Talk:Pottsville Maroons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2003 the NFL decided to again examine the case regarding the 1925 championship And? RickK 03:19, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
no word yet I think the league will sit on itSmith03 03:21, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] pottsvillemaroons.com
It is more of an unofficial fan site [1]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redskins??
Re: Recent change referring to the Redskins as the last 'incarnation' of the Maroons -- Is that true that the Boston Bulldogs became the Washington Redskins? According to the Redskins page, they were originally the Boston Braves. So which is it? If the Braves and Bulldogs have nothing in common, someone please revert the last change. Isoxyl 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
To do: cleanup the uncited POV that was added by 24.118.72.227. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) hello, I added the information which is apparently being disputed as non-nuetral. I hope this is not the wrong place to discuss this, but this is where I was linked to. If you need citations, here are a few pages I used:
http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=potts-25
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ptb1925.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd1925.htm
The actual story was handed down from my father, who lived in Chicago shortly after the events.
It is not biased, it is simply a statement of the facts of the matter. Which is unlike the partisan first site I listed. It is clearly an apology for the NFL as it omits key arcs of the story, such as the realities between the Yellow-Jackets and Maroons and the Notre-Dame game. Further, it opens up it's statement with a poisoning-of-the-well which declares that anything anyone says against or on top of it's agenda is pro-Pottsville and that anything that they say is patently false out-of-hand; this is before it has made a single argument to the credit of the viewpoint being presented.
I mention that because if you compare it with the information I posted on the subject, you will see why these themes are central to the issue and that there is not one fact I mention which is disputed. Moreoever, I used said site exactly for the purpose of demonstrating nuetrality on the subject as it is the most respected of all the sites which attempt to argue for the NFLs decision. It does not contradict anything in my article, thus both sides agree that these are the facts of the given matter.
I should also mention that it is all original text, not copied from anywhere. Thank you for your consideration. :)
- Although the gist of your contributions is good, some statements like "It is unfortunate that the NFL chooses to avoid the issue, but history clearly shows that the champions of American football in 1925 were the Pottsville Maroons" could be viewed as more editorial commentary than a neutral point of view. Those need to be cleaned up eventually. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apologize for not being able to figure out how to add the citations when I posted it. I should've waited until I had. I will attempt to add them and try to remove comments which might seem to indicate a personal perception rather than an assessment of the events. Thanks :).
OK. I think I have improved it and I got the citations in there correctly, I believe. Hopefully that is better. :)
I notice it is still listed as disputed. Is there anything else in there that I could work on improving myself please? I worked very hard on this and it has been a long-time desire of mine to try to contribute what I can to Wikipedia. I am a disabled vet so I spend a whole lot of time at my computer and I have gotten a great deal out of Wikipedia and am very proud to do whatever I can to pass that forward. I understand if there are some things that need to done by someone else, but if there is anything I can do to make it better myself, I will gladly do it. Thank you for your consideration and thanks for your help in tidying up my first sizable submission. :)