Talk:Chicago Bears

Why

WHY CANT I EDIT THE PAGE

Because it is semi-protected, due do vandalism, this means new and unregistered users can't edit the article. John Reaves (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear head ... 1999?

The article states that the orange bear head was introduced in 1999. Surely that can't possibly be right? I remember seeing the bear head logo growing up.

Anyone know more about the history of the bear head logo?

It refers to this one, [1]. Before that, they used this one, [2]. See SportsLogos.net for more info --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

>>I'm sitting here coincidentally wearing a Chicago Bears sweater that has the orange bear head logo (no.1 of the ones you linked to, not no.2) that I got when I went to Chicago in March 1997 (I'm English and it's the only time I've ever been to the States, so I can be certain of the date!). So I have to agree with the first poster here, they were definitely using the logo before 1999! 84.64.229.91 22:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No they weren’t the pre 1999 logo looked like the current Bear logo but the current one was retouched. --72.146.210.253 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Coaches W-L Records

Do those include playoffs? At this point, for Smith in particular, I am assuming the answer is "yes" to this question. KyuuA4 08:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2018?

When talking about the teams logo the article says, "The team kept this until 2018, when the Bears trademark 'C' logo was first introduced by the team." This can't be right - could someone please change it. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure which year they really did change their logo. Master Strike 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone changed it back because I don't see it. --Happyman22 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with images

A review of the use of images in all Featured Articles is currently ongoing. A few issues have been brought up in regards to this article. Please see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey#Sport and games for a description of the issues. Feel free to address the issues and leave a comment on the survey page. Any questions to me personally can be left on my talk page. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured

Great to see this article featured on the main page today! Would've been better if they won the super bowl last month, but I guess there's always next year,... ;-) Dr. Cash 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

semi protect

let's just protect it since it's on today featured article and there are so many vandalisms Rockvee 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it like, an unwritten rule that the FA of the day stays unprotected? Potential Wikipedians should be given the impression of openness. It would be awfull hypocritical to say "you can edit this", and then have (what will probably be) the first link they click on be semiprotected. --Hojimachong^talk 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a written rule. ~ UBeR 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I never knew that :O. Interesting stuff, I just assumed it, since the FA is never protected. --Hojimachong^talk 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Depth Chart

Does anyone have a link the verifies the content of the team's depth chart? The Bears official website states that the Thomas Jones is still the team's first string running back, while we all know that he left to play for the Jets. Additionally, the depth chart fails to include players like Garrett Wolfe and David Ball. I think the depth chart belongs on the 2007 Chicago Bears article - since its current incarnation looks kind of crude - even though Wikipedia is not about aesthetics --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The depth chart format has been updated. Various members, including myself, are going through and updating depth charts like the neglected Bears one, and both updating their format and maintaining them. Pats1 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, I'm moving it to the 2007 page, I think it seems like it belongs there. It seems more important to add the players and coaches, before breaking down into a speculative template about how the team organizes their players. thanks for updating it though, the older incarnation was hard to look at :-p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All NFL pages have the depth charts on the main page as well as (in most cases) on the specific season pages. Pats1 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Radio/Local TV

Who does this for Da Bears? WAVY 10 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

TV varies - Most noon/afternoon games during the season will presented on FOX or CBS, while prime time games were either presented on NBC. Monday night games will be presented by ESPN (ABC for local market), while Thursday night games will be broadcasted on the NFL Network. All games will be on 780 AM. [3] Also take note that the Bears will play 5thier games at 3:15 CST, 6 at Noon, 3 at 7 on Sunday, and 2 games at 7 during the the weekday. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Should have clarified...Local TV and who calls the games. WAVY 10 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Networks or announcers? I already said the local networks above (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChicagoBears 1000.png

Image:ChicagoBears 1000.png 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 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Arizona Cardinals franchise actually the oldest? Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChicagoBears 1000.png

Image:ChicagoBears 1000.png 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 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Word packers should be linked to the packers page when citing their fierce rivalry. It's cited in the opposite way on the packers page. As a packers fan I think it would only be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.81.113.60 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Packers is already linked earlier in the same sections that ironically mentions the Packers have won more championships than the Bears. It would be redundant to link it twice. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1946Bears.jpg

Image:1946Bears.jpg 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) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1919

The Chicago Bears state that the team was founded in 1920[4], as do the NFL[5], and the Pro Football Hall of Fame[6] If we're going to say that these three authorities are wrong, it ought to be fully substantiated. As it is, there's no citation to support the assertion at all. I'm going to tag it for now - can anybody provide vertifiable, authoritative documentation to support the contention? SixFourThree (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Halas By Halas, by George Halas, Gwen Morgan,& Arthur Veysey, McGraw Hill, 1979 p.53-54 "In March of 1920 a man telephoned me at the railroad office...George Chamberlain and he was general superintendent of the A.E. Staley Company...Three years earlier the company's Fellowship Club had formed a baseball team...In 1919 the Fellowship Club had formed a football team. It had done well against other local teams but Mr. Staley wanted to build it into a team that could compete successfully with the best semi-professional and industrial teams in the country....Mr Chamberlain asked if I would like to come to Decature and work for the Staley Company..."

Revmoran (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for this belated response, but I finally added the quote to the article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Forgotten Down?

Were the Bears one of the teams involved in the game somewhere around 1970 or so that I heard referred to as "The Game of the Forgotten Down"? There was a defensive pass interference penalty called very late in the game, the ball was called back, but the officials did not reset the down counter. As I recall nobody noticed until the game was over. Anyone have any details? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

first Franchise to win 700 games

per Bears are 702-515-42. First franchise to win 700 games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.214.36 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs some rewriting?

"By 1933 the Bears donned all-orange jerseys with navy numbers and matching black helmets."

How does black match blue or orange? WHPratt (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I had a quick look at this article, in relation to another team's. I noticed a few things that are needed to bring this up to modern day FA standards:

• Alt text is needed for the images.
• A lot of the external links are dead, or do not contain the content they once did. here is a summary of the problems.
• There is a lot of overlap between the head coaches section and the list it links to. Perhaps it would make more sense to cover the topic as prose here, and let the list focus on the statistical side of it?
• Even ignoring the deadlinks, significant sections of the article are completely unreferenced. Several paragraphs in the history, uniforms and popular culture sections are unreferenced, as are the retired jerseys.
• Prose quality isn't my strength, but sentences such as "Over the years, many Bears play-by-play broadcasters have included Jack Brickhouse and Wayne Larrivee." lead me to think that this could do with a copy-edit.

I hope those obervations help, and that we can keep this as a Featured Article. I'll be happy to help out with the alt text and drafting new prose sides of things, if someone in the know is willing to work on the referencing. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NFL championships & retired jerseys

While Super Bowls I-IV were not NFL championships, all superbowls since have been. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede the point about the jerseys, not because I'm wrong--even a child could see the the placement of that statement about the most jerseys retired constituted a piece of the litany of greatness--but because it's not worth fighting over. But I am insistent on saying that they have nine NFL championships, because that's the fact, Jack. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Per List of NFL champions, the Super Bowl is not considered an NFL championship; it's a Super Bowl. The previous wording was neutral in that it stated the Bears have 9 championships, 8 being NFL championships and one being the Super Bowl. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

• The FIRST sentence of Super Bowl reads: The Super Bowl is the championship game of the National Football League (NFL)
• If the Super Bowl is not the championship of the NFL, then what is? Are you implying that the #1 sports league in the United States lacks a championship? How disappointed 300 million people will be to learn that.

Look, if that's what Wikipedia's official policy is, then its absurd on its face, and needs to be changed. Won't the sports writers of the world make a laughingstock of us once they learn that the Super Bowl is not an NFL championship in WikiWorld. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is an NFL championship, but the pre-Super Bowl championships are just considered "NFL championships" since they were never given an official name like "Super Bowl." Wikipedia is not the only site to use this system, especially considering we don't make things like this up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, do me a favor. Imagine that you know nothing about football--you're just a European sports fan who wants to learn about football. Now read your sentence above:

The Super Bowl is an NFL championship, but the pre-Super Bowl championships are just considered "NFL championships" since they were never given an official name like "Super Bowl."''

Do you think that that makes any sense at all? I can't begin to get my head around that. You also say that Wikipedia is not unique in using this system. Could you point out to me where else this is being used? 98.82.190.226 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that a European sports fan can't understand a statement I made to you, you aren't a European sports fan. I will explain what I am saying to you, however. Before the Super Bowl came to be, there was an NFL championship every year that was just called the "NFL championship game." When the NFL and AFL merged, they had a championship game between the NFL champions and the AFL champions called the "Super Bowl." There was still an NFL championship game and an AFL championship game that year (1967), and the winners went against each other in the Super Bowl (Super Bowl I). http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/History/Chronology.pdf Go to 1960: "Philadelphia defeated Green Bay 17-13 in the NFL Championship Game, December 26." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, you are being patronizing. First of all, look at the first sentence of this section. It's quite easy to infer from that sentence that I clearly understand the history you just laid out for me. But more importantly, it does matter about how a European reads the sentence; we are writing for the world, not Eagles, Bears, or Broncos fans. And even I could not understand your sentence, despite the fact that I know the history (and am old enough to have personal memory of it). Your sentence was a tautology, and contributes nothing to clarifying your argument. Look, do you deny that the Bears have won a total of nine NFL championships? If not, then drop it. If so, then explain this: There was a significant change in how the NFL championship was determined in the early 1930s. Not just a name change, but a procedural change. In the early years of the NFL (forgive me if I'm being patronizing, but if you assume that I don't understand the NFL history of the 1960s, then there's nothing wrong with me assuming that you don't know the NFL history of the 1920s and 1930s), the NFL championship was simply based upon the regular season results--there were no playoff games. So do those NFL championships (three by the Packers, if memory serves) count or not? I know, I know, you say I'm missing the point, everyone recognizes that those were NFL championships and should count in the listing of championships, even though it was done differently back then. Well, Eagles, everyone today (except Wikipedia, according to you) recognizes that winning the Super Bowl is winning the NFL championship, and that such wins should count in the list of NFL championships. I assure you, the limited number of teams that have won both pre-merger NFL championships and post-merger NFL championships count both of them in their total. I'm guessing the NFL does as well. And so too should we. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are the only construing my words now. I provided a link that shows the National Football League recognizes that the NFL Championship Game (please click the link) that was played from 1933 to 1966 is not the same game as the Super Bowl. All of these championship games count, and that is not what we are discussing. The sentence you removed, which explains what the Bears' 9 championships are (all of them counting, of course), is the same as saying "I have nine siblings (8 brothers and one sister)." However, you are removing the parentheses, leaving "The Bears won 9 championships." Wouldn't it make much more sense to include the types of championship (and don't start up the Super Bowl/NFL championship debate again, because it is moot), to add detail to the sentence? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your siblings analogy was fatally flawed, yet nonetheless, clarifying for me. You say its the same as saying siblings and then breaking it down, but the question is: What term is analogous to "sibling"? Clearly, the all-encompassing term, since it exists both before and after the merger, is the NFL championship. The Packers, for example, were the NFL champions for the 1936 and 1966 and 1996 seasons, right?

Look, imagine a Venn Diagram. For your analogy, there is a set "brothers" and another set "sisters" both inside of a larger set "siblings". That works. But what about football? You want to have one set "NFL championships" and another set "Super Bowls", and place them all inside of "professional American football league championships". Well, that's an admirable attempt, but it's poor for several reasons. 1) there are other "professional American football leagues", but surely you don't want to put this in the same category, 2) there is the possiblity that, given the subject, having the phrase "American football league" could confuse the casual reader who might think this refers to the AFL, and 3), it's just awkwardly phrased (my opinion, obviously). So instead, I see it like this, which is how I've edited it on the page now. Inside the big bubble are ALL the NFL championships. There are two bubbles within--one for pre-merger championships and one for post-merger championships. The post merger championships are the Super Bowls, right? But the winner of these Super Bowls were also NFL champions, right? Now what about the pre-merger championships. You say, these were explicitly "NFL championships, and indeed, they were. But I (and pretty much everyone else on the planet) am asserting that both the pre- and post-merger championships were NFL championships. The problem here is lack of terminology, which you seek to cure through verbal torsion. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: [7]. Very good. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks good now. I didn't write the previous wording (the "professional American football league championships"), but I agree that it was bad wording. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative debate yields a better article. Ain't Wikipedia the greatest? 98.82.190.226 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

The entire "Criticisms" section is undue and, for the most part, only about certain players and not the team as a whole. Furthermore, the New Orleans Saints supposed "rivalry" is without merit. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)