Talk:Las Vegas Raiders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Language Flagship Station

My source for KZSF in San Jose as the team's Spanish language flagship station is the Raiders' website itself. I don't speak Spanish, so it's a bit trying for me to find my way around, but the link is La Cadena Radial en Español. XEXX, as one can tell from the "X" that begins its callsign, is located in Mexico, most likely Tijuana, BC. The station markets itself as a San Diego station, but the transmitter has to be in Baja California. I suspect this was the Spanish flagship station when the Raiders were based in Los Angeles, but am not sure. The Spanish network stretches from Sacramento (KCFA) in the North to Bakersfield (KAFY) in the South. (Uncle Al UTC 05:34 17 January 2006.)

Rivalries

If the Seahawks are no longer a rival, why list them? Especially if (as claimed) the rivalry was only in the mind of Seahawk fans? --Cholmes75 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. (Uncle Al UTC 05:38 22 January 2006.)

The Patriots/Raiders rivalry have been going on longer than the "Tuck Rule" game. Though they were both original AFL teams, it came to fruition with the 1976 Playoff Game where Oakland benefitted from a 'roughing the passer' penalty. It intensified when Darryl Stingley. a popular and talented receiver for the Patriots, was hit by Raiders Defensive Back Jack Tatum 1978 and crippled for life. -- Tom Restivo 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, since no one has raised an objection in more than a year, I'm removing the Seahawks from the list of rivals. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to taking out the Seattle Seahawks from our list of rivals. For 25 years, Seattle was an intense divisional rival in the AFC West. We played many memorable games. I would also like to point out that the Raider/Seahawk rivalry is listed in the wikipedia article titled Significant rivalries in the NFL. I can't find much concrete information to back up the claim I'm about to make, frankly with rivalries it's all about perspective, but the rivalry is alive and well--OAKLACLAAANAUSCFAN 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• As long as you can cite good sources, the info can be re-added. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity Fan

Hey guys, just wandering if it is appropriate to mention that James Hetfield (Metallica) is a die-hard raiders fan. Regards. Kaiser23 01:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• And how is that appropriate? I do not see any sport team articles here on Wikipedia that lists "famous celebrity fans"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • "The team is renowned for the fanbase of famous celebrities, such as musicians and movie stars who attend its games. However, its most avid fans are actor Jack Nicholson and the California-based popular funk-rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers who attend every game. There's even a rumor that singer Anthony Kiedis and bassist Flea attend even the preseason games as a measure of their dedication to the team, and American Idol 4 winner Carrie Underwood has announced that she is an avid fan. The song "Magic Johnson", a tribute to the Showtime Lakers, can be found on the Red Hot Chili Peppers' album Mother's Milk." (About the LA Lakers...) Kaiser23 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. Probably the best place to mention Hetfield is under the "Raider Nation" section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry man didn't want to look cocky or something, but i think its interesting for some people to see trivia like that.Kaiser23 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think listing celebrity fans under "Raider Nation" is fine. Don't forget James Garner, who was a fixture on the sidelines back in the '80s. --Cholmes75 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No Retired Numbers

Wasn't one reason for no retiring of numbers the fact that there were too many great players on the team? 67.188.172.165 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

sure. Chud50 04:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, Al Davis said in the book, "The Black Knight" that he is against retiring numbers because you can honor great players by wearing their numbers too.--BrianZ^(talk) 14:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Warren Powers

The link goes to the former University of Missouri football coach, not the Oakland Raider.

Vandalism

There is a line at the beginning of the article about how "the Raiders suck and always will" although badly misspelled. Regardless of whether the Raiders suck or not (I'm from Baltimore  ;-) ) The line should be removed. Problem is, I can't seem to find the text when I go to the edit page. Also recommend that it be protected to prevent further vandalism. Hopefully someone will jump in and fix this. Happy Holidays!

First, a note to all the vandals continually saying that Oakland sucks: 1( It CAN'T be that fun to write a page that we'll revert in five minutes, so knock it off and 2( Watch Detroit and all these feelings will evaporate. If you don't cease, I second the motion of protecting this page.SuperToad64 02:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make vandalism the article. I had to search the lastest good copy in the historial to paste there.

If you hate the Raiders, say all you want here in Discussion but don't ruin the article. Thank you. --201.212.226.19 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism again, I don't know the link to the player helmet so I can't fix it. I suggest moving to protected Vorrion 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The level of vandalism probably isn't high enough to warrant semi-protection. I have this article on my Watchlist and keep a pretty close eye on it. If it gets worse I'll put in a request for protection. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Other notable alumni

Hey I love the Raiders, but I think the "Other notable alumni" list is way too long. I mean, Marcus Knight? Seriously? This list needs a major pruning. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added Ken Stabler to this list. Not sure how he didn't make it on the list in the first place.SkeezaPleez (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom Flores

I don't understand the statement "Tom Flores (is) widely considered the first Hispanic head coach in the history of the NFL." Is their some controversy about his being hispanic? Or are their other potential first ones? Some clarification on that would be nice. Thedoorhinge 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

As much as I don't like the Raiders, I think this article is very well done with an excellent usage of sources and inline citations. However, there are a few more things I think that need to be fixed before I pass it.

• In the intro - "Under head coach Bill Callahan, Oakland faced Gruden's Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Super Bowl XXXVII, where they lost a lopsided affair." I think you should edit this statement and use different phrasing than lopsided affair. (the same phrasing is used again in third paragraph of the Move to Los Angeles (1982–1994) section)

  Done. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• These images need fair use rationales: Image:Oakland Raiders helmet rightface.png & Image:OaklandRaiders 100.png. If you can, add some more images such as current coach/stadium/players.

  Done (the logos). I have searched for free use images of players/coaches, but have been unable to find any. I didn't want to just start grabbing copyrighted photos and using them, unless it becomes absolutely necessary. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fix this statement to reword it to remove one of the expansion teams: "A few months after the first AFL draft in 1959, the owners of the yet-unnamed Minneapolis expansion team accepted an offer to join the established National Football League as an expansion team..."

  Done. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 12:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Go through the article and fix all of the inline citations' locations. Make sure they are directly after the punctuation (no spaces and right after periods, commas, etc.)

  Done, but if I missed any please let me know. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the Ownership Structure section, combine these two sentences into one: "The younger McGah was himself a part owner of the team, as a limited partner. He died in 2002."

  Done. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the Legal battles section, fix the final bullet so the teams that are mentioned matched up with what is included in the next sentence: "The Raiders sued the Carolina Panthers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for infringing upon key trademark elements of the Raiders' brand, including the Buccaneers' pirate logo and the Panthers' silver and black color scheme. The Raiders wanted the court to bar the Buccaneers and Panthers from wearing their uniforms while playing in California." Set it to: "The Raiders sued the Carolina Panthers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for infringing upon key trademark elements of the Raiders' brand, including the Panthers' silver and black color scheme and the Buccaneers' pirate logo. The Raiders wanted the court to bar the Panthers and Buccaneers from wearing their uniforms while playing in California."

  Done. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the Historic rivals section for the Patriots, the fourth sentence begins with "In it,...", change that to "In that game/the game,...".

  Done. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a side note, but for the separate Raider Nation section, a picture should be included, perhaps the same one from this article so at least one image is there.

    Done. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fix redirects for the links in the See also section.

  Done. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• If possible, remove some of the duplicate templates at the end of the article.

  Done, although I'm not sure what happened there. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 12:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This may seem like a lot, but should be relatively easy things to fix. I'm going to put the article on hold for right now for seven days, and if they are not fixed by then, then I will fail the article. Once these are fixed or if you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Keep up the good work, this article is very well done. --Nehrams2020 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job on fixing those suggestions so quickly, and after reviewing the criteria for GA I will pass this article as a GA. Make sure to keep the page up to date with the same quality and always add new information with sources. This was the first GA I passed out of about five articles I've reviewed, and it deserves it. Good job to all of the editors who contributed to this article. Now I need to go check my temperature, since I just passed an Oakland Raider article. I hope my family doesn't renounce me. Just kidding. Seriously consider a peer review and FAC when you get the chance. --Nehrams2020 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Raiders are struggling with ticket sales, but this biography should explain that the reason the Raiders and Al Davis still can make enough money is that their merchandise sales have been #1 for a while now I believe. At least in the past few years. I think people wonder sometimes how NFL teams make money and stay afloat or pay 1st round draft picks over 60 million dollars when ticket sales are at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.172.189 (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a tip?

Congrats on getting the GA passed, a task that only two other NFL Team articles have done. Though this article is well-written and organized, perhaps it would be a good idea to put the season-by-season results on another page, similar to how the Chicago Bears and New England Patriots' articles did. They also did the same thing with the history section - keeping a brief but informative version on the main page, and then a detailed version on another satellite page. I hope those this helps. Good luck on getting an FA-Status soon. :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Article on "Raider Nation" Link in See Also Section?

I had added the "Raider Nation" article link in the See Also section and somebody has deleted it. I know same may argue that there is already a link for it else where in the Oakland Raiders article but almost all the other things listed in the See Also section also already have links in this article. IMHO I don't see why the Raider Nation link can't be there if there are links for the "Heidi Game" and "Mount Davis" listed there as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

• Not only is there already a link for it, there is an entire subsection. It's redundant. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point cholmes75, it already does have its own subsection. I guess I just wanted the Raider Nation article to get as much exposure and traffic as possible. As a Raider fan myself, I want emphasize the large and far flung fanbase of this team.

Vandalism

Article starts with "The Oakland Raiders are gay and like to see each other from "da back" according to Al davis". Obvious case of vandalism, page needs to be more protected as this is not the first time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

What a MESS!

This is a "good article?" No way! The first chapter is "1963: Al Davis comes to town." That's the first chapter? That was the THIRD YEAR of the team's existance! There's no mention at all of how the franchise came into existance (original AFL franchise awarded to Minnesota Vikings, who then decided to join the NFL instead, so the AFL reassigned its final charter franchise to Oakland). The brief synopsis before the table of contents has grown into almost a full article in itself. Don't even get me started on the grammer, spelling, and syntax.

With all due respect (which isn't much), this is the kind of article I'd expect from Raiders fans. I'm going to recommend this article for review, it needs some serious cleaning up if it's going to keep its "good article" designation. Do I plan to clean it up? Nope...Raiders fans, that's your job.

Gotham, it's obvious you're biased against the Raiders and their fans. Go ahead and do what you wish though. Just remember, you must earn respect and I lost respect for you by your piss poor attitude. How can I take your comment as anything other than pure "haterism" when you put it like you do? BrianZ^(talk) 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Oh and here's a tip for Gotham - next time you want to criticize the grammar in an article, try spelling "grammar" and "existence" correctly. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture section

I removed some of the pop culture info as its trivial, there has to be some more prominent cultural representations of the team, if not just integrate the remaining info or re-name the section. Quadzilla99 01:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In a 1992 episode of the American animated sitcom The Simpsons ("Lisa the Greek"), Lisa Simpson picks the Raiders to win a game because "they always cheat." The Raiders end up winning after "an extremely suspicious play."

The 1996 feature film That Thing You Do! features a character named Villapiano. The character and his pizza restaurant (Villapiano's) are named after former Raiders linebacker Phil Villapiano. Tom Hanks, who wrote and directed the film, is a Raiders fan.

An episode of the FOX television series Sliders ("The Prince of Wails") featured an alternate universe where the British won the American Revolutionary War, and although San Francisco was still a large city, Oakland was still an undeveloped, forested area (with the same geographical name). A militia of American freedom fighters based in the region took the name "The Oakland Raiders."

• Trivial in whose view? It obviously wasn't too trivial for the reviewers who named this a Good Article. I'm all for bold editing, but I would advise you to bring issues like these up on article talk pages before removing a whole section. I'm going to place the content back, and would like to hear the opinions of others as well. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would advise you to see WP:BOLD and too look edits over more carefully, I didn't remove an entire section, I removed the trivia from a section. Those are extremely trivial references The Simpsons has over 400 episodes—they've mentioned everything on there, a mention there is non-notable, Sliders is a largely unknown show that lasted a couple of seasons and had low ratings, and the Villapiano tidbit really belongs in his article (maybe), its all trivia pure and simple. Quadzilla99 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to LA?

Could be happening, at least according to this article: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/STP43FAN/90332

• That's not even an article, it's a rumor in a blog. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Walt Harris

I read the Los Angeles Times sport section sometime in June and found out that the Raiders signed Harris. Can somebody please verify this? 216.165.236.141 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• If only there was a way to verify this. Unfortunately, nobody has invented an Internet yet where information like this can be verified. Someday, perhaps, but sadly, not yet. BayRadioDJ 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1960 Season

I have added some detail to the 1960 season information, including the addition of the Raiders first local radio station (KNBC, which became KNBR) and broadcasters (Bud Foster and Mel Venter), and correcting an oft-repeated error that the team played all of their home games at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco during their first season.

For whatever reason, somewhere around 1967 the Raiders press information began omitting references to the team having played the final three games of 1960 at then-new Candlestick Park, not Kezar. This came about through the intervention of Charles Harney, a partner in the Raiders ownership -- who also happened to be the builder of Candlestick.

Even though the 1960 games were played in December, the field was kept in the baseball configuration, with the dirt infield "skin" left in place. Photographs of the games played there in 1960 show a largely empty stadium.

(Links to images of the Oakland Tribune articles are included in footnotes 10, 11 and 12 of the main Oakland Raiders article.)

Scotty Stirling, who later became the Raiders general manager, covered the team for the Oakland Tribune in 1960. He subsequently teamed with the great Bill King as color analyst on Raider radiocasts in the early 1970s. Bill King, coincidentally, became the voice of the Raiders in 1966; his first partner on the KNEW/910 broadcasts was (Fred) Van Amburg, better known for his later work with Jerry Jensen on Channel 7 News Scene.

A 1967 photograph of Bill King and Van Amburg and an article regarding the Raiders/Metromedia Radio Network appears on the Bay Area Radio Museum website:

http://www.sfradiomuseum.com/sports/raiders_bill-king_van-amburg_1967.shtml

BayRadioDJ 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BALCO and doping

I cannot believe this is missing in the article. Quite a number of players were on the list of clients, including Bill Romanowski, Tyrone Wheatley, Barrett Robbins, Chris Cooper and Dana Stubblefield. Barcovelero 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just added BALCO info to leagl battles section. Zoro 1234 20:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Raiders/Chiefs

Raiders one the last game, therefore beating the 9 game loss to Chiers. (11-25-07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.38.28 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RaidersHelmet.png

Image:RaidersHelmet.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RaidersHome uni.png

Image:RaidersHome uni.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RaidersRoad uni.png

Image:RaidersRoad uni.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RaidersScript.png

Image:RaidersScript.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate uniform not shown?

Well, the Raiders does have a alternate uniform (all silver with black socks), and it should be shown. --Louis Alberto Guel 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Raiders are not the worst team!

Unless there are some facts and statistics, please change the first line of the page, because historically the Chargers are worse overall (less Superbowl appearances, less rings, same amount of time in). Please correct!!! Jright2010 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Relax, it was just a vandal. The Raiders are one of the most successful franchises in NFL history, five Super Bowl appearances, three wins, what more needs to be said? faithless (^speak) 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OaklandRaiders 1000.png

Image:OaklandRaiders 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Hole

Hey i'm new to Wikipedia so sorry if this is posted in the wrong area. I just wanted to say that under the Raider Nation section it says the Black Hole is sections 104, 105, 106 and 107. This is not true. The Black Hole is section 105, and really only the first couple rows of section 105. I've been sitting in the Hole since it started, and I know this is true. The banner is along the wall of 105, and the fans who sit in the first few rows of 105 are affiliated with the Black Hole. Sections 103, 104, 106 and 107 are often known as being part of the Black Hole to sell tickets, but they are just the surrounding sections.

Also, I posted some links to some popular Raider fan sites on the internet that were taken off. I wasn't trying to get hits for these sites, I was just trying to help fellow Raider fans find websites that they might find interesting. Each website I posted is a quality site. If possible please review these sites and see if it would be alright to post them.

"The Raiders" sans "Oakland"

Before they moved to LA I distinctly remember the Raiders not using "Oakland" for a while. I don't remember exact years but late 70s early 80s. I used to be a football fanatic, mostly Steelers, but the Raiders were high on my list as well. I remember looking at a few items in catalogs and stuff where other teams would have the city and the team name like "Pittsburgh Steelers" or "Minnesota Vikings" but for the Raiders the location where the other teams had the city's names, "Oakland" was noticeably missing. After the move back from LA I remember they started using the city name. I came in here to look at the history behind why they didn't use the city name at that time but found nothing on it. I saw there was a logo with the word "Oakland" in 1963 so I am assuming they used it before they stopped using it. Does anyone else even remember them NOT using "Oakland"? Any history behind not using it?

"The Raiders" sans "Oakland"

Before they moved to LA I distinctly remember the Raiders not using "Oakland" for a while. I don't remember exact years but late 70s early 80s. I used to be a football fanatic, mostly Steelers, but the Raiders were high on my list as well. I remember looking at a few items in catalogs and stuff where other teams would have the city and the team name like "Pittsburgh Steelers" or "Minnesota Vikings" but for the Raiders the location where the other teams had the city's names, "Oakland" was noticeably missing. After the move back from LA I remember they started using the city name. I came in here to look at the history behind why they didn't use the city name at that time but found nothing on it. I saw there was a logo with the word "Oakland" in 1963 so I am assuming they used it before they stopped using it. Does anyone else even remember them NOT using "Oakland"? Any history behind not using it? -- 75.169.174.68 (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiffin Fired

09-30-08, Noon ESPN announced that he has been fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.12.235 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quoting with {{cite web}} template

When specifying the title of and article using the {{cite web}} template, do not write the title in parenthesis, as the template will do this for you. I removed all double parenthesis. Apart, of course, from "Lisa the Greek" episode synopsis and the like, where "Lisa the Greek" has parenthesis inside the title itself. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Notable Alumni List Reorganized By Player Positions

Rather than having a general alphabetical list for other notable alumni, I have instead reorganized the list by what positions these players played when they played for the Raiders. I think it is easier to read and gives a quick reference for these player's positions. I have not removed or added any more names, just rearranged the list.--Beowulf78

I couldn't resist adding some more names to the list since I reorganized it. This Notable Alumni List should really only have players who were the most talented, notorious or most memorable. There are some players listed twice in the Wide Receivers/Defensive Backs and the Special Teams, maybe they should be listed as either just their primary position of WR/DB or just Special Teams if thats where they played the most.--Beowulf78

Other Notable Alumni has been Deleted?

Ok who has deleted the other notable alumni list? I just put some work into reorganizing the list and somebody just comes along and deletes it. It doesn't appear to be moved to its own article which it shouldn't, it seems some troll has deliberately erased it.--Beowulf78

I guess that makes me a troll. I deleted the list because it is not encyclopedic or useful to the reader. Further, it has no objective criteria for inclusion and has become a sprawling mess that includes practice squad members and players with no notable history. If Art Thoms and Joe Nedney are "notable alumni," it might be better to include a tentative list of non-notable alumni, as there don't appear to be any.

As I said in the edit summary, this amounts to a list of WP editors' favorite players. If there's some reason to include it, I'm happy to help find ways to bring it up to code. Otherwise, someone is probably going to pull it down again.

Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bdb484, I apologize for the troll remark, I thought whoever deleted the list might have been somebody who disliked or hated the Raiders. I didn't sign my last comment as I was on the go when I wrote it. As far as the list not being encyclopedic or useful to the reader I disagree. The Other Notable Alumni List has been a feature of the Oakland Raiders article for quite some time, it wasn't something that was just added recently as I am sure you are aware. It should stay in some form or another and not be completely deleted. There are some players on that list that should even in be in the Hall of Fame, this is just another way of acknowledging them. I do agree with you that the list should be trimmed down as there are some players on that list that did not quite have a "notable history" as football players as you put it. I was thinking about deleting some names but I held off and just thought others would delete or add any key missing names, my main focus was to reorganize the list by positions. Like I mentioned before the list should only really have players that were very talented, notorious or very memorable in some way. You or anybody can edit or add players, my only request is that the list stays categorize by football positions as I feel this is easier for the readers when quickly referencing players. Perhaps having a secondary list of players would be a good idea.--Beowulf78 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Until you can come up with a criteria for inclusion in the list, it shouldn't be in the article.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I don't know why "I myself" is suddenly solely responsible for coming up with a criteria to keep this list. This list was in this article long before I recently reorganized it. Why is this list suddenly an issue after being in this article for years? For a general criteria I have already stated twice that the list should only include players that were very talented, notorious and overall memorable. I think the list should be trimmed down of players who don't fit this description, I will remove some names.--Beowulf78 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Very talented and memorable are entirely subjective concepts.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Beowulf, the list has two problems. The first is that it runs afoul of all three of WP's core content policies. Contrary to WP:NPOV, players are listed because you think they are memorable. Contrary to WP:V, readers can't be certain that these players are notable because there are no citations to prove that you aren't just making stuff up. And contrary to WP:OR, thea whole list is the result of what WP editors think, instead of what objective outside sources have to say.

Your next problem is that even if that weren't the case, a list of Oakland Raiders who are in some abstract way "notable" meets falls under the definition of what Wikipediais not. Under WP policy, the whole list needs to go.

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm willing to ignore the second problem and overlook a tightly controlled list that includes players whose reason for notability is asserted with an inline citation to a reliable source. Beginning tomorrow, I'm going to begin deleting names that do not meet that less-than-minimum standard.

I also wanted to address a side point that seems to be distracting from the real issue. It seems like you're getting hung up on the deletion of this list after years of it sitting unquestioned. The reason that it is now being deleted is that someone who knew better has finally noticed it. You don't notice cancer until the tumor gets too big, but you still get rid of it once you find out. Sometimes that takes years, but it eventually happens. In this case, you made some ridiculous edits [1] — again, I'd love to hear what makes Joe Nedney and Aaron Brooks so notable — and you got yourself busted. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All right fine Bdb484 and Chris, if you guys who claim to be "moderators" want to remove the entire list then fine whatever. I was not responsible for adding the majority of these existing names on this list, I just rearranged them by position. I did add some controversial players that had recently played for the Raiders. In the case of Aaron Brooks I thought I would list a questionable acquisition from the disastrous 2006 season, adding controversial players as well as talented players but thinking about it, it may not be a good idea to add too many controversial players as it only clutters up the list. In the case of Joe Nedney, I thought I would list a player who has played for several teams over the years and known by different fan bases but again I changed my mine and deleted these names, deleted others I added and deleted some existing names as these players were not notable enough and were cluttering up the list. If any sort of list is going to be kept it should only include talented players who had a distinguished career with personal player records/achievements, pro bowl appearances, played a key role in helping the Raiders getting to and winning a Super Bowl etc. Citations next to each player are definitely needed. Along with the Hall of Fame Players already in this article other players such as Ken Stabler, Jim Plunkett, Ray Guy, Cliff Branch, Jack Tatum, Greg Townsend etc. should be acknowledged somewhere in this article and I thought the other notable alumni list would serve this purpose but I guess you guys disagree, as I said before you can do what you want I have said what I have wanted to say on this issue.--Beowulf78 07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like we're all in agreement. I'll take it down. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture and Raider Nation sections deletion reverted

I'm new to this, so bear with me... but I know I've seen pop culture reference sections in multiple other articles. Why was it removed here? Also, if "Raider Nation" is significant enough to have its own article, why does the reference not belong in the Raiders article? Cmiych (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. The pop culture section was removed because it's a collection of trivia that doesn't actually shed much light on the subject of the article. The guideline for dealing with trivia can be found here. Take a look at it and let me know what you think about keeping this section in. If you think the information is worth keeping, we may be able to instead find some common ground on how to at least whittle the list down a litte.

As for the Raider Nation section, I removed the section about famous fans, but left the remainder of the section intact. This was because (a) again, a list of celebrities who like the Raiders does not meaningfully contribute to a reader's understanding of the team; and (b) the information is already presented at Raider Nation. I'm sticking with that decision, but I'll ask if you'll consider self-reverting that change so that we don't create the appearance of an edit war. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response. I read the wikipedia information pertaining to trivia, and if nothing else, you are right it is not a "narrow focus." Anyone who might think it is relevant can find a more appropriate way to present it.

However, in regard to the Raider Nation section, it was COMPLETELY removed when I saw it, so I did reinstate it. I have no clue what is appropriate for this. If its important enough to have its own page, seems worth including. Also, it specifically seems to address notable supporters, so I don't know that it's random trivia. If I can figure out how to self-revert and re-remove the trivial section, I will... but I'm not sure we're on the same page about the "Raider Nation" aspect... Thanks again for your patience! Cmiych (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

FA

So what else needs to be done here before a Featured Article nomination? How does this process work? What can I do? Cmiych (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See below

Is the "Franchise History" section too long? Seems like some of it could be included in "logo/uniforms" or "financial" or "legal" sections. I'm a pretty new editor, so I am hesitant to make such changes to a GA... Cmiych (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Past tense?

The lead is: "The Oakland Raiders were a professional American football team in the NFL based in the city of Oakland, California."

Are they not a football team anymore? Are they not based in Oakland, CA? 71.234.192.191 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some vandalism that slipped through the cracks, nice catch.--Giants27(c|s) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Raiders Wikiproject

Anyone that's interested in helping check out the link Oakland Raiders. Zoro 1234 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Ga review

I quickly failed it because no work was being done after two days and there is so much work that it was a automatic fail anyways. Talk:Oakland Raiders/GA2 is the link for advise. Thanks Secret ^account 17:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The current version of the introduction is quite shoddy. I've tried to fix it twice now, but have been reverted by an editor. As a few examples of what needs improvement, the first sentence says they are a "team in the NFL", but there's no explanation of what the NFL is. The second sentence explains they're in the "National Football League (NFL)". This is redundant. Additionally, the paragraph moves right into the history of the franchise, with a very unclear account of how Oakland got the spot originally intended for Minneapolis. This needs to be rewritten to make it clear why it's important. Then, we're greeted with a bunch of random information about the team's struggles in its first years and how it turned itself around, but there is no mention whatsoever of the twelve years they spent in LA, or the very big news of how they returned to Oakland. Lead sections are intended to summarize the whole article; that's something that clearly needs to be there. That's enough for a start.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If it would help, when the New England Patriots article was the April 3, 2006 featured article on the Main Page, the first sentence lacked "team in the NFL". Here's the version of the Patriots article just before it went live on the Main Page that you could use as a model (but please note that the guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) were a bit different four years ago). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, standards have evolved a bit, but it's still a good starting point. (The Good Article version of this article is also quite old, too, but worth a look). I'd say we're getting to a good place now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Retired numbers

In the Retired numbers section, there's this: The number 00, worn by Jim Otto for his entire career, is no longer allowed by the NFL.[69] It was originally permitted for him only by the AFL as a marketing gimmick since his jersey number 00 is a homophone pun of his name (aught-O), which I don't believe is correct, as other players (Ken Burroughs) wore 00. It probably is correct that it was an AFL thing and possibly that he was the first to have the number, but it can't be that it was permitted "for him" (alone). - 74.162.148.39 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ted Hendricks photo

Let's look for a consensus - should the Ted Hendricks photo be included? Does a photo of him in particular, and in street clothes specifically, add substance to this article? SixFourThree (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

Raiders owners

The SF Chronicle only says "The team will remain in the Davis family." It does not say if that means Al's wife and son, or only one. The NFL.com article, which says it is based off the Chronicle article, somehow assumed that meant both Carol and Mark. While that is likely, we should not speculate and just say "Davis family" for now.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

first team in NFL history to lose at least 11 games in seven straight seasons?

 I am looking for some verification
of the information in the Oakland Raiders wikipedia article.

 In that article it says
". At the end of their 2009 campaign,
the Raiders became the first team in NFL history
to lose at least 11 games in seven straight seasons."

This sentence can be found at the bottom of the second to last paragraph
in the section entitled: "Coaching carousel 2004 to present."

I don't believe this is a true record
and I would like to see the documentation
and/or a link to the verification of 

this so called "record" please.

Therefore I have added a Thank you, Skullpatrol (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Rob

Possibly inaccurate information

"At the end of their 2009 campaign, the Raiders became the first team in NFL history to lose at least 11 games in seven straight seasons."

skullpatrol doesn't think this is true.

Once you find a reference, be bold and edit the article yourself, citing your reference.

Enjoy your editing! Someone out there will appreciate more accurate information.

Entwhiz (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Former Rivalry Between LA Raiders and Seahawks.

I don't know how to add this, or even if I should, but when the Raiders were in LA there was a rivalry between them and the Seahawks where they even played each other in the playoffs twice, once for the AFC championship. This rivalry was huge until the Raiders moved back to Oakland and the Seahawks moved back to the NFC. 142.179.70.179 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Broncos–Raiders rivalry article

The Broncos–Raiders rivalry article has just been created, though it includes an "under construction" template. DPH1110 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

New stadium proposals

Previously there was a small mention of the Raiders' stadium situation under the Home Fields section. I created an entirely new section titled New Stadium Proposals as I believe that with the Raiders being linked to the Santa Clara project, Farmers Field and Oakland's own ambitious Coliseum City requires more info than just a single sentence about Santa Clara. The Raiders' lease at the Coliseum ends in 2013, as does the A's, so I think we'll be seeing an increased amount of chatter with regards to the Raiders relocating, either within the city limits or elsewhere in the state. Thesmartstag (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information missing

A reader noted that the section Oakland_Raiders#1979:_the_Tom_Flores_era_begins goes through 1979, while the next section Oakland_Raiders#The_Los_Angeles_era_.281982.E2.80.931994.29_and_third_world_championship starts in 1982.

What happened in between?--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Introductory Summary section completely messed up.

Recently there was vandalism on this article with an addition of "Raiders suck" added in bold. It looks like there was some effort to undo/remove this but it appears that as a result the entire introductory section of this wikipedia article has been corrupted and broken.

Can someone fix it and get it back to the way it was before?

Xmbecker (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro so screwed up.

Someone completely vandalized the last 2 paragraphs of the intro please fix this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.144.19 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"No" Championships despite 3 Superbowls ?

There is an obvious inconsistence between text and sidebar: The three (3) Superbowls won by the Raiders are ignored by the sidebar, which says "Championships won: 0 (zero)." I am experiencing technical difficulties to add that information to the sidebar. Would somebody with more HTML expertise please add that vital information. --92.75.241.182 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Oakland Raiders

Cyberbot II has detected links on Oakland Raiders which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://www.change.org/petitions/john-kitzhaber-actively-explore-bringing-an-nfl-team-to-oregon?recruiter=84358141

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Oakland Raiders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050828205427/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=c/a/2003/01/24/MN64531.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=c/a/2003/01/24/MN64531.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013150625/http://stltoday.com:80/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/rams/story/241242A52193ACF98625724600217A92?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/rams/story/241242A52193ACF98625724600217A92?OpenDocument
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.nfl.com/news/story/6805404
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013213254/http://sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/25/SPG19MJJS01.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/25/SPG19MJJS01.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060510210127/http://sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/03/MNGU4FIB741.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/03/MNGU4FIB741.DTL
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.nfl.com/news/story/8222230
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060510210127/http://sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/03/MNGU4FIB741.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/03/MNGU4FIB741.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Request

Please fix the box with a summary of the team at the start of the page. I accidentally messed it up. And maybe restrict who can edit that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.222.77 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First Hispanic Head Coach

Tom_Fears was the first Hispanic/Latino Head coach in the NFL, not Tom Flores.

Bill King's Super Bowl Rings

The article says the raiders awarded radio announcer Bill King all three Super Bowl rings. I don't doubt this is the case, but I feel like this statement needs a citation. I looked around and couldn't find any sources. Does anyone else know of one? Thanks.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oakland Raiders. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140812061719/http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Raiders-owner-confirms-talks-with-San-Antonio-5656927.php to http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Raiders-owner-confirms-talks-with-San-Antonio-5656927.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Raiders move

They're not moving to Vegas for at least two years. Changing their name to the Las Vegas Raiders is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8600:C71A:B820:646F:A320:7305 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas Raiders?

At the spring Nfl's owner meeting, the owners voted to see if the Raiders would move to Las Vegas. The vote came out as a whopping 31-1, which means the Raiders would move to Las Vegas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanshaw (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanshaw: Correct, but that move to Las Vegas is not happening until 2019 at the very earliest, and possibly not until 2020. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)