Talk:Green Bay Packers/Archive 1

Never worn throwback jerseys at home?

"The team ... has yet to wear throwback uniforms at home games..."

Not true! They definitely wore some ghastly blue uniforms for three games in 1994, during the NFL's 75th anniversary season. This statement in the article is either wrong, or at least confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Green Bay FC???

Who is "Green Bay FC"? I've followed the Pack closely all my life, and have never heard that as a "nickname". I have heard of "FC Green Bay"--but that's a youth soccer organization in the area that, to my knowledge, is completely unrelated to the Packers. This nickname really should be either explained or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Abrams & George Whitney Calhoun

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

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

Founding: 1922 Scandal

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

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

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

championships correct?

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

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

Unique? No - Original.. Yes

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

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

Comment from 6/9/2004

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

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

The Boston Celtics are owned by Wycliffe Grousbeck. The Florida Panthers are owned by Alan Cohen. The Cleveland Indians are owned by Larry Dolan. While some teams have been publicly owned in the past, the Packers are the only major professional sports team that is now publicly owned. - Sperril 08:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And Manchester United. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Manchester United is owned by Malcolm Glazer. He also owns the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Sperril 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We should make clear what exactly "publicly owned" means. Any company trading on the stock exchange could be considered publicly owned, as opposed to a private company or partnership. - Matthew238 06:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You get no argument from me on that point. Sperril 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

cannot sell shares

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

I believe there is some sort of rule that no one individual can own more than 10%, insuring that the people of Green Bay own the Packers.

Shareholder information can be found here http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.122.48 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

• Cannot be resold? This is not exactly true. Private sales of Packer stock occur all the time, often for much more than the face value of the stock itself. If you look in the Green Bay Gazette or other newpaper classified sections, occassionally there are ads for shares. More often these transactions take place out of the limelight with those hurting for cash selling them to acquaintences or other family members. The most common way shares are acquired is through gifts to newborn children or as probate settlements - the same as season ticket rights. Packer shares are very highly treasured and people will keep them even if they are starving and homeless. Since all transfers have to be registered in case of a loss of the certificate or theft, the Packers organization would have the exact figures on how many change hands each year. i4 22:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvement drive

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

Why buy shares?

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

Perhaps they wanted to help contribute to the team financially; perhaps pride; perhaps bragging rights among one's peers; many reasons... mtz206 15:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak for my own personal experience, but that's a pretty good summary. --Chancemichaels 13:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

What about Packer Pride? --Sk8ski 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's first on mtz206's list. --Chancemichaels 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Owning shares is mainly an issue of pride and contribution to the team. It is true shareholders can take action to direct the team, like any corporation. Besides voting for the Board there is the possibility of moving for bylaws. There was a movement to save the stadium in the late 90's when the Board was contemplating destroying it. At least one shareholder threatened to take action. Lambeau Field was restored and saved. The stockholders probably could force sale of the team but this will never happen. If it did the proceeds would all go to charity. Most fans feel as if they are shareholders in spirit, which they are. It is truly a community owned team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggetzin (talk • contribs)

I'm not aware of any desire to "destroy" the stadium, or that it was "saved" by shareholder action. They needed to raise money for renovations, and issued more shares to accomplish that. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Ggetzin 02:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Season results incorrect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but the Bears article has season-by-season on another page and that article is a featured article...having the season-by-season for storied and historically old team like the Packers would make the article have one big table in the middle of the article discouraging readers by the large break so please don't add it. --Happyman22 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really long, I don't think it should be in the main article. The Packers have many more years than the Patriots and it should merit its own article. Shouldn't this be discussed before you make the article longer than the suggested limit? How about cleaning up the history section first, and summarizing it and add to the History of the Green Bay Packers so there's possibly room for the long table?++aviper2k7++ 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Article/players lists too long

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

• Here's a suggestion: I highly recommend that someone split up this article so that is organized similar to either Arsenal F.C. or New England Patriots, two articles that were split up so they could achieve featured article status. In fact, it seems that someone was attempting to split it up before, by creating Template:Green Bay Packers (which is similar to Template:Arsenal F.C.) — but as you can see, there are a lot of red links. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have anything insightful to say other than I agree. The page is way too long. Kevin82485 (Talk) March 29,2006

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

Schedule

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

As long as nobody does what was discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 New England Patriots Schedule: Somebody devoted an entire article to just the Patriots' 2005 16-game regular season schedule. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You should also be prepared that other users might remove such a schedule on this article under Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. If you ever read Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results, you would know that there is still a continued controversy among editors as to whether reports of non-championship sporting event results should be the subject of Wikipedia articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• As someone who references Wiki for articles I write each week on football for a Packer fan club web site, I use the seasonal record information quite a bit, but rarely do I look for anything about individual games in a season for any team unless the particular game was of note, such as the one nobody wanted to win between the Colts and Chiefs in the 1995-1996 AFC Divisional round. 5 missed FGs by K.C. and a few by Indy as well? Gotta be the worst game in history to have watched and I did an article mentioning it. I would argue FOR the inclusion of season records but against the inclusion of individual game listings for any season but the current and one year past. People do occassionally look up last year's individual games for talking points. i4 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Time Warner

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

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

Still Missing

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

Andrew Szanton, 4/06

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

Failed GA

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

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

Removed useless disambig

I removed the following from the top of the article:

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

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

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

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

Uniform History

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

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

Split players?

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

PackerForum.com

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

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

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

Joe Hoeffel and Willard Ryan

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

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

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

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

Active NFL record?

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

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

Failed GA 2nd

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

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

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

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

POV

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

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

The statement is POV and the section needs rewording, but every year the Packers are among the top five teams popularity-wise, often at number one and number two. This year before the 2006 season they ranked #4 for popularity. In 2005 they ranked #1. In 2004 they ranked #1. In 2002 they tied for #1. In 2002 they ranked #1. Their popularity is consistently ranked one of the top teams. I'll reword the section later.++aviper2k7++ 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that they're a big fan base, I was talking about them being called the best. Sorry for the confusion. --Bears54 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Oh very well,

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

Stock

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

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

Images

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

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

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

I just got confirmation from Mecu that he will upload a low-res image later today - see my talk page. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The logo Image:GreenBayPackers_100.png is a duplicate of Image:GreenBayPackers_1000.png. Since the first one is the original one, is a small more free one, and is already being used on numerous articles, I think the second one should not be used and be deleted.

As for Image:GreenBayPackers_1001.png, it is not mentioned on the official Packers website. Sportslogo.com is the only place where I could find the article referencing the logo. So I removed it and referenced it. Please see this page. "1961-present: First and only helmet logo in team history, designed for Lombardi by equipment manager Dad Braisher and first applied to Packers headgear in 1961. After introducing the G, the team immediately won two world titles (1961-62), and five over the mark's first seven years. Borrowed by scores of schools, college and high school."++aviper2k7++ 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify this again. If you use the larger Image:GreenBayPackers_1000.png image, the first one will get deleted. This isn't right, as the first image is the one that is used in all the season articles and the one that is smaller and more free. It makes no sense to have two, and it makes no sense to keep the bigger one when the small one works fine.++aviper2k7++ 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Jim Irwin

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

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

Jersey number error

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

Neutrality

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

• When speaking of the NFL, the word "Legend" is applied quite often and never more so than to the mystique of playing in Lambeau Stadium and for the Packers organization. 90% and more of the selling of the NFL revolves around the use of the term due to it's 87 year history and the continual reference to past records. Interviews with opposing players often contain their sentiments expressing that exact word about how they feel when they step out into the stadium and when they get to play a game there. Is there ANY person in the NFL regarded as MORE of a "Legend" than the coach nicknamed "St. Vince"? They named the SuperBowl trophy after the guy for heaven's sake, it doesn't get any more "Legendary" than that. Dominant? At times, the Packers HAVE been "dominant". Remember, nobody in football has won a three-peat EXCEPT the Packers, and they have done it twice. The 1995 - 2001 years of the Favre era is certainly as close to a dominant one as you can get in the salary cap era - nearly equaling the Elway, Young, or Aikman years during that period. The Chicago Bulls, New York Yankees, Atlanta Braves, Pittsburgh Steelers, Dallas Cowboys, and San Francisco 49ers are about the only teams in professional sports that have had the sort of spectacular success that Green Bay has had in the modern era, (whatever THAT is), where they were at the top of their league for a decade or so. Yes, the NFL manufactures a lot of it's own hype and perhaps football isn't even close to the kind of thing the word "historical" should measure - like the Constitution or the Magna Carta - but it's relevent to the sport, anyway. I AM a Packer fan and I'm sure it rubs Bear and Viking fans, especially, the wrong way when they hear it spoken about the Packers, since the Bears are equally rich in history and "legends". Just my 2¢ worth. i4 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions notwithstanding, any use of POV superlatives such as "legendary" or "dominant" must be cited within some original context. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• What "original" sourcing would you like? I need but google the words Green Bay Packers & dominant team to get anywhere from 537 to 235,000 returns. Do the official NFL and Wisconsin history.org count as "original"? How many books, original articles, web sites, and/or documentary histories will it take before we clear the bar for "original"? Methinks someone is a Packer hater here. Just because I am a fan doesn't mean I cannot speak on the record with some objectivity as to the neutrality of the term being applied. I don't particularly like da' bearz, but I openly admit to their having as much history and "legend" as the Packers, their "dominance" for any period in the modern era is just not as long and pronounced as some others - including the Packers. Being a fan doesn't make me crazy, I still retain at least a 1% control of my mind, even during a winning game. LMAO The original statement against the use of the terms was voiced by a user with the ID of Pats1, which sounds like someone who is a fan of the Patriots, perhaps, and would like to see the current New England team being thought of as dominant and legendary, but they aren't - yet. The cheating scandal tosses some darkness on their current success and the length of the Patriot's history is short indeed compared to original franchises like the Packers, Bears , Eagles, Browns, and Giants. Of course the user's REAL name could be Pat for all I know, but it's certainly something to consider. i4 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your fellow editors, lest it cloud your own judgment. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Cheerleaders

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

The Packers have cheerleaders, just not PROFESSIONAL ones since 1998. The Packer cheerleaders are taken from the local community, St. Norbert's College in De Pere & The U of WI-Green Bay. I doubt anyone is traveling half way across the country to try out, ala the Dallas Cowgirls or the Oakland Raiderettes either. Nor are you likely to see any videos or calanders of them either, they aren't what you would call "poster" material for the most part. (That hurt to say, but I gotta be honest.) i4 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not "taken from the local community" - they are the cheering squads from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay or St. Norbert College. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't get much more "local" than the UW-Green Bay or St. Norbert's, De Pere being 2 mi. south of Green Bay. i4 01:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume the students on these squads are citizens of the local community. Your original content makes it sound as if they roam the streets & shopping malls looking for local residents to be the cheerleaders. That is not the case. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem with the Packers, and my opinions, ZimZalaBim? Don't try and pass this off as some concern for neutrality, you are obviously biased, perhaps as much as I am in favor of the Packers even. Why would anyone assume the girls on the squad AREN'T local citizens? I happen to live here in Wisconsin and know for a fact almost all of them ARE from the Green Bay area. When visiting the Packer Hall of Fame, they state it as being so in their various exhibits. I don't claim ultimate authority, just ask that people use some common sense here. Green Bay isn't Madison, or New York City. They don't have people matriculating into St. Norbert's or UW-Green Bay for the prestiege of getting a diploma from those institutions, they are just local community colleges. Some quick facts - UW-GB Some quick facts - SNC In any event, if someone attends either college, how likely are they to live a great distance from Green Bay AND commute to cheerleader practice? They attend the colleges for several years, they are LOCAL residents while doing so. What's so difficult to grasp about that? Oh, I know, you ASSUMED I meant they were born, grew up and became cheerleaders without ever leaving hometown WI. That makes a far bigger leap than my assumption of them being local ever would have - in the absence of prior knowledge that they ARE largely homegrown and lived there most of their lives. Administrator or not, you are just another opinion on this page. I didn't add anything to the main article, I expressed an opinion on the DISCUSSION page, nothing more. Isn't that what we do here? i4 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - I've probably been a Packer fan longer than you've been alive. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Claims of superior knowledge are a logical fallacy. I am 53 and have clear and distinct memories of such "Legendary" games as the "Ice Bowl", the first 2 NCL/AFL Championships, and many Thanksgiving Day Detroit / Packer games on live B&W TV. I think I have been around long enough to judge who is qualified as "Legendary" or not, but I do NOT claim ultimate wisdom, POV being what it is. I accept your claim of "good faith". (Did I mention I have had many a conversation about those games with former Packers Thurston, Nitschke, and McGee - as well as Wood, Starr, Gregg, and several other visiting players, as my wife worked in 2 of their restaurants for several years?) i4 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Pop Culture

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

Packers and Milwaukee games

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

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

Edit request

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

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

numerous templates at bottom of page

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Don Hutson.jpg

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

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

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

Hall of Fame numbers aren't right

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

1959 - 1967 Running Backs

Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor were running backs. Not Carroll Dale. He was a wide receiver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.10 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Public Company Section

Under the Public Company section, does anyone know of the original source for all that information? I'm looking for the original source because I am doing some research on community owned sports teams. Specifically, is there a source for the "Articles of Incorporation" that the section lists?Gronkmeister 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[7][8][9] Are a few good sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers champion teams

Carrol Dale was a wide receiver,not a running back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.58.238 (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add playoff appearances!

The article is locked so I can't do this myself. The Packers have gone to the playoffs 24 times, the following years...

1936, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1944, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1972, 1982, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.60.40 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs a lot more citations. It has very similar content to the Bears page, but the Bears page is a featured article because it has 3 times as many citations! A LOT of this needs to be officially verified. I do not have any books or anything here where I would be able to cite much, but someone who does have this can do so. Splent (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Roster

As of 5 minutes ago, there are no nonexistant player pages on the roster.--Brandongilbert (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

why greenbay is called the packers..

i would love to know exactly what packers really mean.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.241.23 (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is there in the article: "The Green Bay Packers were founded on August 14, 1919 by former high-school football rivals Earl "Curly" Lambeau and George Whitney Calhoun. Lambeau solicited funds for uniforms from his employer, the Indian Packing Company. He was given $500 for uniforms and equipment, on the condition that the team be named for its sponsor." (emphasis added) Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Playoff apperance needs to be changed

The Packers have made the playoff's in the 2009 season as a wildcard, and needs to be shown on the home page where it is not shown there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balooza (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Playoff apperance needs to be changed

The Packers have made the playoff's in the 2009 season as a wildcard, and needs to be shown on the home page where it is not shown there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balooza (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Packers article locked perpetually?

The Packers article has been locked for as long as I can remember. Why exaclty does it remain locked forever.I don't see that with any other NFL team page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.209 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As I type . . .

As I type, the Packers are playing, and, apparently, they fired Mason Crosby for poor performance against Carolina, and, now, they have a new punter. Uzumaki Dude (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Mason Crosby is a kicker not a punter and he was not fired u dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatriderboy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the non-profit sentence.

It made no sense for that to be the topic sentence of a paragraph discussing their losing/winning streaks. The sentence made more sense in the paragraph describing their history as an organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfrequed (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Acme Packers

This article could mention how the Packers were the Acme Packers for one season, which is where they got the name Packers. Also, it could mention how the uniform colors used to be blue and gold/yellow. These things were talked about at Lambeau Filed when I visited there.Kramer14 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Kramer14

Except they weren't ever officially the "Acme Packers." They wore the team sponsor name across their chests, but the club's name never changed. The Packers' site used to make this very clear, but they deleted most of their history with the recent re-design. The site still has this text (emphasis mine):

First (Lambeau and Calhoun) talked Lambeau's employer -- a war-time industry called the Indian Packing Company, where he worked as a shipping clerk for $250/month -- into putting up money for jerseys.

Because the company provided jerseys and permitted the use of its athletic field for practice, the club was identified in its early publicity as a project of the company. With this tie-in, the name "Packers" was a natural, and Packers they have been ever since, although the Indian Packing Company had practically faded out of the picture before that first season was half over.

The team has officially been the "Packers" since 1919. If "Acme Packers" was ever used to describe the team (and not the sponsor), it was an unofficial nickname. SixFourThree (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Inaccurate Data

It says the packers have won 12 championships but have really won 14 when counted, 11 nfl championships and 3 superbowls.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.213.53 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article basically separates the NFL Championship with the Super Bowl, as it probably should as the two aren't the same thing. In the intro it already specifies that they won 12 NFL championships and three super bowls; I don't think that we should combine the two, so I'm not sure that any changes need to be made. AlexiusHoratius 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Packers themselves say they have won 12 Championships. I agree that no change is necessary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, its 12 because in 1966 and 1967 when they won NFL champiosip, the NFL champions went against AFL chanpions for super bowl. so you can't count them winning NFL chanmpionship in 1966 and 1967 and also the super bowl in those years as 2 different things. Gman124 ^talk 15:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the difference between World Championships and NFL Championships. For most of the League's history the two have been synonymous, as the NFL represented the highest competition of the sport. But the first few Super Bowls, played during the brief period after the NFL and AFL agreed to a merger but before it was official, were between the NFL and AFL champs to determine the World Champions. So a team like the 1969 Vikings could be NFL Champions but not World Champions, or the 1966 Packers could be both. Before 1966 and after 1969, "NFL Champion" means World Champion. The Packers list their titles as World Championships. SixFourThree (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Edit request from Notacynic, 17 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The listing of the Packers' Super Bowl championship seasons is inconsistent. The first two it lists as Super Bowl I and II (correct) with the years 1967 and 1968 (technically correct as the games were played in January of those years). However for their third Super Bowl championship Super Bowl XXXI is cited (correct) with the year 1996. While Super Bowl XXXI was the championship game for the 1996 season the game was actually played on January 26th, 1997. To remain consistent with the listing of the first two Super Bowls it should say 1997. Notacynic (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Notacynic (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked the other NFL teams, and they're all done that way. I've posted a request to look at this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Glsonn, 29 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The following text under the subhead 2010 refers to Johnny Jolly... He is suspened for the entire season.

The spelling should be corrected this way... He is suspended for the entire season.

Glsonn (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. CTJF83 chat 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

typo correction request

Under ==Nickname, logo, and uniforms== This line: "the Packers have only done so only twice,"

Should read: "the Packers have only done so twice," OR "the Packers have done so only twice,"

Also, what about a citation for this fact?

Scotttroyer (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.197.163.163, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Can someone add that the "G" on Green Bay's helmets stands for GREATNESS? I don't see this explained anywhere, and I assume most people think it stands for Green Bay. Thanks. 67.197.163.163 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have any sources to prove that? Baseball Watcher 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The "source" is an interview with Tiki Barber and is not reliable for this change. -Atmoz (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a story on packers.com which stated that the G is indeed for "Greatness". But a site redo resulted in that page and others on the site to no longer be available. So the search continues for internet-available proof--although the Barber interview gained enough visibility that I wouldn't doubt the team would comment on it on their site sometime...

ANOTHER point, in another section of the article, "Today "Green Bay Packers" is the oldest team-name still in use in the NFL". The Cardinals have been the Cardinals since 1901, when they changed their name from the "Normals". They have moved cities, but their team-name has been the Cardinals since 1901, meaning they beat the Packers by a few years. While yes, they cover themselves with a bit of "legaleze" by saying it the oldest name AND location in the NFL, which while accurate makes the overall statement misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.21 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The team name is the "Arizona Cardinals", not just the "Cardinals". And therefore, the team name is relatively new.

Edit request from Gbraisherfan, 5 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The gentleman who designed the Packers "G" logo was named Gerald Braisher, nicknamed Dad. His name was not George. He was my great, great uncle. He designed the logo, and then Georgia copied it, not vice versa. See the link: http://www.packers.com/fan-zone/faq.html#historical

Gbraisherfan (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Baseball Watcher 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Carrieandy112996, 5 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the "logo" section of the article on the Green Bay Packers, the logo "G" was created by GERALD "Dad" Braisher and not George "Dad" Braisher. Gerald Braisher was my great, great uncle, and the equipment manager for the Green Bay Packers for 20 years. He retired from the Green Bay packers in 1976 and prior to his death in 1982 he resided at the Union Hotel at 200 Broadway in DePere, WI, 54115. He is buried in Janesville, WI. The Milwaukee Sentinel from Friday, July 2nd 1982, the front cover of the sports section is an article of his life's highlights after his death on July 1st. This article lists his given name, Gerald, as well as verifies his 20 year career with the Green Bay Packers. This error likely stems from an article from October 30, 1975 in Ray Nitschke's Packer report, where he is on the cover and wrongly named as George. I assume the error occured because almost everyone called him "Dad" and not by his given name, Gerald.

Carrieandy112996 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Baseball Watcher 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mis-correlation in Listed Super Bowl Wins

More precisely between Green Bay Packers Super Bowl Champions as listed in the side column (stated to be one) and the three victories listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions Side column needs to be made more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.150.211 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl Dates - Sidebar vs 1st Paragraph of Article

I didn't make this change myself, because it probably warrants discussion, but the dates listed for GB's Super Bowl wins in the sidebar say 1966, 1967, 1996, 2010. I'm ok with this because those reference the season years. However, the main article says they've won in 1967, 1968, 1996, and 2010. It's half and half. SO--are these dates supposed to be when the Super Bowl was played, or the season which was played prior? And if so, do we change the 1967 and 1968 in the main article to 1966 and 1967?

In either case, I think it's probably confusing to say that they "won" the Super Bowl in 1996 and 2010, when they actually didn't. The paragraph should be changed to mention that they won the Super Bowl following the 1996 and 2010 seasons.

Jayfr (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

typo correction request

Will Blackmon's name is misspelled in section re. 2009 season. Tfbrennan (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"g" would stand for "greatness".

There is no valid reference for this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.208.29 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reference... http://www.dinesh.com/history_of_logos/nfl_logos/green_bay_packers_logo_-_design_and_history.html Dreammaker182 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Which only repeats the information from this article. Word for word. So not a reliable source. SixFourThree (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

More like this article repeats that one word for word.Zoro 1234 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Read what the author of the article says in the comments at the bottom. He "got it from Wikipedia". The only source I can find for "G standing for Greatness" is Tiki Barber's interviews with the Packers players... I think Tiki is joking. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And now there's a new "source", where the author admits that it must be true, because a Google search verified Tiki's claims. Right. And those Google results lead? ...right back to this article, and the dozens of sites which routinely copy-and-paste from Wikipedia without attribution in an attempt to pad their content. Pathetic. SixFourThree (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

addd

pleassse add the super bowl xlv appearance were they —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.144.124 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 63.203.166.2, 8 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The following needs to be updated. Strike the 'which is still an NFL record' phrase. Go Pack!

"In Super Bowl XXXI Green Bay defeated the New England Patriots 35–21 to win their 12th world championship, which is still an NFL record."

63.203.166.2 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate statistic

Towards the bottom on the introduction:

"Beginning with the 1992 season, the Packers had 13 consecutive winning seasons (their worst record being 8–8 in 1999)"

For all you sports fans out there, an 8-8 season isn't a winning season. It takes, by my calculations, 9 wins to have a winning record. If an 8-8 season is to be called a winning season, then isn't it just as much a losing season? Perhaps its time to remove this inane sentence before anyone thinks too hard about this paradox, and their mind explodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.96.192 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just change it to non-losing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.68.211 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 Playoffs summary

"In the Divisional round, the Packers went on to defeat the #1 seeded and heavily favored Atlanta Falcons 48-21 to reach the NFC Championship Game..."

- This is inaccurate, heading into the Playoffs the Falcons were favored to win the NFC, not heavily favored but favored. Several experts picked the Packers for the game, and the general consensus was the game could go either way. Accuscore favored the Packers 52% of the time, and the 'lines' had the Falcons favored by less than 3 (the home team typically gets 2.5 points, to reflect the home field advantage). The Falcons were the #1 seed, there's no need to play them up even more than that, it makes the Packers seem like no one a acknowledged their ability, when most were saying they were the most dangerous playoff team. It also comes off as though the Falcons were seen as unbeatable.

It should be changed to: "In the Divisional round, the Packers went on to defeat the #1 seeded Atlanta Falcons 48-21 to reach the NFC Championship Game..."

Accuscore: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/packers-falcons

ESPN's Expert Picks: http://espn.go.com/nfl/picks/_/week/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.184.78 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Championships - "World" v. "NFL"

I'm going to revise this paragraph:

The Packers have 12 league championships, the most in the NFL, including three Super Bowls. The Packers are also the only team to win three straight NFL titles, which they did twice (1929–1931 and 1965–67). The run of 1965–1967 did not include the Super Bowls played after the 1966 and 1967 seasons when the AFL and NFL were still two separate leagues. For those four years, the Super Bowl winner generally used the title "World Champions."

That last claim is dubious. The Packers consider their twelve NFL championships to be "World Championships"[10], as has been common throughout history - NFL champs have been considered "World Champions"[11][12] or "world's professional champions"[13] going back to the early days of the League. "World Champions" was hardly created for the winner of the first four Super Bowls - instead, the NFL Championship was downgraded to just that and the Super Bowl took over from the NFL Championship Game as deciding the World Champs. For this section, I'm going to use World Champions with a link to the Packers' site, and remove that unsourced notion about use of the term. SixFourThree (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

The number of league championships lists 12, but is marked with the symbol † "Does not include the AFL or NFL Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championships prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger" I find this confusing and on other team articles, league championships with the same indication omit those prior to the 1970 merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.228.40.120 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the symbol † to those NFL championship games from 1966 to 1970 that are not supposed to be counted in the over all stat I think that is the solution every one is looking for, and by the way Packers has now 13 overall titles.85.220.36.6 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The symbol doesn't need to be repeated. Are you that unaware?Zoro 1234 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Its defenetly not clear enough lots of pepole have complained about this on various talk pages (including this one). I can however see what your problem is you are an AFL fan boy and that explains your bad attitude towards my edits. DoctorHver (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear. The symbol acknowledges the afl and nfl championships from that 4 year span. Personal attacks will get you nowhere.Zoro 1234 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers season ticket waiting list

It was estimated by the Milwaukee journal sentinel just before the Superbowl that if a person signed up today they would get the tickets an incredible 955 yearsItalic text from now!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.47.60 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.183.29.111, 19 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the opening paragraph it says the Green Bay Packers are currently the 2nd oldest franchise. The Green Bay Packers are the 3rd oldest franchise behind the Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals. I received this information through many reliable sources such as KGB and numerous NFL fact webpages.

24.183.29.111 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done:. That phrase is current tagged as "dubious/disputed", and is currently being discussed in the Third oldest team? Really? thread above. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1994 Throwback Uniforms

The article states in a couple places that the Packers have never worn throwbacks at home. That's not true - they wore their throwback blues at Lambeau Field in September of 1994 against Tampa Bay.[14] I'm going to remove the assertion. SixFourThree (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

head coach table near bottom

In the table of head coaching records, Mike Sherman has a regular season of 57-39, not 56-39. If the coach is after 1977, and doesn't include 1982, 1987, or fired mid-season, the total record needs to be divisible by 16.Toolkien (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving the Packers

This is a slightly picky point, but legitimate nonetheless, but a sentence in the article reads essentially that given the Packers ownership it is impossible to move them. That statement seems to be a bit of an over statement. No, it isn't "impossible" to move them, just highly unlikely. If shareholders voted for the team to move, it could move. I don't know why they would, and thus it is highly unlikely, but it's not as though it is actually impossible.Jdlund (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Roster edits

Someone removed James Jones from the Packers roster - this is a mistake, he was re-signed by the team to a 3-year contract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.138.187 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Shareholders and Obama

The page currently states that President Barack Obama is a "minority owner". He is just an owner of one share of Packers stock. Singling out President Obama as a "minority owner" is silly because no Packers shareholder can own a majority share per the company bylaws (source: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=61&f=1809&t=3602864 and here: http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html). He doesn't even own a sizable amount of Packers stock. It's just not notable enough to place in the owner section of the personnel column. A comment can be made that Barack Obama was given an honorary piece of stock when the 2010 team visited the White House under the "Public Company" section of the article, which would be more in line with the actual relevance of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenumber6 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing and probably vandalism. This has been reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Records

In the records section for all time Packers leaders the recieving needs to be changed from James Lofton to Donald Driver. Driver passed up Lofton in the game vs. Carolina this past weekend and now owns the record with 9,666 yards. His numbers will probably increase as the season goes, but as long as he is now named leader in reception yards it should be good. --LittleDuck17 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Super Bowl Wins

In the first section of the page, the Packer's Super Bowl wins are listed. However, it incorrectly lists 1997 as Super Bowl XXXI and as a Packer win. Later in the article this is contradicted (correctly) by listing 1996 Super Bowl XXXI and as a Packer win. Super Bowl XXXII (1997) was not a Packer win, although the Packers made it to the Super Bowl that year.

Thank you, 145.118.88.72 (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The years are correct in the article. Super Bowl XXXI was played in 1997, but was the championship game for the 1996 season. The years given in the first section are those in which the game was played, not the year that the football season began. In the NFL, the football season is named for the year in which it began, but the championship game is played in January or February of the following year. For example, the Packers are the reigning champions from the 2010 season, but the Super Bowl is correctly listed in the article intro as having occured in 2011. Sperril (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

Please change Super Bowl Championships in the Championships column on the right side to 4 because it is currently listed as though the Packers have only won 2. They won Super Bowl I, II, XXXI and XLV. 1966 (Super Bowl I), 1967 (Super Bowl II), 1996 (Super Bowl XXXI) and 2010 (Super Bowl XLV). See http://www.packers.com/history/super-bowls-and-championships.html

Kurtiswitz (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Super Bowls I and II were held before the 1970 AFL-NFL merger, and so these games are listed in the line directly above that says "AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championships". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit playoff appearances!

The Packers have reached the playoffs for 2011 by virtue of winning the NFC North. Their latest division title has been updated, but their playoff appearances have not been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.124.65 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maximum shares owned by an individual

The maximum number of shares an individual can own posted here is inaccurate (200). Per the Packers website it is 200,000. http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.27.52 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Redundant information in the Public Company section

Under the "Green Bay Packers Foundation" subsection, the following sentences are already stated a few paragraphs before: "In 1923, the Packers were incorporated in Wisconsin as a nonprofit corporation, with stipulations that if the Packers were sold, all assets would be transferred to the Sullivan-Wallen Post of the American Legion in order to build a "proper soldiers memorial." No shareholder can own more than 200 shares in the company." Is there any reason this information is duplicated in this subsection? Krohn211 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Updating December 2011 stock sale.

I have noticed that there is no information regarding how many shares of stock have been sold so far for the December 2011 stock sale. Some information regarding the current number of stocks sold can be found here, with some more current information on the stock sale here. I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if this the incorrect procedure or format in suggesting new material.Zunkk (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

2007 section

The packers did not win 10 of their first 11 games. They went 4-0 losing to Chicago in week 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligerman2004 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Packers did indeed start 4-0, then lost to Chicago to go 4-1, then went on to win the next 6 games... Of the 11 games they played to start the season, they won 10 of them. I think we can safely remove this comment from the Talk section. Krohn211 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

Please delete the sentence:«The Packers are the current NFL champions». V4aut (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate or Unclear Information

I removed the following sentence:

The Packers' 13 consecutive non-losing seasons was an active NFL record until the team finally suffered a losing campaign in 2005.

I did it because either it's wrong (the 49ers put together 16 consecutive non-losing seasons from '83-'98) or the distinction the editor is trying to make isn't clear thus leading to a misleading sentence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• THERE IS A PAINFULLY OBVIOUS inconsistency in the Green Bay Packers article. It says in the section on Curly founding the team that he received $500 for equipment and uniforms. In the Uniforms section, this number is $250. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.236.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

yeah which is it!? 24.63.12.51 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's $500 according to the 2011 Packers Media Guide. The correction has been made. DrBear (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)