User talk:TravisBernard/NFLPA

Precertification

1. all sources are abundantly clear that in the beginning the nflpa did not want to be viewed as a union.
2. it is unclear when the blacklisting ban went into effect. I have to go back and read p. 182 of Coenen. If the sentence stays as it is now, it's fine because it does not mention what year it went into effect, 1945. Also, that ban might have been originally created in the 1930s. I would have to go back and look at Willis.
3. generally speaking, i am strongly for including Gibron and Lavelli's names because Lavelli worked on the docks and was familiar with unionizing.
4. i have a source that says all the nflpa's requests were met in 1957, 1958, or 1959 (i forget which year) but I have not read the sources used in this article as it stands now w respect to this matter
5. rephrase: "This didn't stop all players from switching leagues. For example, " You can't use contractions on Wikipedia and also take the opposite case:"Nevertheless, all players in the NFL switched to the AAFC." Just say, "Nevertheless, in whatever year Bill Radovich..."
6. Precertification might not be a real word. Oops :) My spellchecker don't like it.
7. This is not true: "For some players, this frustration resulted in trades." At no time was he frustrated. The sentence is superfluous.
8. I agree with thewriter that the names of the teams of the players should not be listed. What team they played for had no bearing. However, you have to bear in mind that no player from the Bears joined the NFLPA in the beginning.
9. I think this is specious: "Unable to win their attention by organizing, the association threatened to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the league. That threat became much more credible" I think the citations need to be looked at to see if they match that statement.
10. I neglected to include when AG and DL approached Miller. Also what happened between that time and 1956. ????
11. Need rephrase and citation for: "Unable to win their attention"
12. delete without prejudice because it belong in Radovich v. National Football League: "The Radovich v. National Football League ruling "set the foundation for a series of court battles that have continued to present times."[1]
13. there are statements in this article with citations, but the citations do not support the statements. Unless either one of you put the statement and citation in, then you have to go back and do due diligence and check if its true.
14. I have not found one single implementation of an internet source used as a citation that actually supports a statement the citation is attributed to. I am an 0'fer.
15. Pat Summerall's book: just be careful with Summerall's and Gifford's books. Their books can give you informatoin and insight like no others, but ... be careful. Other sources are always important to look at.
16. I wrote: "The initial precursor.." the word precursor needs to be fixed. That's the wrong word.66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall

1. This article is going to be extremely difficult. Do not underestimate it :)
2. Citations have to support statements they are attributed to in its entirety. If a statement says A and B, then the citation supporting it has to support both A and B. If a citation says A and B, then you can use one citaton to support A and another citation to support B. If a statement says A, B, C, and D, and a citation only supports A and C, then I will put in a citation required. If you want to edit this article, then you have to take ownership of the citations and actually read the sources. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why is this not being worked on in the mainspace article? When this is finished, a histmerge is going to be needed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree editing here is a bad idea for two reasons. One, everyone that reads that pages is gonna be like, "What's going on here?" If the article gets blasted with drastic changes, and two, I like to do one citation at a time and I put the first few sentences of the paragraph in so the citation can be quickly found (especially if its an e-book) and sometimes I put a direct quote in the Edit summary. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Case in point, Travis reverted 14 of my edits because I went too fast. How are the contributors of the the NFLPA article going to feel if it gets flattened w drastinc changes. If the article gets flattened, contributors can revert it for not discussing drastic changes and the people are not going to be happy if a month's worth of work gets reverted. I was unhappy, as I am sure you can understand, when 14 of my edits were reverted - although I kind of thought it was funny too, to be honest. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'm going to perform a histmerge. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I drafted the edits on my talk page originally because I have a conflict of interest. The NFLPA is the client of my employer, so I wanted to get feedback on the edits before implementing them. I'll go ahead and implement the updates on the page, and then we can work on the live article. Sound good? --TravisBernard (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "implement the updates on the page"? This subpage or the main article? If you mean the main article, I suggest you don't, as I can just merge the history of the subpage into the main article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I didn't realize that you could merge the article like that. Let's move this conversation to the talk page now that the article has been merged. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what a histmerge is, but as far as I am concerned you can do what you want :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Already done. A histmerge combines the revisions of two articles into one single history. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

The law journals should be able to accessed for free by logging in to your local librarys wifi. I like to look at contemporary stuff-what people were writing in 1957 for example. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Note: the further reading stuff I put is drawn from Smiths' book p. 20-26. It has 120, I'm estimating, books and articles in its bibliography devoted to the NFLPA and antitrust stuff. The book was written in 1993 and the pro football history was, at best, in its infancy. It's a massive shortcut. I put in the ones that I can get to, which a serious professional could get too also. I'll weed them out if they don't fit the subject. The law journal stuff is only 10 to at most 50 pages; I can stomach that. You don't necessarily have to read them. I like reading contemporary accounts of things. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)