Talk:Philadelphia Eagles/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Origins

The Frankford Yellowjackets and the Philadelphia Eagles are in fact a continuation of the same franchise. One day after a 13-12 victory over the Chicago Bears at Wrigley Field on October 25, 1931 (which would prove to be the franchise's last road victory over the Bears until 1999), the team suspended operations to due Depression-driven financial difficulties. They did not play at all in 1932, but on July 9, 1933, co-owners Bert Bell and Lud Wray filed new corporation papers at Philadelphia City Hall (which can be viewed on microfilm today at either City Hall or the main branch of the Free Library of Philadelphia - not sure which location they're at now) legally changing the name of the corporate entity to the Philadelphia Eagles. Therefore the Yellowjackets and Eagles are the same team in everything but name.


Well actionally It's largely forgotten today but back in 1940 Art Rooney sold his Pittsburgh franchise to Alexis Thompson who wanted to move the team to Boston. Then Rooney bought a half interest in Bert Bell's Philadelphia Eagles. The league wouldn't let Thompson go to Massachsetts and Rooney didn't really want to leave Pittsburgh. So Bell-Rooney and Thompson switched franchised territories. Bert and Art brought the Eagles to Pittsburgh and renamed them the "Steelers." Meanwhile, Thompson took the Steelers to Philadelphia and renamed them "Eagles." Most of the former Philadelphia players wound up in Pittsburgh and visa-versa. As late as 1945 the Steelers were officially owned by the Philadelphia Football Club, Inc. Apparently there was some revision the next year when Bell left his partnership with Rooney to become the NFL Commissioner. To all intents and purposes, the Steelers' and Eagles' histories run continuously from 1933 when both teams entered the NFL. But technically it's Pittsburgh (1933-1940) to Philadelphia (1941-on) AND Philadelphia (1933-1940) to Pittsburgh (1941-on). Just about everybody ignores the technically correct descent, and it's probably best that they do. I mean, how convoluted do you want pro football history to be.

So to be constitent the yellowjackets are now the Steelers


The only connection was that Bert Bell and his partners had to pay off some of the Yellow Jackets' unpaid debts. The NFL wasn't going to try to put a team in Philadelphia and get sued for the debts the Yellow Jackets had run up.

I recived this information from the pro football researchers association. Neither the team ( Eagles ) or league considers the two teams the same.

I can't find any evidence that Bell and Wray ever owned or had any connection with the Frankford Yellow Jackets. Also, whether the Eagles are the same franchise as the FYJ is debatable. By one account, Bell et al. bought the piece of paper that constituted the FYJ's former "franchise"; they bought this not from the old owners (Frankford Athletic Assoc.?) who had gone out of business but directly from the league, who had evidently had it in a drawer for a year or so. Also, the new team had none of the FYJ's players. I'm not saying that they're absolutely separate, just that it seems a bit debatable that it's one continuous franchise. Also, the league considers them separate for statistical purposes (team records, etc.).--BillFlis 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Bert Bell never owned the Yellow Jackets as the Jackets were a community owned and funded team by shares, much like the Green Bay Packers. The Frankford Athletic Association ran the team operations and drew their funds mostly from the local businesses that used the team as an advertising tool. The only connection with the Eagles first ownership is that Lud Wray did play for the Yellow Jackets. There may have also been one other Yellow Jacket that played on the 1935 Eagles that we are trying to match up, but it is tough when most of them are listed with first initial only. Many last names are common.
The Eagles do claim some of the history of the Yellow Jackets on their website and I have questioned them on this a couple of times with no answer. If they do want to lay claim to the history of the Yellow Jackets I believe they should be recognizing Guy Chamberlin and Link Lyman into their Roll of Honor. I also tried to get them to recognize the 80th anniversary this year of the 1926 Championship season which we will celebrate in December. IanBlade 11:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but there is a discrepancy in the listed all-time record for the team. The regular season records, as they are listed here (and which agree with profootball-reference.com, which I just checked by hand), add up to a franchise record of 487-531-25. Profootball-reference.com has the Eagles having a 16-16 all-time postseason mark, for a total all-time record of 487-532-25. This leaves a one-game discrepancy. Where is the "missing" game?

Patriots/Protection Issue

First off, thank you for protecting the page; I did not foresee much good unless someone stepped in and did something.

With regards to the issue itself, most of my logic has already been stated in my edit summaries, which could constitute a pretty good paragraph here; the only replies I have received are "thats nice" [sic] and "rm the soapbox". It seems like a pretty straightforward issue to me, and probably to just about anyone but an Eagles fan. The article states how, to somewhat rephrase it, the Eagles' fans rule and the Patriots' fans drool, which is not even the part that I am actually concerned about. It then goes on to state, in the same thought, how the glorious Eagles have in turn rewarded their fans for the above-mentioned super duper faithfulness by just being so much more darn glorious than everyone else for them, without mentioning the slightly relevant fact that the Patriots, for their part, have in turn gone on to win three (out of the last four) Super Bowls. That is a pretty huge fricking hole. It is also something that no one on the planet but a partisan Eagles fan would take any offense to or be bothered by, and any NFL fan but an Eagles fan would almost certainly find that to be a highly relevant fact. Wikipedia is not the place to try to point out the good and nothing but the good about your favorite teams, and the bad and nothing but the bad about teams that you do not like; that is what fan sites are for, not encyclopedias. If someone wants to stick their fingers in their ears, scream "nah nah, I can't hear you" at the top of their lungs, and delete anything they do not want to hear, they are welcome to start their own website, but I do not believe that Wikipedia should serve as such people's pulpit.

I should mention that I am replacing some of my hardware tomorrow, so I might not be on here for a night or, at most, two. --66.158.232.40 07:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that entire paragraph has to go. I don't see how Jeffrey Lurie's motives of buying one team over the other is actually relevant to this section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The paragraph does seem out of place in a "Fans" section, and seems to try to covertly say 'look how glorious Eagles fans are compared to others.' Assuming the facts are actually true to start with, I think that an article on the owner himself and his purchases would be the appropriate place for it, if anywhere; this article is about the Eagles, not about their owner, his personal reason for choosing to buy that particular team, nor any previously considered purchases that he did not make. I also think that the beginning of the paragraph would be fine without the ending; the statements at the beginning, of what he bought and did not buy and the reasons and all that, can be seen as just factual stuff, but the latter part of the paragraph (where "latter part" means the last two sentences) just degenerates into blatant, I'm-not-gonna-even-attempt-to-cover-it-up fanboyism, which is what led me to temper it with the other half of the story. So I guess that gives us five options: flat out throw the paragraph away, move the first part to an article about the owner, move the entire paragraph to an article about the owner, leave the paragraph here and just remove the latter part, and leave the paragraph as it currently stands. What do you think? --66.158.232.40 23:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been a couple days.. Let's give it a try unprotecting the article. Rhobite 23:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten

Template made, list is getting too long. Also trying to list only pro-bowlers and widely known players, not the entire all-time roster.Gorgeousp 06:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Santa Incident

I reverted Tommstein's edit on the "Santa Incident", not because I necessarily doubt that his info is accurate according to "Outside the Lines", but because nobody who missed the show can verify it. If you can find an internet source for this version of the story, then it might be worth updating (though we'd still need to verify its accuracy). The long-standing version of the incident may indeed be false, but if we're going to throw it out, I think we need some evidence. -JerryOrr 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there an Internet source for the old version?Tommstein 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Possibly (though I honestly haven't looked for it), but the old version is "common knowledge". If there is not a strong source for either version, then we should either use the "common knowledge" or eliminate the section entirely. But it is not appropriate to start changing established Wikipedia content with some version that you claim to have seen on TV. JerryOrr 12:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Calling it "common knowledge" ain't gonna fly. At least my version actually has a source, probably seen by millions of people, you just complain about not being able to see it yourself. Wikipedia is not here to spread urban legends. If there's no Internet source for the urban myth version, then we should reinsert the sourced one (where no, 'source' does not mean "Internet link"; never has, and never will, kind of like using books, even rare ones, as sources).Tommstein 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Supposedly your version has a source... but I can just as easily claim I saw an episode of "NFL Countdown" where Santa was actually Klaus Barbie, and the courageous Eagles fans were trying to pelt him into submission so that he could be apprehended. My source is just as well cited as yours. Claiming to have seen it on TV ain't gonna fly.
Certainly I'm not demanding an Internet source as the only possibility; but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of cited source. Provide that first, and then it can at least be debated whether your source or the numerous other sources is correct.
And again, I'm not saying I don't believe that you saw a show with this version or that the show's version is accurate... just please cite it. Wikipedia's guidelines on Citing sources specifically states "even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." JerryOrr 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


You are not immune to having to cite your sources.Tommstein 06:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
What sources have I not cited? The only content I've added is the "Eagles fans are often considered to be among the most passionate in professional sports" bit, which is cited just as well as your "hooligans" link. You can blame others for removing your "hooligans" link; I left it alongside mine, and I'd appreciate it if you would extend the same courtesy to me.
And if you are referring to my only other edit (removing the "roar of the crowd" sentence), that is nothing more than uncited POV hyperbole. It adds nothing to the description of the incident; it was already stated that some Eagles fans cheered the injury, and the next sentence states the seriousness of it. You have gone through the article and removed many phrases you consider uncited, POV, or hyperbole; is it so hard to accept that you added something inapproprate yourself? --JerryOrr 13:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm talking about citing that whole Santa thing. The reason your link keeps getting deleted is simply because by the time I come on here and click on "cur" to see all changes that have happened since I was here last, invariably mine is gone and just replaced by yours. It would be ridiculous to go through every single edit one by one, unless I never want to contribute to any other article. Please join me in asking the dude that keeps removing it to cease doing so. The thing about your link is, though, that it appears to be someone's copy of an old Wikipedia page.
About the "roar of the crowd" thing, I get you. It was originally inserted by someone else (who knows who), and it is another victim of the 13,000 changes that happen throughout the day.Tommstein 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I should mention, having just looked at the article, that I find your latest version, after your three consecutive edits, to be excellent.Tommstein 16:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad we could come to an agreement. I'll support keeping both of those links (though you may be right about my link being copied from Wikipedia... I'll look into it more), and hopefully the compromise on the Santa incident will satisfy everyone. --JerryOrr 17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure man, it all sounds good to me. If I have some time later I'll see if I can find a version of the article that matches up exactly with that link. At least we know it would have to be a version after the last Super Bowl, since the link mentions it. It probably has other clues too.Tommstein 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Eagles&oldid=12056861. Doesn't the GFDL require them to keep copyright notices or something like that?Tommstein 19:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Serious Question

Has Tommstein ever been to 1 ONE Eagles Home Game? The guy obviously has an agenda to highlight bad fan behavior. There are SOME (1-2%) bad fans, but by far, most are there to enjoy and root their team on. Lots of families and lots of old time fans. Thanks, Tom (12/19/05)

I nominate the president of the Eagles fan club to write the Fans section. Surely you'll second the nomination.Tommstein 07:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like how you DIDN'T answer the question! But I already knew the answer. No, I wouldn't 2nd the nomination. What is your agenda?? Please come clean. Tom(12/20/05)

Shouldn't it be obvious by now that my agenda is to help you, and I quote me, "nominate the president of the Eagles fan club to write the Fans section?" You tell me what we've got to do to make this happen, and I'm there for you.Tommstein 05:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Only thing obvious is that you are trouble maker who has never been to Philadelphia in your life...FACT...The Linc parking lots and Paterson Ave subway station are SAFE on game days due to two facts: 1)99% of fans go to enjoy the game 2)Heavy police presence on game days. I have been to numerous games with friends who have worn the opposing teams colors without incidence. Only drunk idiots, approx 1%(that's being kind) would try anything since there is security up the ying yang AND uniformed Philly cops who don't take shit from anyone. Tom 12/21/05

Eagles fans = hooligans?

Regarding the following passage in this article:

Some instances of fan misconduct stand out for their sheer outlandishness, and the atmosphere at Eagles' home games bears greater similarity to the intense atmosphere at European soccer stadiums than it does the typical American sporting event; in fact, Eagles fans have been compared unfavorably to European soccer hooligans by the media [1].

Has anyone actually read the cited link? I think the conclusion that this section takes from that article may be a misinterpretation. I read the article through, and although the author was using Eagles fans for most of his examples, his point seemed to be that American sports fans in general are more like European soccer hooligans than they'd like to think. Take the following excerpt from the article:

When it comes to hooliganism, the US media really is the pot calling the kettle black. Riots at US sports events occur far more frequently than they do in the UK. And yet, in American popular culture, the "hooligan" is almost without exception portrayed as a soccer fan (and nearly always as English).

If you really read the whole article through, its comparisons to hooliganism are directed at American sports fans in general, not Eagles fans specifically. As a result, I'm considering removing this section from the Eagles article. Thoughts? --JerryOrr 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Based on recent edits to the section, I would prefer to remove any and all content that is not properly cited, or in that case, content that is misinterpreted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with you both on that one--Looper5920 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Eagles fans are "milk and cookies" compared to hardcore English Soccer fans, imho. The latter would kick US football fans up and down the stands hands down, but HOW is this really relevant anyhows? This whole Eagles Fans are hooligans is a joke but certain people, not to be named, have some hell bent agenda to do this. I know Tommstein will come back with his "let the head of the fan club write this article bullshit, but whatever. This website, unfortunately, comes down to how "bad" somebody wants to make their POV stand out. This whole thing is WAY overblown at this point. Just my two cents. PS, please remove if you didn't already guess. Tom 3/26/06
  • I added the "some" fans to the Michael Irvin story because the way it read, it makes it sound like alot/many fans were cheering, when in fact it was a few, again the bad apples. Does the article mention how the majority of fans were clapping on HIS behalf when he left the field?? NO...Tom 3/26/06 (I have to much time on my hands :) )
  • Just took a quick trip around the league and couldn't find anything CLOSE to what has happened to this page...even the "feared" Raiders fans only have ONE sentence about the black hole...I know, I know, its because Eagles fans ARE really that bad, right?? geeshh....Tom 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, I actually do think it's appropriate to have a section in this article dedicated to Eagles fans. They may have an unfairly negative reputation (when you consider that NO NFL team has well-behaved fans), but the fact that they have become so notorious is notable, and worth inclusion in this article. It just needs to be cited (and NPOV), which I'm attempting to do. --JerryOrr 13:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. I just think the section needs to be lower down in the article and about a 10th the size. Even a seperate page would be fine. It just seems so NON-NPOV the way it is. Can we please get some NEUTRAL input. Again, I went to EVERY other NFL Team site and this seems WAY overblown. Also, I really disagree that NO NFL team has fans that don't misbehave. Again, its a SMALL percentage that get the attention, IMHO Tom 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ps, I see Tommstein got blocked..tisk tisk :)

Based on the consensus reached in this discussion, I've removed the "hooligans" section. One more step towards fixing the Fan Behavior seciton... --JerryOrr 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

        • Agree with everything stated above but it is kind of funny that we, as Eagles fans, kid ourselves that it is only a small percentage of people doing things. If we are not doing it then most likely we are condoning it and laughing and drinking beer while it is happening. Admit it, we take a preverse pride in it and I'll admit that I am OK with that. I've been on numerous road trips and will confidently say that, "As a city, we do not travel well." I have been around the states and attended more than a few sporting events outside of the States. Very few places rival an Eagles vs Dallas game in Philly except maybe a Rangers v Celtic game in Glasgow. We are what we are, no point indenyig it.--Looper5920 12:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have ti agree that although eagles fans may be reluctant to leave phili to watch a game, there are still events, such as our 4 successive playoff entroes that allow us into the world of football, it is uinfair to say that eagles fans are inferior to any other set of fans, without a credible source suggesting so.

Fan Behavoir Section

This still needs work to be "more" NPOV if that's possible, imo. The ".. Eagles fans have a reputation in many quarters as being unduly rowdy, or even dangerous."...unduly rowdy?? ok..dangerous?? I think that's a stretch. With all the security and Judge Samus downstairs, games are pretty tame at this point. Occasional drunk idiots starting fights?? sure, but security jumps on these guys in a heart beat at this point..thoughts?? Thanks! Tom 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • In fairness, the section does say "have a reputation" for being rowdy and dangerous, not "are" rowdy and dangerous. I see the point you're trying to make... perhaps it could be reworded to emphasize that we're talking about reputation, and add a paragraph at the end of the section describing how the environment is now. Of course, that would have to provide a good source... --JerryOrr 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough.... Where is it "sourced" that the Birds Fans have a "reputation" as being "dangerous"? Rowdy?? Sure, Fat and drunk?? I won't even go there :)...The UK Gaurdian article, I don't see a link anymore, thank g&d, was SO sensationalist and garbage, imo. I REALLY appreciate that we can discuss things in here civily(sp?)My spelling SUCKS!! Tom 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be football season :)

This article is waking up. Having been here almost a year and over 1,500 edits, I am feeling more confident in my edits and Wiki policy/guidelines. My biggest beef lately is with WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:OR. If people can find RELIABLE SOURCES for the material I removed, please feel free to add it back ALONG with the sources. Thanks --Tom 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the Eagles best known for?

In the header, it says that the Birds are best known for their fans? That is very touching and I am proud to be a fan, but that is hardly encyclopdiatic. If sources can be provide, fine, include it, otherwise it should be removed, especially from the header. --Tom 18:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "they are best known for....." from the header. I am a stupidly huge Birds fan, but that sentence needs to be sourced, especially with it being in the header in all. Anyways, lets reach consensus in here and then proceed okie dokie?? Also, E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!!!!! --Tom 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Tom is a genius. He knows what he's talking about, I'm only 14 and I agree with every word he says. The fans are great. Only a small bunch "Dirty Thirty" are jerks. If any of you have read The Sunday Pilgramage, by Anthony Gargano, I am the kid who goes up to Ike Reese and asked for McNabbs autograph a like ten years ago. I'm so sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.120.186 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Hate to say it, but some Eagles fans have been known to get nuts. Not like soccer fans in Europe, but compared to other cities in the US with their sports, they are pretty nuts. PYLrulz 11:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
No, really? --Cmsjustin 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, somebody had linked an article from the British tabloid, the Guardian, that tried to make the case that Eagles fans are THE worst hooligans on the planet, worse than soccer hooligans. It was written by some bloke that went to one Birds game and was very POV. I've seen alot of strange things happen in the 700 end zone of the Vet, but few, if any deaths thank goodness. Again, as long as the material is from a few reliable sources feel free to add it in.--Tom 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, if thats the case, yeah, go ahead and delete on all counts, but the other stuff thats deleted, I say to keep. Compared to Brits and Italians and other Europeans, Eagles fans are choir boys, but compared to other pro sports fans in the US, yeah, they are pretty wild. Whammies Were Here 11:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We are best know for the Santa Incident. Duh. Douko (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Training camp

I moved it down in the article. I will also add the {fact} tag. --Tom 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Season-by-season records

The totals in the season-by-season records table doesn't make much sense to me. The totals under the W, L, & T columns are not actually the sum of the values in those columns (which seems counter-intuitive). I think that the totals in the W, L, & T columns should reflect the actual regular season records, and then a note could be added to the "Playoff Results" column, saying something like "15-20-0 in NFL playoffs". Bjewiki 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Stylized uniform?

Helmet
Left arm Body Right arm
Trousers
Socks
Home
Helmet
Left arm Body Right arm
Trousers
Socks
Away
Helmet
Left arm Body Right arm
Trousers
Socks
Alternate
Current uniforms

I'm an Eagles fan who happened to create the following template: {{American football uniform}}, based upon {{Football kit}} (i.e., soccer uniform). I added it to the Eagles article, in the logo and uniforms section, but it was removed. I think it's a concise way to show the basics of the uniform without getting into the arcane details shown on other teams' pages (e.g., Washington Redskins, New York Giants). Editors can add details to the jerseys, helmets, pants, etc.; obviously, right now they're simple. What do people think? Rolando 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they were removed without any explanation in the edit summary.[2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You better start testing the template on Internet Explorer. Somehow, the colors appear gray instead of green. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this working now? Rolando 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The colors are more bluish, or bluish greyish, than greenish. Fix the colors a bit, I would say. 69.139.67.90 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eagles alternate 1973-1995.gif

Image:Eagles alternate 1973-1995.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Eagles Captains

Is there a list somewhere of Eagles captains? I am working on the Wistert brothers' articles and Al Wistert could use either a navbox or succession box to show his captaincy. Since this page does not seem so heavily trafficked and a response may take a few days, drop a note on my talk page when you reply so I don't miss it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eagles 1973-1995.gif

Image:Eagles 1973-1995.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

other notable alumni

I'm not a knowledgable fan, but was wondering if William "The Refrigerator" Perry should be included, as well as Matt Bahr, the kicker from Philly, who has his own Wiki entry? Up to you all, of course, but the list just doesn't seem complete without them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.234.121 (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to both, but this is one of those subjective POV lists. --Tom 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Records, Statistics?

The Eagles need a Records, Statistics section like most other NFL teams on here have. Burningview (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to add it? I will also check into it. Thanks, --Tom 01:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)ps, nice azzkicking this afternoon...

No I don't have the nessecary info to create the section; I'm just suggesting it on here so somebody that has the info will do it.Burningview (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Franchise history section

I did a little trim and ce there. It looks like the section is weighted towards the recent seasons, which isn't to surprising considering the amount of past futility compared with the teams recent successes. Should the section contain every season highlight of just the basic recaps of the diffrent "periods"? How do other team articles treat this?--Tom 01:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Fans

Is this section really necessary? Seems a bit like trivia and doesn't add anything substantial to the article. I recommend removing it. Jrssr5 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Necessary? Thats a tough one. Probably not. Do other teams have a similar section? I am a total minimalist/deletionist, so I wounldn't shead any tears to see it go, but I am biased. --Tom 18:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)ps, its also VERY subjective, another reason not to include. --Tom 18:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that this section was removed, which is fine with me. --Tom 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not fine with me. Who says we have to delete all these fun things and and make Wikipedia like all other encyclopedias? --PhillieLWillie(Talk) 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Eagles fans

I saw that my addition regarding the criticism of Eagles fans has been reverted. Because it was relevant and cited with a reliable source, I am going to revert it. I don't think this should start an edit war, so I'm hoping to hear what the concerns are with this sentence. —Bdb484 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance or context? I am sort of impartial for the record :) I also think the praise part is not well written for what its worth. You should have seen the an section back in 05-06. It equated Birds fans to British soccer hooligans, it was classic. It detailed the "flair gun" incident and fans booing when Michael Irving was carted off the field , the court room in the Vet basment and Judge Samus (had to visit there once myself, some asshole Giants fan got his due desserts :)..)..anyways, those were the good ol days indeed, --Tom 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Those sound like the good ol' days, which is why I'm always surprised when people yank any criticism of their team's fans. To me, NFL games are an occassion for hooliganism, and that should be celebrated. And that brings me to the relevance and context. If the article has a section on fans, I don't think it's appropriate to give the fans a rhetorical fellating and act as though every team has the best fans in the league, but that's what's happening on just about every page that discusses a fan base.
The truth is that Eagles fans have a reputation for more than enthusiasm and devotion. Fans across the NFL -- and an objective Eagles fan -- would probably agree that their reputation includes some blemishes. If that's the case, an NPOV treatment requires more than just a "praise part," doesn't it? —Bdb484 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
First off, I hear what you are saying about the fan's reputation, but this project is not about the "truth", but about presenting already established "facts" in a relevant and neutral fashion. I don't really mind balancing the praise with some criticism, but I would be careful to avoid "commentary" pieces unless you are going to attribute them like say "according to Stacy of the Phila Enquirer, fans can be bosterous, ect", since there is probably no real scientific studies about them. Anyways, I always favor including less if in doubt, so I would rather remove the "praise" material since its sort of vague. Does selling out games really quickly equal awesome or dedicated fans?? Maybe the ticket scalpers see an opportunity. Anyways, I sat in the trenches of the 700 level end zone for many years so what do I know :) Cheers! Tom 12:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right, at least about the question of whether sold-out games equal good fans. I overhauled the section to give it a more balanced treatment and (hopefully) a better tone. Let me know what you think. —Bdb484 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic: I just saw you started the article on Frank Luntz. Great work. I'm a huge fan of Luntz's work, if not his politics. —Bdb484 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you kidding about Luntz? I went to school with the guy, and I could tell you stories that would make your head spin. Lucky for him, bios require WP:RS and not personal experieinces otherwise he would be trashed beyond comprehension. Anyways, let me check what we got here...--Tom 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you seem to have hit most of the "low lights", that is for sure. I haven't gone through them all but I did remove the unattributed story about Irvin, since that is garbage. "Many" of the fans cheered?? Really? At least you didn't use "The roar of the crowd" that once graced this article. I was about 10 rows behind the players bench for that one, having moved in a little closer from my usuall 700 endzone seats since it was a Boys game, and it was a few idiots cheering before folks realized the severity of the injury. Many of the fans actually clapped as he left the field in a sign of good sportsmanship. Oh course, the cheers and cat calls would stick out in players minds, but whatever. That happened in 1999? I really though that was more like 20 years ago, I must be getting old or maybe younger :). Also do we have to cite Bill, the buck tooth wonder, Lyon? I hope that scumbag weasel is dead in a ditch somewhere, he isn't even a hack, that would be too kind. Anyways, --Tom 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why you're classifying the Irvin incident as unattributed garbage. There was a link to a story from the Associated Press, who I think most people accept as a reliable source. If, like you said, "this project is not about the 'truth,' but about presenting already established 'facts,'" then your personal account of the game isn't especially relevant when there's a reliable source contradicting it. Otherwise, aren't we creating WP:OR problems?
RE: Luntz — I get the impression a lot of people have stories to tell about this guy. Like I said, I disagree with him on most issues and wouldn't characterize him as the most intellectually honest guy, but I'm a word nerd, and I can't help appreciating the way he can use language to make people see things in a different way. —Bdb484 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I see why this whole section was removed. Its probably a magnet for folks with an agenda. Anyways, this has been gone over before, I guess others need to chime back in. The section is already over the top in relation to the rest of the article. Anyways, --Tom 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still confused here. It seems like your edits are focused on this single item. What is it about this bullet point that you object to? —Bdb484 (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It sure doesn't need 10 citations or whatever amount it had. Maybe a rewrite. I will have to go back and look, at one point, it actually didn't read all that bad, ie "some fans cheered as he lay on the ground" or something like that...Tom 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The only concern I'm hearing is about the citations. If your objection is that is has too many, I think the answer is to remove some of them rather than removing the bullet point. I'm going to restore the version I put up, and you can whittle the citations down to whatever number you think is appropriate. If it needs a rewrite, I think it's better for you to rewrite it rather than delete it. —Bdb484 (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I guess I can try a rewrite. Probably best to get more editors involved at this point. --Tom 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest; your most recent change looks more like a deletion than a rewrite, so I'm having trouble not engaging in an edit war. What exactly are we looking to ask other editors to provide input on? I'm trying to figure out what exactly it is that you object to, but I don't feel like I'm getting any answers. —Bdb484 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Frankly some of it looks like a hit piece. Sourcing a provocative quote like "aggressive, drunken louts with a penchant for harassing women." from an opinion columnist on the City Hall beat doesn't make a piece NPOV, it's just selectively picking out quotes to prove one's own POV. That's more or less like using Rush Limbaugh's quotes to justify some POV comment you write in an article about Barack Obama. And if you do want to run a hit piece, you should try and get the facts straight. Phillies fans were reputed to have booed the Easter Bunny, not Eagles fans. And even that's disputed. Bill Conlin claimed it happened in his book [3] while Glen MacNow and Anthony Gargano claimed that it was an urban legend started by [4] Bob Uecker. Finally, if you are going to bring out the Santa Claus thing at least have the sense to put it in context that it occurred in 1968 when the Eagles pulled some slob out of the stands who was wearing a Santa suit to fill in for the Santa Claus who didn't show up. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 03:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you're pretty far off base. I don't know what Catherine Lucey is doing now, but at the time she wrote that quote, she was a GA reporter writing news stories. Either way, it's far from being the only piece available characterizing Eagles fans in a negative light. As far as getting my facts straight, I use reliable sources when I edit Wikipedia, not what some guy on a Wikipedia talk page says.
Meanwhile, the POV accusations are getting pretty tired. Just like you have a host of retorts ready for spammers who don't like your edits, I have plenty for people who claim that negative information is prima facie evidence of a POV smear campaign. To start, take a look at the difference between the article when I started working on it and when I finished. I gave it a substantial overhaul, and I'd say it's a pretty balanced treatment: three paragraphs of positive material, two paragraphs of negative material, and a paragraph that goes pretty much down the middle. If you want to do a word count, I'm sure you'll find they're pretty close to even as well.
Again, I'd invite anyone who thinks that there's a problem with the content to offer their own suggestions for constructive criticism rather than vandalising the page. In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear from Tom as to what he wants more input on. —Bdb484 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Bdb282, vandalising the page? What are you referring to? What I am looking for is imput from other editors as to your addition of a huge swath of material and how it is written. It is always best to have as many folks work on an article to improve it, because we always think "our version" is the best or "correct" one ect. As I mention before, the reason I suspect alot of the "negitive" material about Bird's fans was removed was because its a magnet for agenda pushing editors, which I don't agree is a resaon for removal. I do think the material needs to be added in a NPOV and undue weight fashion however. I understand that you believe your version does that, but we need other opinions to that effect, that is all. Anyways, I will try to do more rewrites as well. Cheers, --Tom 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
When I say "vandalising the page," I'm referring to the act of stripping out content because you don't like it. I wouldn't be surprised if you disagree about whether what you're doing is or is not vandalism, but when you take three days to justify the change, only to acknowledge that one of those justifications is invalid, I'm comfortable with the characterization, especially since you haven't seen fit to flesh out either of the other arguments yet.
If your argument is that the bullet point violates NPOV, I'd really need to hear what exactly you're talking about. It was a pretty straightforward clause, free of weasel words or adverbs, and supported by nine different reliable sources.
If your argument is that the sentence is giving undue weight, I'd say that there are nine sources that disagree with your account, which has so far been backed up by no one but yourself. If you want to present a different account of what happened that day, you need to provide a reliable source instead of deleting material that doesn't make you happy.
If you want input, that's fine with me. I'm only objecting to your unilateral and arbitrary decision to remove the material, which greatly reduces the likelihood of any input being received. If we need more editors involved, I'm happy to make that happen. —Bdb484 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And if I may, I'd just like to amend part of what I said earlier now that I've reviewed what I wrote. When I originally wrote it, I suggested that we should talk about the changes so that edits would bear "more resemblance to constructive edits than to vandalism." As I edited my comments, my wording got a little stronger than it should have. At this point, I'm definitely not comfortable making any assertions as to your motives. My bad. —Bdb484 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see that the 3rd opinion thingy got exnayed since there was another editor who weighed in thinking this was a hit piece section. Again, I belive the reason all the "negitive" material was removed was because it was a POV magnet and undue weight and I am not sure what else, since I wasn't around all that much. Maybe we can look at the history and ask the involved editors to jump back in. I agree that the version before you edited was pretty puffy, and not my style, but imho, your additions seemed like to much. The bounty bowl is probably relevant considering it has its own article, but the rest?? This is an article on the team and not the fans. How relevant or much mention they deserve seems POV. If I had my way, I probably wouldn't mention them either way. I remember trying to look at how the other NFL teams handled fans and didn't see much. I think the only article that had something might have been the Raiders, see Raider Nation, go figure :). Anyways, --Tom 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ps and also Steeler Nation, that you of course know since you have been working on it....--Tom 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Tom.
I submitted an RfC instead of the third opinion; hopefully we can get somewhere with that instead. As an aside. I just wanted to make a brief argument in favor of including a section on the fans. Just as Ghandi would be irrelevant if he had no followers, and just as Elvis would vanish from Wikipedia if it hadn't been for millions of screaming teenagers, the Eagles would cease to exist if they didn't have a following. Contesting the notability of an NFL team would be ridiculous, but the fans are, to an extent, a testament to and assertion of that notability.
I think the bottom line here may be a philosphical, deletionist vs. inclusionist difference. By your standard, there are probably a lot more pieces of this article that should be taken out: the list of radio announcers, the Eagles Honor Roll, the Eagles Youth Partnership, the fight song, etc. If you don't want to do the work of rearranging those sections and improving the tone of the writing, it's probably better to leave them intact so that someone else has that opportunity. I suspect that the vast majority of WP editors have the initiative to touch things up, add citations and tweak articles, but not to write them from scratch. If editors yank any material that isn't Grade A, Wikipedia would grind to a halt. I see that you're willing to show that patience for positive coverage of the Eagles; I think it's only fair to do the same for verifiable, NPOV information that doesn't comport with your impression of the team you root for. —Bdb484 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bdb484, it is probably more a difference of the degree or amount of coverage given to the fans section. Which fan "incidents" rise to the level of inclusion? Also information that doesn't comport with your impression of the team you root for? I know first hand of some of the poor fan behaviour and have never said that all the fans are boy scouts. There are always going to be some bad apples, no arguing that. Again, what matters is getting this article as close to being encyclopediac as possible. Just as you have suttley accussed me on not wanting to include "negitive" material, I could say that you are unduley focusing on including it in order to right some conceived injustice with this article. The "truth" probably lies somewhere in between. Anyways, a RFC is always a good thing and the more truely nuetral editors involved the better. Cheerss, --Tom 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ps my spelling sucks, I know :)
I think you're right that the heat of the argument sometimes allows our rhetoric to go further than it ought to, so I'll try to stay on point here.
The part of this debate that truly confounds me is your laserlike focus on this event in contrast with your acceptance of other events — booing the Easter Bunny, for instance — that are notable but far less notable. I would argue that the Irvin incident ties the Bounty Bowl for the most notable event on the list. All the items in the list got play in the local media, but the Irvin incident received widespread coverage around the country, with dozens of major newspapers running at least a blurb on it, and, about a dozen papers putting their own reporters on the story, which lasted for days instead of dying down the day after like a normal news story. By Wikipedia criteria, the incident would meet the threshold for its own article. —Bdb484 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm hoping we can get some input from another editor or several other editors as to an overhaul of the "Eagles fans" section I performed several days ago. Here's a brief run-down of the situation as I see it:

Before I came in, the section was a fluff piece on the greatness of Eagles fans. I added a small piece that attempted to briefly encapsulate the view from outside Philadelphia that their fans do not always behave like Boy Scouts. Tom felt that the piece was irrelevant and contextless, and mentioned that the entire section needed a rewrite.

I spent the night overhauling the section, and tried to be meticulous about keeping POV out of the article and keeping everything cited. Here's the difference between the section before I started and when I ended. Since then, Tom has taken down the final bullet point in the list, arguing that the account presented did not match his personal recollection as a first-hand witness, that it had too many citations, that it was POV, and that it presented undue weight problems.

I suspect Tom may have a different interpretation of the events, so I'm hoping he can jump in and present his side as well. —Bdb484 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would you suspect I may have a different interpretation of the events? Tom 05:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO TastyPoutine has already provided a 3rd opinion. If more input is required, please open an RFC or make a post to the relevant Wikiproject. NJGW (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Michael Irvin injury

Is media coverage of fan reactions to Michael Irvin's injury appropriate for the "Eagles fans" section of the page?

I'm hoping we can get some input from other editors as to an overhaul of the "Eagles fans" section I performed several days ago. A brief run-down of the situation follows and appears to be agreed upon by the editors most involved:
Before I came in, the section on Eagles fans was a fluff piece on their greatness. I added a small piece that attempted to briefly encapsulate the view from outside Philadelphia that their fans do not always behave like Boy Scouts. Tom felt that the piece was irrelevant and contextless, and mentioned that the entire section needed a rewrite.
I spent the night overhauling the section, and tried to be meticulous about keeping POV out of the article and keeping everything cited. Here's the difference between the section before I started and when I ended. Since then, Tom has repeatedly taken down the final bullet point in the list, arguing that the account presented did not match his personal recollection as a first-hand witness, that it had too many citations, that it was POV, that it was not notable, and that it presented undue weight problems.
Your thoughts?—Bdb484 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The fans' reaction to his injury was pretty widely reported at the time, so I doubt that reliable sources should be hard to find. And if the editor was there himself, he has no business editing that section of the article at all. He has already injected his own experience into the editing process, a violation of restrictions of both neutrality and original research.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get how theres a debate about this. Theres a ton of citations and its a straitforward telling of the stroy. IT looks like the3 old version had a ton of citations and I don't know hwy it would not be notable if so many papers wrote about it.

IP, can we at least not have 10 citations? 1 or 2 would be more than enough, otherwise it makes it look like there is some question to its accuracy, ect. Anyways, I will step out, GO BIRDS!! ;) --Tom 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Vick

Doesn't Michael Vick need to be added under QB's on the roster and not reserve? 4.224.210.90 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because he is exempt right now. The Eagles can place him on the active roster at any time so he can practice with the team, but will officially come off of it after Week 2. Eagles24/7 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Donavon McNabb be on the reseve list know that he is injuried then Michael Vick get moved up. 4.224.210.201 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How has michael vick affect ad sales and ticket sales? Manofmyth (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Eagles24/7 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Retired Numbers section

It's still training camp, but Ronnie Brown is wearing number 36. If he continues to wear this number at the start of the season, the statement about "no one has worn..." will need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InsultComicDog (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's temporary, per [5]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
he is wearing number 34 now. Meatsgains (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chase Ford

We need an article on Chase Ford, the rookie tight end. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philadelphia Eagles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs sources to start with. Tayquan hollaHard work 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone bungled up the Eagles owners template and I will not allow it to contaminate the Bert Bell article

Wholesale delete without prejudice the garbage Wikipedia template {{EaglesOwners}}. This is a disgusting template and needs to be fixed ASAP. It's pure garbage. Thompson did not own the eagles until 1941. This is a garbage template!Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting and disgraceful. Absolutely abominable. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It is an absolute embarrassment that the aforementioned template was utilized by the Bert Bell article. What an absolute disgrace I just deleted the whole template right out of the Bell article. That template was just a complete disgrace!Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The template just reflects what is currently written on both articles. Bert Bell#Pittsburgh Steelers (1940–1945) currently reads, "In December 1940, Bell conciliated the sale of Rooney's Steelers to Alexis Thompson". The Alexis Thompson (American football owner) page currently reads, "Steelers owner Art Rooney bought half interest in the Eagles and sold the Steelers to 28-year old Thompson for $160,000 in 1940". Please correct or clarify the articles first before declaring that the template is "garbage", "an absolute embarrassment" and a "disgrace". Also, it would be more helpful to actually correct such errors on Template:EaglesOwners yourself instead of removing it completely from these articles. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not know how to fix templates. Furthermore: Some put Lud Wray as an owner of the Eagles in 1939 and 1940 in that template. I deleted the template again from the Bert Bell article. I will not tolerate that template in the Bert Bell article until it is fixed. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And you are right, I think I have been listening to too much sports radio w respect to 'garbage' and 'an absolute disgrace'. I apologize for being so emotional. That being said, perhaps you might be missing a statement in the Bell article that took me well over a year to track down as being, yes, complete garbage. All non-factual info from the Bert Bell article, I will remove without prejudice. And Lud Wray being an owner in 1939 and 1940 is absolutely complete garbage. Template removed. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Lud Wray being an owner of the Eagles in 1940 is garbage and an absolute disgrace. Total deletion of that garbage template. !Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Redskins under Rivalry?

Don't you think that the Washington Redskins deserve to be listed as our rivalry? Granite it is probably the least heated rivalry out of the three at the moment, but it is still a hated rival, especially since you can essentially trace them all the way back to the Pottsville Maroons in Pennsylvania. I for one would like to see them added. Dstrausser83 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Training camp section needs revision

since they no longer are using Lehigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.7 (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames mention?

I'm not gonna get the sources etc now, but just curious if there was ever a brief mention of the team's various nicknames. Doesn't have to be as high-honored a place as on the Phillies' page, maybe with the logo/uniform section. Iggles, Birds, etc. Brookover's cited piece references them as The Birds in his headline. JesseRafe (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2017

While Drew Pearson's pick announcement at the NFL Draft was fun, and some may say he owned us Eagles fans, he isn't really the franchise owner. ;) That would still be Jeffrey Lurie. Paxnos (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Paxnos (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paxnos: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph9000 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Paxnos: Done: On a second look, I noticed that there had been significant disruptive editing recently, which had changed the name. I have now reverted that particular change, based on http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/team/staff/jeffrey-lurie/c9d921e5-8789-40b0-b25d-ef17ef37e967, so Jeffrey Lurie is now listed as owner. Thanks for pointing out the factual error. Murph9000 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not like how this article just went on about the Eagles' whole history to the present. Give the readers a broad overview because most of them don't care what happened in one game in 1967. It needs to be more condescend for the common reader. Swals2 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Philadelphia Eagles. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First Super Bowl championship

The Eagles had won their 7th Super Bowl championship. https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/Philadelphia-Eagles-New-England-Patriots-Super-Bowl-LII-472600323.html --Sd-100 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Please note that this is the Eagles 4th NFL title overall. They won the NFL title during the pre-Super Bowl era in 1948, 1949, and 1960. Some people still have the misconception that the NFL started in 1966, not 1920, and that the Eagles's first season was also in 1966 instead of 1933. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2018

Under the Other section of Franchise records, the record holder of Total TDs for a rookie in a single game should be changed to Corey Clement, who had 3 on November 5th, 2017 Source: http://www.espn.com/nfl/recap?gameId=400951760 E Creator (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: Added per ESPN reference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit for owner

Under "Personnel", owner should just be Jeffrey Lurie and not include Christina Lurie. This request is being made on behalf of the team itself.

Thank you Cara Cjjphila (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

General Manager

There is technically no the GM. 2001:1970:4F66:5900:E941:410B:1AB7:3B10 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it. Added de facto to his postion. (RavenLord64 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

...to hand Dallas their first of two playoff wins since December 1996.

The Cowboys won their third playoff game since '96 earlier in 2019. 2600:1011:B124:118D:C1B7:FD9A:EE64:D15A (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 09:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Rivalries

There are like 87 billion different things about rivalries. Since there is a whole section about it, should the big part on it in the main part of the article be deleted? Twooeight (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

History section headers

The section headers that Thealfredprice keeps adding under History, in my opinion, are awful. Not neutral, editorialized, and unencyclopedic. There is absolutely no need to give section headers further "meaning" (as Thealfredprice says) than what they already mean. This isn't an article only meant to be read by Eagles fans, or even football fans for that matter, and shouldn't read like a love letter to a sports team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Eagles 24/7 you have made valid points to the subject. To say they are "awful" is dismissing the attempt to create a historic tone for the page. I will address each section and maybe we can somehow take this to another platform and let fans decide what we should do. I'm not trying to make this a battle. You are absolutely correct that they are not encyclopedic, but maybe we can come to a compromise. I also see that during these eras we should attribute something else besides the head coach.

1_1 Seems we agree 1_2 We also agree 1_3 Glory Days seems appropriate to me. If we are going to highlight coaches then why not Greasy Neale? 1_4 Okay I get Boo Birds is probably the worst. But there should be a title. 1_5 Dick Vermeil comes to town. Could be better. But summarizes that era. He was a total outsider to the team and NFL 1_6 Buddy Ryan and the Gang Green defense. He brought us some of the best defenses in NFL history. White, Brown, Allen, Simmons, Hopkins, Joyner, etc 1_6 New owner and a new look. This is a huge moment in the team's history. Lurie buying the team and committing to a complete overhaul of the franchise. 1_7 Tough call here. Kotite was a failure and Rhodes had so much promise at first. 1_8 So much more than Andy Reid. 1_9 Here is my opinion on this. Chip Kelly does not deserve to have a headlining title in the history. My opinion but I just feel he did more damage than good. 1_10 This is still ongoing. A better title could be in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealfredprice (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, this isn't up to "fans" to vote on, this is an encyclopedia, it's for everyone to read. History does not have opinion or emotion in its tone, which these headings do not follow. These headers don't need titles outside of years and/or coaches, people are here to read facts not editorials. "Glory Days" can be replaced with "Greasy Neale era". "Boo Birds" can be replaced with years and coaches. "Dick Vermeil era" with years works. I thought Gang Green was the Jets? Let's call it the Buddy Ryan era. I'm not interested in discussing which coaches were "failures" in your opinion, because it doesn't matter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Eagles 24/7 The page was a mess before I made an attempt to fix it and bring more organization to the history. Take a look at other sports teams pages and you will see my point. New York Yankees Philadelphia Phillies Philadelphia Flyers San Francisco 49ers Green Bay Packers

Just a note to say that the section headings remain a source of potential improvement. In terms of a storied sports franchise like this one, one-year periods are not eras in almost any sense of the word. The worst section headings introduce non-neutral assertions, but this system (listing a different era for every head coach) is a close second. Surely we can think of neutral ways to break up the history that don’t involve listing everything by coach. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

I have more facts 96.237.191.57 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 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. aboideautalk 17:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Page photos and images

A few times over the past year or more, I have returned to this page to standardize the photo and imaging positioning, which continues to be changed periodically in hugely odd ways with formats inconsistent with WP: Image use. Past edits changed the photos from upright to varying px levels and moved them right into the middle of text. I've fixed them again, but: 1.) Upright imaging should be used, and not--as was the case--these odd and varying pixel levels; 2.) Unless there is strong reason not to, photos should be placed at the top of sections under headings and never buried--as they also were--in the middle of text. The placement technology resolves their positioning in the respective sections in accordance with the order in which they were placed; 3.) There is rarely a reason for the photo sizing to vary throughout the article. They are all now standardized and should not be variously expanded or diminished in size; and 4.) There rarely is reason to place photos anywhere but to the right column. Placing them to the left or elsewhere--as past edits also did--only obstructs the text. Not sure if these edits represented vandalism or more innocent naivety, but they are now fixed and the current (and any future photos) should follow these basic guidelines. Keystone18 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternate uniform

The alternate helmet is now black. https://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/eagles-unveil-black-helmet-2022-season 68.98.8.216 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Updated :) QuaintCable (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philadelphia_Eagles/Archive_1&oldid=1213170164"