Talk:New York Giants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Doused 2 New Jersey Giants 3 Hall of Famers 4 Improvement drive 5 History 6 Retired numbers 7 Pictures 8 Updated Roster 9 Logos and Uniforms 10 Team Lore 11 Best team evar 12 Current players fan club 13 Fight song 14 Cleanup 14.1 Disbelief 15 Giants fight song 16 A Ways to Go

[edit] Doused

This article needs of course the list of its coaches, standard fare for a sports page. Who was the coach that got doused? It wasn't Parcells, was it?--McDogm 00:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to add a list of head coaches, be my guest. And also feel free to create an article on the Gatorade Bath since it has not been created yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Gatorade Bath is an important part to our history and should be included in here somewhere. I would try to make it as short and sweet as possible. --NYGiantsNYMets91 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Giants

We should also have a section dedicated to a few people from New Jersey who call them the New Jersey Giants. They are a part of the fanbase, and it is part of the teams current history, the controversy that they play and operate in New Jersey, but yet still have New York in their name. --68.196.38.13 5 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

I am a New Jersey native and decades-long Giants fan. Except for some hub-bub in the late seventies after the current stadium opened, and the occasional grouse from a fellow fan, I have hardly heard any mention of a "controversy" over having the Giants refuse to take New Jersey as part of their name. Certainly no organized grass-roots activism. Al 15:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree - there should be mention to the fact that they are a New JERSEY team and not New York and SHOULD be called the New JERSEY Giants. Believe me, this issue is far from dead. This also goes for the Jets too. --JerseyDevil 07:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a NON-ISSUE. Always have been NEW YORK GIANTS, always will. And those NY on the helmets look great. brooklynboblives —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.192.21.41 (talk • contribs) .

It is inaccurate to call a team with headquarters and a playing stadium in NJ a NY team. Mention that they are called NY, but that they are a NJ-based team. This is an encyclopedic entry, not an emotional fanboy piece. SteelyDave 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Giants' offices are located in Manhattan. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's logical call a team that plays in New Jersey the New York Giants is immaterial, in my opinion, since their official team name is The New York Giants, and-to the best of my knowledge, this has never been a source of widespread controversy, except-as someone alluded to above-among some disgruntled New Jerseyans. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to this subject. Feel free to edit it, at New Jersey Giants. --Dr Seuss 91 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument. Many sports teams are based in a different city or state, but are known under the umbrella of whatever the big city or state they represent. Example; Dallas Cowboys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.202.8 (talk • contribs).

ok, only people who live in new jersey call this team the new jersey giants, the skyline of nyc is easily within view being only several miles away. if the team was required by nfl rules to name the team based on the exact place of its home stadium the giants would redily move back into ny, the largest tv market in the country, there is a reason the new jersey nets will soon be the brooklyn nets —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.214.238 (talk • contribs) 23:49, May 17, 2006.

I agree.... what's next, the Auburn Hills Pistons or the Landover Redskins? Everyone knows the larger market that the team is representing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.183.39 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Hall of Famers

Should Tom Landry really be in this list? Yes, I know he played for the team and was extraordinarily successful as a defensive coordinator, but he is enshrined primarily and is most known for being the head coach in Dallas. Mayhap Tom and Mr. Mara (co-owner) could be moved to a subcategory, since "Hall of Famers" is in the "Players of Note" section. Al 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Since Tom Landry's career as a player and a coach were with the Giants, I see no reason why he should be excluded. IF he had only coached for the Giants for maybe a few seasons, and nothing else, probably not. BUT, he spent 1949-1959 with the Giants, and certainly leaves a legacy there before moving on to Dallas.

[edit] Improvement drive

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

[edit] History

The history bit seems a little too detailed. The Fassel era section especially seems awfully long. And, are we really going to do a game-by-game update of the 2005 season? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. (That's what ESPN.com and its ilk are for.) Shouldn't the history just be the highlights (or lowlights) of the franchise? Al 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to also ask that question to the people editing New England Patriots and some of the other NFL team articles :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a lot of the work with both this article and the Patriots. What I have tried to do is not focus on individual games (unless they are milestone games, i.e. Pisarcik's game) but briefly summarize each season, what the highs and lows were, etc. As far as it being too detailed, I think it's better to start with that, and then pare it down from there. But I do definitely think the article is much better and useful to folks now, than when we started it. Just my 2 cents. --Seadog1611 04:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC):o)

[edit] Retired numbers

According to my official Giants calendar, the first number the Giants retired was Tuffy Leeman's #4 in 1940. (Which doesn't make any sense, because he was still playing in 1940, but it brought me down this path.) NFL.com says that Ray Flaherty's #1 was retired, but not a year nor any mention that it was the first number retired in any major league professional sport. Other sites I've looked at (e.g., About.com) appear to only parrot what NFL.com. Flaherty's bio on the Hall of Fame website barely even mentions his playing years (he was enshrined as a coach) and certainly nothing about his number being retired. The Giants site doesn't make any mention of retired numbers. Anyone have a source? --Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

At the end of this article by Gil Brandt (Aug. 30, 2005) is such a claim, but that's all I have to go on: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8787315 . Heck, he may have gotten it from Wikipedia. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the team, the Giants don't retire numbers, but they don't necessarily give them out again. I don't think they'll ever retire 56, for example, but I doubt anyone will ever wear it for the Giants again.

In the back of the Giants 75th Anniversary Book (written by Jerry Izenberg) it has the following section on retired numbers (p.178) #1 Ray Flaherty 1935 (but Frank Cope was #1 in 1946); #4 Tuffy Leemans 1940 (although as mentioned he was #4 through 1943 and Leland Shaffer was #4 in 1945); #7 Mel Hein 1963; #11 Phil Simms 1995; #14 Y.A. Tittle 1965; #32 Al Blozis 1945; #40 Joe Morrison 1972; #41 Charlie Conerly 1962; #50 Ken Strong 1947; #56 Lawrence Taylor 1994 Revmoran 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Revmoran 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

What would a New York Giants article be without a picture of the ferocious Lawrence Taylor (L.T.)? Put one on! -Amit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.106.195.48 (talk • contribs) 09:22, February 3, 2006.

[edit] Updated Roster

I've made a ton of changes and fixed the roster that hadn't been updated in about 2.5 months. I'll make sure to delete people as they are cut —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.34.157 (talk • contribs) 21:27, August 6, 2006.

Roster Current as of 10/23, updated and reformated the roster template slightly.Bigblue1222 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Bigblue1222

So, random question, but why was the roster section deleted?

[edit] Logos and Uniforms

This section includes long blank area, it looks very awkward and unprofessional. I'm not sure how to get rid of it, but I'll try. Quadzilla99 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the long blank area to the bottom of the section but wasn't able to eliminate it. It looks slightly better now, it really needs to be eliminated altogether though. Quadzilla99 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Lore

Nothing about why the Giants always have their bench on the sunny side of the field at home games? The tradition has it that they lost a championship game early on in their history (not sure which one), but the owner's wife (Mrs. Mara, presumably) said it was because the players caught cold because the other team was in the sun. From that day forward the Giants have always had their bench on the sunny side of the field for home games.

Here's the reference from: Wellington, the Maras, the Giants, and the city of New York by Carl DeVito, Triumph Books, Chicago, 2006, p.20 "The first home game was at the Polo Grounds... Tim (Mara) paced the sidelines. He had brought 17 year old Jack with him, who sat on the sideline. Lizette (Tim's wife) and nine year old Wellington sat in the stands. "We were sitting on the Giants side, and it was a little chilly," said Wellington years later. And Lizette complained to Tim that the team's side was in the shade. Why couldn't the home team sit on the other side of the stadium, Lizette reasoned, in the sun, where it was nice and warm? "So the nest game, and from then on, the Giants sideline in the Polo Grounds was in the sun." Revmoran 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best team evar

Does anyone know how long "They are the best team alive" has been in the article, under franchise history? No way I'm deleting that.Thegreathal 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it, nor do I see it in recent history. Are you perhaps looking at a cached copy? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current players fan club

I am involved in an edit war on some of the current players articles. They are one sided, fawning articles that even the players themselves would not write. Please keep an eye on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Pierce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Snee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Petitgout --Truest blue 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fight song

Is there music to the Giant's Fight Song? Any idea on where to find it? --Dialecticas 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could only find the lyrics... 808 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article requires massive cleanup. The logo and uniform info is inordinately long, while the history section is now too short. See the Chicago Bears article for a better example of how to orient an FA quality football team article. I'll start cleaning it up if no one else does. Quadzilla99 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I eliminated the massive, trivial history of the team's uniforms. See logo sections in the Chicago Bears and the New England Patriots (featured articles) for further info. If you want to create a separate article for that stuff go ahead, just cut and paste the old article into a new article dedicated to the topic. Quadzilla99 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved all the info to here for now. Quadzilla99 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For more info why I made these changes see the two featured articles above. Quadzilla99 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disbelief

"Massive, trivial history of the team's uniforms." Quad, you might not be a uniform asthete, but I assure you the history of the Giants includes a history of their uniforms and logos. If there is some Wiki committee devoted to parsing hours of factual research about a football team's uniforms because they have deemed a team's uniform history to be trivial, show me that. Now, if you want to create a separate page for the "massive, trivial history," go right ahead and move it yourself. It's a lot easier to destroy than to create, and by wiping out that section entirely as if you and you alone had the say in what constitutes "trivial," you have reinforced that notion.

I am a hard-core Giants fan and you'd better believe the history of their logos and uniforms is important to me, and problably some other fans out there: the Giants own official website neglects their uniform history, while teams like the Bengals devote huge .pdf files to the matter. That section constitutes hours of research, is entirely factual, and is (in my opinion) informative. If you think it's long-winded or needs copyediting, go right ahead and improve it. Otherwise, I need to see, in writing, why a team with 80+ years of history cannot have the uniforms they wore during those years considered an integral part of that history. 808 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the two articles I referred you to? They contain brief summaries of the team's logo and uniform, and dedicate most of the article to the team's history. The section could be expanded by a paragraph or two but the former size was out of hand. Like I said see the two FA's I exampled above. Quadzilla99 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Quad, I got the gist of what you were saying by your paragraph above. And the gist is: "uniforms and logos are unimportant." I heartily disagree, but thanks for storing the info in a sandbox regardless. The massive, trivial section is now its own page, and I can't wait until that is also designated for "cleanup." ^_^ 808 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we disagree about the importance of the uniform history's importance but we both want to improve the Giants related articles. So let's just chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but I was saying the depth of detail was trivial not that any mention at all was unnecessary. Quadzilla99 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giants fight song

As per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I removed the fight song lyrics from the page. Like I stated previously this level of detail is trivial. Also fight songs merit no mention in the FA Chicago Bears and New England Patriots articles. Basically this article was terrible when I started working on it so expect an overhaul. Look to the articles mentioned as examples. Feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, 4, I must heartily disagree with you deleting the Giants fight song(s). In subsection 8 of WP:NOT, it clearly states that so long as the article itself is not merely lyrics, and that the lyrics relate to the subject at hand, i.e., da Jints, the section should be good to go. Furthermore, the Philadelphia Eagles have mention of their fight song with a link to a page about nothing but the song - the former is Wiki-approved, while the latter is not. I acknowledge the Bears and Patriots do not have fight songs listed, but neither do the Redskins, and the non-mention of their iconic song on their page is a disservice to their fans who might want to use Wikipedia to further their team knowledge. Before I dredged up the Giant's fight song, I was ignorant the team even had one. Then, someone else found another. That's knowledge, man, knowledge. And you know what they say about knowledge. Perhaps a more high-speed solution would be uploading an .ogg file of the song, so it doesn't take up all that space? Whaddya think? 808 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Eagles article is not listed as a featured article or even a good article. Better examples are the Bears and Patriots articles. Citing a poor article with a two sentence lead is not precedent. Quadzilla99 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But you can't deny that the Eagles article is a football article. Or that the Eagles, and the Giants, both have fight songs. And I cited WP:NOT as well. It's true. Section eight, WP:NOT. Did you like my song upload idea? Didja? Would solve the matter, pretty much. Or, we could make a separate page about the fight song(s), but that would be in conflict with WP:NOT. I do not want to be in conflict with WP:NOT. 808 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You can only upload excerpts of songs see here:[1] Well there's two main points I'm making: First the articles I identified have been recognized as the "finest works in all of Wikipedia" therefore in general they should serve as a guideline for how to format an article (I've never worked on either of them), they don't contain large detail on fight songs or uniforms, second the song is copyrighted by the Giants. It's not in the public domain (That I'm aware of), you can print small excerpts of it not the entire song. See here:"Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics are protected by copyright. Exceptions include traditional songs whose lyrics are in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source text generally belongs on WikiSource."

Maybe a good idea is to start a small section that quotes a few lines from the song and includes a small audio clip. The section would have to discuss or summarize the song and it's history. Basically it's okay to include small amounts of copyrighted material if it's subject to critical commentary in the article. Quadzilla99 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at a minute ago - it isn't public domain, and it would need to be presented in a critical light - tough because it's essentially archaic. The only problem I have, and not a confrontational problem, mind you, is that these bits of information, such as fight songs or uniforms or whatever, are part of the team's history. I do feel they need to be part of the whole Giants experience Wikipedia can offer a researcher/curious surfer; in their absence, anyone looking for that info will be informed by other, less reputable websites. I'll store the works in a sub-page until I can figure out what to do with them, but they need to be in there somewheres. 808 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Ways to Go

Comment I moved this from my talk page:

Quad - hey, I finally checked the Bears' page you keep mentioning and learned a few things: 1.) The Giants page has a loooooong way to go (Stadium section, mascots, pop culture, etc.) 2.) I could potentially double the amount of content in the uniforms section (the Bears' section is full of trivial uniform details!) 3.) The Bears, Eagles, Redskins, Packers and Vikes all have separate pages concerning their fight songs. At least the Eagles and Bears both link the fight song page, with the Bears doing it in the content box on the right side. So, I'll get to researching the details of the song, but it looks like either these pages exist in flagrant disregard of WP:NOT, or the songs are being treated like the sports logos themselves: copyrighted material that is reproduceable in a limited sense. Keep on tranglin', 808 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I never said the logos section couldn't get any longer than it is just that it was too long before. Try to keep it on course with the Bears and Pats articles sizes. The Pats article doesn't have a pop culture section so it's debatable whether we need one here; a lot of times those sections get filled with trivia. Trivia is never acceptable on Featured Articles or Good Articles. I think either no one has noticed the song pages or else they only include (in the Bears case) short portions of lyrics. Recently I noticed a long list that was a copyright violation that had been here for a year, it's being deleted as we speak. Quadzilla99 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, par for the course - comments that are not commented upon but moved instead. Perhaps that was the comment? 808 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're saying you proved me wrong or something but the Bears song pages is just as I said critical commentary with some quotes. I even stated that I was fine if the song section was included in the article. I also asked you to write a section on the logos along the size of the Bears and Pats articles. Quadzilla99 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally someone on the Pats article created a logos and uniforms article yesterday much like the one you created: Logos and Uniforms of the New England Patriots. Quadzilla99 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Quad, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. We've had some disagreements, and I apologize if I've come off badly. I am a bit excitable, but never in bad faith. I look forward to improving the page and getting it to be as good or better than the Pats or Bears. Cheers, 808 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I added an updated depth chart like the one in the Pats articles. I used Giants.com,[2] and espn.com[3]. The reason I had to use both is because Giants.com didn't have special teams and didn't have Strahan or Toomer on theirs (must have been from the end of the year when they were injured). Basically I used Giants.com for everything except special teams and put Strahan and Toomer in as the starters like they were on ESPN.com. I put updated 3/28/2007. If anyone updates it just go ahead and chnage the date to the current day. Quadzilla99 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't use the exact same format as the Pats article did, I eliminated several extra boxes and lines that were unnecessary. I think it's slightly better overall. Quadzilla99 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)