This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Hello Elelch, the facts here, and I´m not ignoring them, are: The FPF and ADFP recognize Universitario as 1934 in its published media but there is no official resolution on record to explain that. The article published in the Classic Football section of fifa.com (which is not an official resolution of FIFA or its official point of view, there is a disclaimer to that) only reflect the latter. The fact is that on record exist a number of official bulletins (ns. 161, 164, 168, 169 and 174 of the Lima League and n. 655 of FPF) that 1) Declare Alianza Lima as Champion of First Division, 2) Acknowledging a protest by Universitario declare a tie in the Tournament Of First Teams 3)Again declare Alianza Lima as Champion of First Division and champion of the Tournament of Reserve Teams and declare a no-winner of the tournament of First Teams as the teams didn't play the defining match in the date determined 4)Determined a date to play the match as asked by Alianza Lima, with the acknowledgement of Universitario, indicating clearly that the match to be played is the Tournament of First Teams Defining Match. 5)And finally after the match of July 7, 1935 the Lima League declared Universitario as Champion of the Tournament of First Teams, not Champion of First Division as it did previously with Alianza Lima.
Other facts that are not reflected in neither my version of the article or the one that you support, are that indeed there is at least one newspaper (Diario La Crónica)that on the day after the match talks about Universitario as "Champion", but in another section of the same paper, of the same day mentions that Universitario is the Champion of The Tournament of First Teams. There are List of champions of Peruvian First Division on the newspapers that acknowledge Alianza Lima as champion of 1934.
I´m questioning the validity of the FPF web page because is outdated and contain obvious mistakes (Universitario as 1972 Champion, doesn't include 1926 and 1927 years with a Tournament played) and I`m also questioning the validity of the ADFP because it only rules professional football since 1966 an here we are discussing an Amateur Tournament played in 1934.
And on the issue of the ongoing effort by supporters of Alianza Lima to get the title recognizad by the media, I'm not including in that effort the article published in dechalaca.com
[1] which is not a blog but the only web page in Peru that is dedicated to football historical and statistical issues. That is an article that supports the effort due to the information that it has provided but in no way campaigns for it.
Rdvarq (
talk)
22:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elelch, in an effort to be reasonable as you ask me, in future editions i will not put the text "Universitario itself claim to be the champion". But you can't deny the fact that there is a huge controversy in this subject. Controversy that cannot be understood in such a short article. Personally I think that there is no sense in this kind of articles, even superior leagues don't have them in Wikipedia. So there must be another article (referred in this article)in which all the facts are explained. That should stand until the "official" media changes or justify its position once and for all. I think that is what shoud have be done in the spanish version of the article. I think the Esmaktub version will do very well and I plan to traduce it. I hope I'll have the time. Rdvarq ( talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elelch or Anonymous User, seems that you haven't understood my proposal. What I'm saying is that there must be another article named "Controversy Over The 1934 Peruvian Championship". And I plan to use Esmaktub version of the 1934 article as a template. It doesn't mean that the 1934 article should be modified ignoring the current state of affairs, that is that FPF and ADFP said that Universitario is the champion of that year. The using of the Esmaktub article is fair because it will put both points of view. Meanwhile the 1934 article stands with the official view referring the controversy to this another article. I don't see why this will go against any rule of Wikipedia and don't understand the warning. Rdvarq ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1934 Peruvian Primera División. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Hello Elelch, the facts here, and I´m not ignoring them, are: The FPF and ADFP recognize Universitario as 1934 in its published media but there is no official resolution on record to explain that. The article published in the Classic Football section of fifa.com (which is not an official resolution of FIFA or its official point of view, there is a disclaimer to that) only reflect the latter. The fact is that on record exist a number of official bulletins (ns. 161, 164, 168, 169 and 174 of the Lima League and n. 655 of FPF) that 1) Declare Alianza Lima as Champion of First Division, 2) Acknowledging a protest by Universitario declare a tie in the Tournament Of First Teams 3)Again declare Alianza Lima as Champion of First Division and champion of the Tournament of Reserve Teams and declare a no-winner of the tournament of First Teams as the teams didn't play the defining match in the date determined 4)Determined a date to play the match as asked by Alianza Lima, with the acknowledgement of Universitario, indicating clearly that the match to be played is the Tournament of First Teams Defining Match. 5)And finally after the match of July 7, 1935 the Lima League declared Universitario as Champion of the Tournament of First Teams, not Champion of First Division as it did previously with Alianza Lima.
Other facts that are not reflected in neither my version of the article or the one that you support, are that indeed there is at least one newspaper (Diario La Crónica)that on the day after the match talks about Universitario as "Champion", but in another section of the same paper, of the same day mentions that Universitario is the Champion of The Tournament of First Teams. There are List of champions of Peruvian First Division on the newspapers that acknowledge Alianza Lima as champion of 1934.
I´m questioning the validity of the FPF web page because is outdated and contain obvious mistakes (Universitario as 1972 Champion, doesn't include 1926 and 1927 years with a Tournament played) and I`m also questioning the validity of the ADFP because it only rules professional football since 1966 an here we are discussing an Amateur Tournament played in 1934.
And on the issue of the ongoing effort by supporters of Alianza Lima to get the title recognizad by the media, I'm not including in that effort the article published in dechalaca.com
[1] which is not a blog but the only web page in Peru that is dedicated to football historical and statistical issues. That is an article that supports the effort due to the information that it has provided but in no way campaigns for it.
Rdvarq (
talk)
22:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elelch, in an effort to be reasonable as you ask me, in future editions i will not put the text "Universitario itself claim to be the champion". But you can't deny the fact that there is a huge controversy in this subject. Controversy that cannot be understood in such a short article. Personally I think that there is no sense in this kind of articles, even superior leagues don't have them in Wikipedia. So there must be another article (referred in this article)in which all the facts are explained. That should stand until the "official" media changes or justify its position once and for all. I think that is what shoud have be done in the spanish version of the article. I think the Esmaktub version will do very well and I plan to traduce it. I hope I'll have the time. Rdvarq ( talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Elelch or Anonymous User, seems that you haven't understood my proposal. What I'm saying is that there must be another article named "Controversy Over The 1934 Peruvian Championship". And I plan to use Esmaktub version of the 1934 article as a template. It doesn't mean that the 1934 article should be modified ignoring the current state of affairs, that is that FPF and ADFP said that Universitario is the champion of that year. The using of the Esmaktub article is fair because it will put both points of view. Meanwhile the 1934 article stands with the official view referring the controversy to this another article. I don't see why this will go against any rule of Wikipedia and don't understand the warning. Rdvarq ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1934 Peruvian Primera División. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)