Talk:History of the New York Jets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHistory of the New York Jets is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
November 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
December 1, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Image copyright problem with File:Hess lg.jpg[edit]

The image File:Hess lg.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mangini era[edit]

there is a main header as Eric Mangini era when it over laps to the Rex Ryan era and should be clear and fix so that it is orginized. Witch I cant do.--Mr. Unknown (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future Status of Article[edit]

The entire article has been sourced and cleaned up. Anyone willing to review the material is welcome to (and of course make their own edits). Note to anyone who makes future edits, please make sure to include links with any new or old material you may include, it would be appreciated. Thank You! -- The Writer 2.0 22:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I see that New York Titans (1960-1962) has just been created. Any relevant info not already contained there should be merged to this article. The New York Titans were not a distinct franchise. The history of the New York Jets includes the years they were called the Titans. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just finished sourcing and cleaning up the entire History section and I believe the Titans are covered fairly well (all of the information of the seperate page is already included in the history section). I agree the Jets are a continuation of the Titans franchise therefore a seperate article is not necessary. -- The Writer 2.0 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the New York Jets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I am placing this review on hold for the following reasons:

  • Broken Wikilinks  Done

When these issues are fixed please add {{done}} next to the item I have detailed and leave a note on my talk page. Thank you. Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Looking ahead[edit]

After a careful look at this article, it does have the potential to be FA. I see two major problems (the writing is not a major problem, I can work through that:

First, length. FAC will not seriously consider an article much over 100K. We can either split the article, or cut it back. I advise the latter; the reason for the large size is that the 21st century is given much greater detail than the rest of the Jets' existence, and if we cut back the 21st century material to the same depth of coverage, we can easily bring this down to the 80 or 90K I would advise as the maximum for FAC. The alternative, as I have said, is a split, but you are still going to run into the same problem. I've gotten sources in hand and will carefully work at it over the next couple of weeks, after the GAN is done most likely.

Second is images. There is only one shot of the Jets in action. I can easily take more, as a season ticket holder, but that doesn't get us shots of the Jets in the old days. There may be something on flickr, or the Jets or the NFL may be willing to allow us to license a few shots. I'm out of ideas beyond that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[edit]

I will probably list this for peer review later in the day. A few things I have seen, looking through

  1. There is the usual detritus of a major revamp to be cleaned up. Spelling mistakes, double periods, etc. I will eliminate everything I see, but I know from experience my eye tends to skip over stuff.
  1. I have tried to elimate the "would" constructions i.e. ("the Jets would have a losing season" in favor of "the Jets had a losing season") as this is frowned upon at FAC. If you see one, and it can't be justified, get rid of it.
  1. Utter consistency in citation practices is called for. I see USA Today linked in one ref and not linked in the next. This will be a pain and an eye strainer, but we should both look closely at this.
  1. I will consult with Jappalang regarding the copyright status of memorabilia.

I would like to get this to FAC perhaps at the end of the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed at quick glance that some of the references are in mmm dd, yyyy format while others are yyyy-mm-dd format. The FA folks can be sticklers for that too. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And some are "January 32, 2010". I suggest that as some FA reviewers don't like numeric formats, let's change them all to the way I just cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the citations as I want to archive them with WebCite. I'll make sure to keep all of the above in mind. --The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is great. I hate dealing with citations. I've listed the article for peer review, by the way, hopefully we will get someone quickly. Hopeful of getting this to FAC before Thanksgiving.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I hope we can get it to FAC relatively soon too, the article is certainly ready other than the minor tweaks that need to be made.--The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully we will get an outside view quickly. I have a good record at FAC and am not subject to December collapses, so I am hopeful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why the Jets uniforms are green-and-white[edit]

"...new colors (green-and-white, in honor of Werblin's St. Pactrick's Day birthday)..." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Given that it is such an offhand reference, I wouldn't mind seeing confirmation from another source?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsustainable claim[edit]

The lead paragraph claims that "The Jets defeated the Colts in the game, establishing the AFL as a worthy partner as the two leagues merged." One match cannot provide substantial proof of the relative quality of the leagues that the participants in that match represent. Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is how it was taken at the time, and as far as I know is still taken. There was no doubt the Colts were the best team in the NFL, there was doubt as to whether the Jets were the AFL's best or just lucky to be playing in a weak division and at home in the AFL championship game (which was to be hosted by the East winner regardless of record). The Jets won.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which proves nothing other than the number of points scored by the teams selected on that one day. Benfica drew with Manchester United last night: does that "establish" the equality of the two leagues that the clubs in question won last season? Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. What do the sources have to say about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To players and analysts at the time it did substantiate the league: A, B, C. Don Maynard, in You Can't Catch Sunshine, notes in speaking of the heavily favored Colts that the league was looked down upon over the more experienced NFL and their win ultimately helped establish the league's credibility. This is also supported by other sources such as Stadium Stories: New York Jets and 100 Things Jets Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions of Wehwalt and The Writer are on the money. The Jets' win over the Colts was a shocker at the time, and a big boost for the AFL... as many sources will confirm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that being said, should we add matter to justify the statement further? I'm always hesitant to make additions to this article due to length.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked, but is it cited within the body of the text? If not, it needs to be. If so, it doesn't need to be cited in the summary also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the text to " convincing some commentators that the AFL would be a worthy partner...": it was a result that, as Writer 2 says above, substantiated an opinion. It did not establish anything to be a fact: it was entirely possible that the result was a fluke, or that one of the teams, on that day, were not representative of the overall level of their league. Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the language. I'd remind Kevin that it's all opinion anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, that is why we should not present it as fact. In your modification ("helping to establish the AFL as a worthy partner") you seem to be claiming that the worthiness of the AFL is established by the result of one match. I still contend that that cannot be. The opinion that the AFL would be a worthy partner can be established, but opinions can vary, and so they should be attributed. It was not the AFL that was changed, it was attitudes to it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy is subjective. Look, I can give you as many quotes as you want about how SBIII changed pro football. What do you require?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Jets were the first team from the AFL to win a Super Bowl. This is important because an NFL team, the Green Bay Packers to be precise, won the first two Super Bowls over their AFL opponents, handedly, so now you have people looking down on this league [the AFL] like it is practically the scum of the Earth. And not to mention that the Colts were favored by 18 points in SBIII. When you consider that the merger took place a year later, in 1970, thus effectively dissolving the AFL, it was important. A, B, C. I mean I honestly don't know what else to provide you with at this point. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt: you have acknowledged twice here that worthy is a subjective judgement. Why then do you refuse to allow text into the article that makes that point?
Writer: You make the point, again, that this win was contrary to expectation. That means that there is a discrepancy between expectation and the result of this match. That leads to a re-evaluation of the expectations (the perception of worthiness), it does not change the fact of worthiness. Kevin McE (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin: Because your language doesn't just make the point, it pounds it into the ground with such force that the reader would believe the authoritative narrative voice is telling him the opposite. At this point you seem to be repeating your arguments, and it's your job to get consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I really do not see how a reader would conclude the opposite of what I am saying, but...)Well if you believe that to be the case, the thing to do is to find a compromise, not to ignore the fact that the result of a match does not, in and of itself, alter the competitive status of a league full of teams. Suggest The Jets defeated the Colts in the game, easing concerns that the AFL teams would not be competitive as the two leagues merged. Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't reflect what the sources say about the Jets victory.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources don't say that this game "established the AFL as a worthy partner" either. What is your compromise proposal? Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm more minded to keep the language and keep adding cites for as long as necessary. Those TW2.0 mentioned would be an excellent start.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is nothing in those sources that say that the match changed the ability of the teams in the AFL. Kevin McE (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one who interprets it that way. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost now. What source are your quoting? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me? It's in the "Decline and Namath's departure" section, the discussion of how the Jets were underdogs to the Giants.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the specific link? There are lots of links in the article, and I'd like to read it. Meanwhile, there is no question that the Jets' huge upset in Super Bowl III was considered a legitimizing event for the AFL. You and I remember it well, and we know the countless times that various American sports commentators have talked about it. Kevin is probably not so aware of the history, especially as he refers to the game as a "match", which is a term seldom used in American sports. All the more reason for good sourcing, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is from page 174 of Stephen Hanks' book The Game That Changed Pro Football, which is mostly excerpts from game participants and onlookers strung together. On page 174, Al DeRogatis says "What the Jets' victory proved to the NFL in a hurry was that the AFL was a legitimate league and that there were legitimate teams that would be coming into the merged league." I would consider him an authority about such things. Also, same page, John Dockery says "Sure, our victory did a lot to legitimize the AFL and get our league perceived as the NFL's equal. But, you know what, there were still a lot of people saying 'It was a fluke, Namath is a flash in the pan', and that stuff. Next exhibition season, we were going to play the Giants in the Yale Bowl and we were underdogs!"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"get our league perceived as the NFL's equal": thank you: a quote that shows that equality, or inequality, of the leagues is a perception, not (at that stage) something established as though measured by an absolute scale. That is all I have been asking to see acknowledged. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like it's on the money. What really cemented it was the Chiefs' win in Super Bowl IV. That took care of the "fluke" charge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?

carrots→ 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if there was a contemporary suggestion that it was a fluke, that shows that it was only a perception that the match /game indicated equality of the leagues. If some people said it was a fluke, it did not establish, irrevocably and in universal opinion, the claim that the article is currently making. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the DeRogatis quote is plenty! He was Curt Gowdy's broadcast booth partner for the AFL and SBIII. Other than arguably Gowdy, whose opinion is more authoritiative?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whose opinion it is, it is an opinion. The more evidence you are coming up with, the mopre evident it is that the phrasing needs to reflect that. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worthiness is a value judgment, which is itself opinion. Any matter of opinion is implied..--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no overstating the importance of SB III to the prestige of the AFL. I know people who actually think the game was fixed in order to make the AFL look better. I don't buy that. But Kevin's missing the point. If the Jets had lost, there would have been way many more skeptics saying that the AFL was a minor league. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am missing the point: I don't accept the reluctance to make the point that this match changed perceptions, and the defence of a statement that it established a fact. It was possible that the Jets might have lost that match. That would not have established a lesser strength of the AFL teams as a whole, it would have changed the number of people expressing the opinion that they would not be competitive. We do not, in an encyclopaedia, use imprecise language in the hope that a reader will divine what we consider to be implied, we state the truth explicitly. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that the Jets stunning victory is considered a watershed moment in the history of the NFL, as it meant the AFL could indeed compete with the NFL. Had the Jets lost, the AFL would have lost all 3 and people would have said their a second-rate league. But the Jets won, establishing the AFL as a worthy partner of the NFL. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had that happened, people might well have said that, but would it have been true? If circumstances on the day had been different, if the Jets had lost this game, that would not have made them in the long run, nor the rest of the AFL teams, any less competitive. The only difference would have been in expectation. The assumption that people would have made different predictions had the entirely plausible event of a different result occurred shows that nothing was established, but merely that opinions were formed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went googling for a few minutes and found this,[1] from the N.Y. Times of January 12, 1969, and contains this interesting comment: "The victory, which elevated the American League to an equal level with the older National League, marks the high point of Namath's success-studded career." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a newspaper, like the NYT, is entirely entitled to publish such statements of opinion. But this is an encyclopaedia, so unlike journalists, we are not trying to make our reputation by proffering opinions to see how they are judged: we are presenting simple facts, as clearly and irrefutably as possible.
I'd invite you to simply consider that phrase: The victory, which elevated the American League to an equal level with the older National League.... Does anyone believe that to be literally true? That the standard of the AFL increased because one team one one game? That the quality of play in games weeks or months earlier was elevated by some metaphysical force travelling back in time through a warp that would have remained closed had the Jets lost?
Nobody has given any reasoned explanation for refusing to acknowledge that any statement about re-assessment of the perceived standard of play in the AFL on the evidence of that result is a reconsidered opinion, not a change in the "worthiness" (as though such a concept could be objectively measured) of the entire membership of a league. Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. It was precisely a perception that was changed. If you want to pursue sources that argue that statistically the perception did not square with the reality, that's one thing. But that perception was turned around, for the simple reason that many didn't think the AFL champion could ever beat the NFL champion, because the NFL was inherently better than the AFL, and hence the NFL's best was inherently better than the AFL's best, and couldn't or shouldn't lose. That perception was fed in no small partby the Packers having whomped their AFL opponents in the first 2 Super Bowls. You could also argue that that perception was wrong too. But the game's reporters and historians generally agree that this was a "coming of age" kind of game for the AFL, and the perception of the AFL changed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the Jets were viewed by many as the third best AFL team behind Oakland and Kansas City, which had both been walloped by the Packers, and the Colts were unquestionably the best team in the league.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the arguing over "truth" in the face of WP:VNT? If the statement in the lead is that contentious then it can be sourced. But if the reliable sources speak to the game as a watershed moment, then that trumps whatever is objectively "true." PeteF3 (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You're missing the point. It was precisely a perception that was changed." (Baseball Bugs) Arrrggghhhhh! That's not a point that I am missing, it is exactly the point I am making. I have used the word perception 4 times already in this thread. It is the avoidance of acknowledgement that it is a perception/opinion that I am challenging. Facts can be established. A perception is not something that is unequivocally "established": it is held/shared/disseminated/published/broadcast ...
"If the statement in the lead is that contentious then it can be sourced." (Pete F) And it can be presented, honestly, as an opinion: then there is no contradiction between truth and verifiability, which is surely what we should be striving for. Kevin McE (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're straining at gnats, or whatever the phrase is, Kevin. Yes, the worthiness of the AFL and its teams is a perception. But the reader knows that, and, too be blunt, sources that say the AFL was not a worthy partner, or similar language in the wake of the Jets win in SB3 are few on the ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me back to the point I made earlier, to which nobody responded: We do not, in an encyclopaedia, use imprecise language in the hope that a reader will divine what we consider to be implied, we state the truth explicitly. Everyone agrees that the judgement of worthiness is a perception: why not be frank about it? Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism?[edit]

I hate to throw a tag on a FA or pare it myself without discussion, so let me ask a question: Is this article falling victim to recentism? Especially with the Peyton/Tebow thing. Why is Peyton mentioned here at all? How does today's acquisition of Tebow rank in Jets history? Never mind, I'm going to pare that myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Peyton/Tebow thing might be a bit too early to include (especially now that the Tebow deal may be voided) but to be fair to imply that the entire article is falling victim to recentism is a bit much. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to other ways of doing it. But Tebow was added before I got to it. I tried to cover it in about the same level of detail that we've covered other Jets quarterback acquisitions and controversies. I see it's been cut. Shall we discuss what to add if the trade's approved? If it is not, we can probably wait until the annual update.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added an editnotice asking people not to add the Tebow stuff just yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that the entire article falls victim to recentism, but that it's an issue that should be monitored in the sections that discuss the most recent decade. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but if the trade goes through, we have to add something. Or someone else will.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another year going[edit]

Well, we should decide what to say for 2012. As there is not much doubt left as to the Jets' fate for the year, though one game remains, we can start now. Something like deleting the current final sentence "This set up a quarterback controversy for the 2012 season" and adding "Despite the ensuing quarterback controversy and a poor 2012 season for Sanchez, Tebow was little-used. Third-string quarterback Greg McElroy started late in the year but was also ineffective, as the Jets fell to 7-9 (6-10), their first losing season under Ryan."--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's satisfactory or some variation on it, I'll start looking for sources so as to have the article updated at the final gun next Sunday. Changes among the quarterbacks or head coach to be mentioned during the offseason on an if/when basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Short, sweet and to the point unlike the Jets' season—2013 cannot come fast enough. Happy Holidays! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To you too. If it's short, we can fend off The Split for longer ....--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think even with the latest drama in Jetsland the language can stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another year gone[edit]

Time to think about what to say for this year. Suggest, "Any quarterback controversy was stilled when Sanchez was injured in preseason. With his rival out for the season, Smith started. Both quarterback and team were occasionally brilliant (in victories over playoff-bound New Orleans and New England, for example), the Jets were more often inconsistent, and finished (7-9) (8-8) (7-8-1)." If they knock the Dolphins out of the playoffs, mention that. Mention any change in coach or GM which may be forthcoming.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 52 external links on History of the New York Jets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the New York Jets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titans of New York[edit]

@Wehwalt: Was their official name actually the Titans of New York? I ask as it regards to this. A better question then, I guess, is if this is the common name. Lizard (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the name under which the franchise was awarded. However, I doubt people in practice used it. I have a pinback button that says "New York Titans".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_New_York_Jets&oldid=1211442806"