Talk:Philadelphia Eagles

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 [1] while Glen MacNow and Anthony Gargano claimed that it was an urban legend started by [2] 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.--2008Olympian^chitchat 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 [3]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

he is wearing number 34 now. Meatsgains (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)