User talk:Arminrichter

Verifiability and original research
I really value the sort of work that you've done, and the opening paragraph now clearly states that it is isn't an actual award, but is only a list compiled by someone, but it is a list that the AFL has adopted in recent years as being more than just a list. One of the key things about wikipedia is that is absolutely doesn't allow original research. Writing that it's a list compiled by Mullens is probably breaking the rules enough. If you want to take it further, then contact the AFL or the Herald-Sun, or the Age and try to get them to look into it and publish something. Then we can do more. But at the moment, I have two sources - The 100 years of Football and the AFL 2005 book - probably each derivatives of each other, but they are considered reliable sources - that publish this list. Hence it should remain in a similar format to now until anything else is published about it, not just until you or Ross do more investigations. The-Pope (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Pope. I have not attempted too many adjustments on Wikipedia before, just ones which are blatantly inaccurate, so I do appreciate that you have accepted my input (and that of Ross) and made an adjustment within the confines of the rules. I just thought it seemed rude to delete my factual statements without maintaining the full point of my message but I can see, if not agree, with the point you are making in relation to this inaccuracy being currently seen as accepted fact. I can't see how writing that it was a list compiled by Mullen would be breaking any rules when it is actually the truth. If you want I could scan those pages for you, you could post them on some site and create a link to it (most links on wiki are similar) as a citation is needed. As long as it is verifiable as coming from a certain source then it is OK, in this case it is a 60 year old book and, while fairly rare, is still widely available. A reference to it can be found online

http://footyalmanac.com.au/?p=17214 It can then be stated that this is where the list first appeared. Anyone wanting to disprove that would have to do their own research - which apparently is a no-no - and they wouldn't find anything else anyhow because it doesn't exist.


 * The rule for original research would surely apply to theories created from original ideas otherwise everything on wiki would be illegal as everything had to be researched somehow. I was reading printed material in recognised archives - newspapers from 1856-1950 in the State Library of Victoria - and just reported what was or wasn't reported there, so therefore it is not original research but just research. It is no different to Lindsay658 quoting the Sydney Morning Herald from 1888 when attempting to prove Champions Of The Colony could have existed or when he stated "Further to what is listed at the Sport and History site: At [5] “Old Boy” refers to Cameron being “the champion of the season” in 1912.Lindsay658 (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)" as that was his "original research" from an edition of The Argus, which was also from newspapers.


 * I found during research in 1991 that Hawthorn was actually formed in 1902 and not 1873 as the records then stated. A Hawthorn club had formed quite notably in 1873 but its demise in 1883 was only mentioned in a small paragraph in the Daily Telegraph. This club had no link to the one formed in 1902 other than it played in the same district and had the same name. I informed Hawthorn of this and still have the reply from John Lauritz (then Chief Executive) in 1993 that the club and its historical group still believed it was formed in 1873. It took over 10 years for me to convince them (during which time they celebrated 125 years in 1998 and missed their centenary in 2002) but they have now changed their formation date to 1902 which now appears everywhere due to my research.


 * Either way I have sent a message to Jim Main, a football writer here in Melbourne. He thought it was interesting when I reported that the AFLPA Most Valuable Player award goes back earlier than 1982 (Leigh Matthews) as is generally reported after I found Jesaulenko (1975), Moss (1976), Matthews (1977) and Gary Wilson (1978) had won an identical award in earlier years. He may take an interest in this. If he doesn't I may contact the Football Record. I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Herald-Sun or Age bothering with it.


 * Thanks anyhow Armin Arminrichter (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it is much harder to prove that something didn't exist, than it did. Proof by omission only works if you have 100% coverage of what you are looking for, which Trove/NLA is not quite there.  Your current idea is almost certainly correct - and I think that the footyalmanac website is OK to use as a source - the author Les Everitt is fairly well established as a journo, and not just a no-name blogger.  I'll add the ref now, and make it clearer that it is likely to be one guy's opinion, but that opinion has been taken as fact by governing body today.  Thanks again for your research (original or not!) and hope you stick around to help improve this place to be more than a guide to the AFL between 2006 and 2011. Well done on the Hawks thing - I think that the increasingly accessible old newspapers on Trove that sort of discovery will become more regular - I still remember reading about the original Fremantle side being robbed of some premierships in the 1880s in the official WAFL records for many years until Dave Clement was able to convince them. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)