For 25 years the Packers were one of the worst teams in the NFL yet their merchandise sales never fell lower than the bottom of the top ten & their stadium NEVER failed to sell out. They are truly "America's Team" in spite of the Dallas Cowboy's, (actually some wack-job in the MNF booth), attempt to usurp the title in the 90s. i4 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A further point in the Packers favor of ranking them the best fan base, is the amount of charity work Packer fans do all over the country. Each year the Houston, Indianapolis, and Phoenix fan clubs, (I'm sure there are more but I am only privy to those numbers as an assistant manager of the MSN based IndyPackerBacker website and Indy's competition with those two other fan clubs), raise many tens of thousands of dollars for charities and donate it in the name of the Packers - in their respective cities. I know of no other team's fan clubs doing the same in their respective cities outside their team's own locale, or at least on such a large scale. i4 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all your opninion, ie, original research. Without verification by a reliable source, any attempt to state Packers fans are the "biggest" or "best" is POV and unwelcome in an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh very well,

2007 ranking GBP in 3rd place 2005 article says Packers have more fans than any other NFL team (blacklisted linky - suite101.com/article.cfm/wisconsin/118317). Likely biased article. 2005 Harris poll - with demographics, Packers in 1st place. 2003 poll ranking the GBP in 1st place with Dallas SportsbyBrooks, citing a 2002 Harris poll placing the Packers in 1st place for that year and states the Packers have been in second place to the Cowboys for several prior years. 1999 Harris poll, placing the GBP in a tie for 2nd with S.F., behind Dallas. In any event, contrary to the OP's contention the Colts or Steelers may be more popular, those 2 teams are not listed in the top ranks at all for those years. Steeler merchandise did sell the most in one of the more recent years, likely when they won the SB a couple years ago. I do agree, there is little valid statistical research on who is the most popular team or has the "best" fan base, because such a thing is inherantly dependant on the criteria - which is larely opinion based as well - and nobody appears to have undertaken anything remotely reaching a "scientific" basis for "best" or "most". On that basis, an encyclopedia would be hard pressed to justify using the adjectives. --POV I still think the GBPs do, based on things like diversity of fan base, attendance at away games, number of booster clubs world-wide, charity contributions, pick any list you want, the Packers will be at the top of most of them. This opens a subject for the Wiki and anyone who might like to comprise a list or several lists of such catagories. Individual subjects like charity or merchandise sales could be accumulated and once a sufficient threshhold of such lists is compiled, perhaps it would be possible to derive some sort of "fan base" ranking based on defined criteria. i4 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stock

I added an image of the stock I own, hope you like it.++aviper2k7++ 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet picture. I wish I could buy stock and own the Packers! Maybe they might sell more stock soon. SFrank85 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

How do my images violate? I see numerous sportslogos.net images here, and I've even done the requested task on my talk page of converting them to PNG format. What else do you want? Crazy Canadian 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The violate fair use criteria #3 in Wikipedia:Fair use. A lower resolution version would be acceptable according to the rules, but a large scale image is violating it.++aviper2k7++ 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mecu uploaded a low-res version of Image:GreenBayPackers 1000.png and has indicated he would do the same for Image:GreenBayPackers 1001.png if it were not an orphan, so I've added back the logo images with the assumption that Mecu can upload a low-res version of the second image. — Zaui (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just got confirmation from Mecu that he will upload a low-res image later today - see my talk page. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alert, the Packer logos are from sportslogos.net, now made in low-resolution. Soxrock 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The logo Image:GreenBayPackers_100.png is a duplicate of Image:GreenBayPackers_1000.png. Since the first one is the original one, is a small more free one, and is already being used on numerous articles, I think the second one should not be used and be deleted.
As for Image:GreenBayPackers_1001.png, it is not mentioned on the official Packers website. Sportslogo.com is the only place where I could find the article referencing the logo. So I removed it and referenced it. Please see this page. "1961-present: First and only helmet logo in team history, designed for Lombardi by equipment manager Dad Braisher and first applied to Packers headgear in 1961. After introducing the G, the team immediately won two world titles (1961-62), and five over the mark's first seven years. Borrowed by scores of schools, college and high school."++aviper2k7++ 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify this again. If you use the larger Image:GreenBayPackers_1000.png image, the first one will get deleted. This isn't right, as the first image is the one that is used in all the season articles and the one that is smaller and more free. It makes no sense to have two, and it makes no sense to keep the bigger one when the small one works fine.++aviper2k7++ 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See, I think completely different, I like the 300x197 image, it's low resolution, and why must you use a small one? Maybe it's not one of your objectives, but images can get downloaded from wikipedia, and a smaller one size wise will affect that potential. And it's archived, so if they want they can get a big one. But come on, I prefer 300x197 and transparency over 100x100 with transparency for the articles. Soxrock 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the image should be uploaded over the existing file, not completely remade. I put it up for speedy, it's a duplicate and that's against the fair use criteria. Image resolution should be as low as possible. It may look better bigger, but it isn't needed and works fine with the 100x100 resolution. I prefer a wallpaper sized image over a 100x100 image, but it doesn't mean it should be used.++aviper2k7++ 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may add a little light on the policy ... the reason for using a smaller image for fair use images is that if someone is making money by selling the image, you don't want to infringe on their right to make money by offering an image just as good as what they are selling. For example, if I am selling prints of a photo and Wikipedia uses my photo under a fair use claim, if a we have a 300dpi copy, then anyone could take that image and print it out on their printer - you would be costing me money. But that isn't really an issue for a logo. It's really only an issue for a photo, or to a lesser degree, a screenshot. But really, there's an even better alternative - use an SVG version of the image. If you ask at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, someone may be able to create one. SVG images are vector-based, as opposed to raster, and so they scale perfectly. No matter what size you want to the image to be, it will be displayed perfectly. --BigDT 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up, User:aviper2k7 has made an outstanding SVG version of this image - Image:GreenBayPackers 100.svg. Hopefully, this renders the issue moot. ;) --BigDT 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Irwin

Jim Irwin in the broadcasting section links to Appolo 15 astronaut Jim Irwin, not the radio broadcaster. I dont know what the F im doing so Im not going to attempt to fix it, but someone should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChesterMarcol (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Thanks for the heads up - I've taken care of fixing the link so it points to the right article. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome, you guys are fast. I didnt think Jim Irwin ever walked on the moon.--ChesterMarcol 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey number error

According to the Packers site on NFL dot com, jersey number 3 was retired for Tony Canadeo in 1952 (although Ben Agajanian wore the number in 1961).[3] Jan Stenerud wore number 10 not 3 when he kicked for the Packers in the early 80s. [4] I've made the change. 68.112.206.105 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

There are a bunch of unsourced and POV statements like "legendary" and "dominant" that need to be eliminated or replaced. There are also very few references for an article of this size. This needs to be improved. Pats1 22:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • When speaking of the NFL, the word "Legend" is applied quite often and never more so than to the mystique of playing in Lambeau Stadium and for the Packers organization. 90% and more of the selling of the NFL revolves around the use of the term due to it's 87 year history and the continual reference to past records. Interviews with opposing players often contain their sentiments expressing that exact word about how they feel when they step out into the stadium and when they get to play a game there. Is there ANY person in the NFL regarded as MORE of a "Legend" than the coach nicknamed "St. Vince"? They named the SuperBowl trophy after the guy for heaven's sake, it doesn't get any more "Legendary" than that. Dominant? At times, the Packers HAVE been "dominant". Remember, nobody in football has won a three-peat EXCEPT the Packers, and they have done it twice. The 1995 - 2001 years of the Favre era is certainly as close to a dominant one as you can get in the salary cap era - nearly equaling the Elway, Young, or Aikman years during that period. The Chicago Bulls, New York Yankees, Atlanta Braves, Pittsburgh Steelers, Dallas Cowboys, and San Francisco 49ers are about the only teams in professional sports that have had the sort of spectacular success that Green Bay has had in the modern era, (whatever THAT is), where they were at the top of their league for a decade or so. Yes, the NFL manufactures a lot of it's own hype and perhaps football isn't even close to the kind of thing the word "historical" should measure - like the Constitution or the Magna Carta - but it's relevent to the sport, anyway. I AM a Packer fan and I'm sure it rubs Bear and Viking fans, especially, the wrong way when they hear it spoken about the Packers, since the Bears are equally rich in history and "legends". Just my 2¢ worth. i4 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions notwithstanding, any use of POV superlatives such as "legendary" or "dominant" must be cited within some original context. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What "original" sourcing would you like? I need but google the words Green Bay Packers & dominant team to get anywhere from 537 to 235,000 returns. Do the official NFL and Wisconsin history.org count as "original"? How many books, original articles, web sites, and/or documentary histories will it take before we clear the bar for "original"? Methinks someone is a Packer hater here. Just because I am a fan doesn't mean I cannot speak on the record with some objectivity as to the neutrality of the term being applied. I don't particularly like da' bearz, but I openly admit to their having as much history and "legend" as the Packers, their "dominance" for any period in the modern era is just not as long and pronounced as some others - including the Packers. Being a fan doesn't make me crazy, I still retain at least a 1% control of my mind, even during a winning game. LMAO The original statement against the use of the terms was voiced by a user with the ID of Pats1, which sounds like someone who is a fan of the Patriots, perhaps, and would like to see the current New England team being thought of as dominant and legendary, but they aren't - yet. The cheating scandal tosses some darkness on their current success and the length of the Patriot's history is short indeed compared to original franchises like the Packers, Bears , Eagles, Browns, and Giants. Of course the user's REAL name could be Pat for all I know, but it's certainly something to consider. i4 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith in your fellow editors, lest it cloud your own judgment. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First I want to define the two terms in question: Dominant- occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position [5] Legendary- Extremely well known; famous or renowned; Celebrated in legend [6] Secondly, the only instance I have found where these words are used is in the following: "The team posted a league-best 13-3 record in the regular season, dominating the competition and securing home field advantage throughout the playoffs." As the Packers tied for the best record in the league and led the league in many stats, to say they dominated is not biased or a POV. To say that someone or something is legendary is not POV as long as there is a long and storied history, which is very easy to prove about the Packers, as they are one of the oldest and most storied franchises as they have had the most Hall-of-Famers and won the most Championships. This is like saying the Yankees are legendary. I hate the Yankees yet I still know and concede that they are legendary. As there has been no talk about this subject for almost a week, and I haven't found any instances where legendary or dominant is used inappropriately, I am going to take off the neutrality banner.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheerleaders

I noticed there's nothing in the article about cheerleaders. Since the Packers don't have cheerleaders, I understand, but their absence is of note, since most other NFL teams have cheerleaders. I found alot of information on the official Packers Web site, if someone wants to add a section from http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2003/03/14/1/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffordk (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Packers have cheerleaders, just not PROFESSIONAL ones since 1998. The Packer cheerleaders are taken from the local community, St. Norbert's College in De Pere & The U of WI-Green Bay. I doubt anyone is traveling half way across the country to try out, ala the Dallas Cowgirls or the Oakland Raiderettes either. Nor are you likely to see any videos or calanders of them either, they aren't what you would call "poster" material for the most part. (That hurt to say, but I gotta be honest.) i4 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
They are not "taken from the local community" - they are the cheering squads from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay or St. Norbert College. ZimZalaBim talk 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't get much more "local" than the UW-Green Bay or St. Norbert's, De Pere being 2 mi. south of Green Bay. i4 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume the students on these squads are citizens of the local community. Your original content makes it sound as if they roam the streets & shopping malls looking for local residents to be the cheerleaders. That is not the case. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What is your problem with the Packers, and my opinions, ZimZalaBim? Don't try and pass this off as some concern for neutrality, you are obviously biased, perhaps as much as I am in favor of the Packers even. Why would anyone assume the girls on the squad AREN'T local citizens? I happen to live here in Wisconsin and know for a fact almost all of them ARE from the Green Bay area. When visiting the Packer Hall of Fame, they state it as being so in their various exhibits. I don't claim ultimate authority, just ask that people use some common sense here. Green Bay isn't Madison, or New York City. They don't have people matriculating into St. Norbert's or UW-Green Bay for the prestiege of getting a diploma from those institutions, they are just local community colleges. Some quick facts - UW-GB Some quick facts - SNC In any event, if someone attends either college, how likely are they to live a great distance from Green Bay AND commute to cheerleader practice? They attend the colleges for several years, they are LOCAL residents while doing so. What's so difficult to grasp about that? Oh, I know, you ASSUMED I meant they were born, grew up and became cheerleaders without ever leaving hometown WI. That makes a far bigger leap than my assumption of them being local ever would have - in the absence of prior knowledge that they ARE largely homegrown and lived there most of their lives. Administrator or not, you are just another opinion on this page. I didn't add anything to the main article, I expressed an opinion on the DISCUSSION page, nothing more. Isn't that what we do here? i4 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith - I've probably been a Packer fan longer than you've been alive. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Claims of superior knowledge are a logical fallacy. I am 53 and have clear and distinct memories of such "Legendary" games as the "Ice Bowl", the first 2 NCL/AFL Championships, and many Thanksgiving Day Detroit / Packer games on live B&W TV. I think I have been around long enough to judge who is qualified as "Legendary" or not, but I do NOT claim ultimate wisdom, POV being what it is. I accept your claim of "good faith". (Did I mention I have had many a conversation about those games with former Packers Thurston, Nitschke, and McGee - as well as Wood, Starr, Gregg, and several other visiting players, as my wife worked in 2 of their restaurants for several years?) i4 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Just my opinion, but aren't the cheerleaders living in the area, going to school there, part of the community, no matter where they were born and raised? I recently moved from 1 city to another, and consider myself part of the community of the new city, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLinden16 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture

Should a pop culture section be added. On TV shows they are a very common 'popular team'....also in MARVEL COMICS, one of their characters (Walter LAngowski) is was a Packer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.141.18 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Packers and Milwaukee games

I don't remember the specifics of this anymore, but I recall that the decision to make Miller Park a baseball-only stadium was made *after* the Packers announced they would no longer be playing games in Milwaukee, not the other way around, as the article suggests. Can anyone confirm this? I'll see if I can find any info about this myself. (edit: smacking myself for not signing!)TheBigFish (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, my mistake as I wrote that section in the first place. I'll take that out. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} These three nav boxes, {{Super Bowl I}}, {{Super Bowl II}} and {{Super Bowl XXXI}} are duplicated in this article. They are located inside the "Navigation Boxes for the Green Bay Packers" nav box at the bottom but are also located just above it. The duplicates should be removed. Also {{Green Bay Packers seasons}} should be placed inside the "Navigation Boxes for the Green Bay Packers" nav box for consistency. Thanks.130.13.104.221 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done by Od Mishehu Icestorm815 • Talk 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] numerous templates at bottom of page

Is it entirely necessary to have all of the templates at the bottom of the article that were added here?--Rockfang (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they have been removed. They are all duplicates that are already in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Don Hutson.jpg

The image Image:Don Hutson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Fame numbers aren't right

The article says that the Giants have 27 Hall of Famers, which puts the Packers at 3rd most. Every source I've checked says the Giants only 20, including their wiki page. Who changed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckstyle187 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)