Talk:1898 Clemson Tigers football team
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most media guides are going to be wrong about ancient conference affiliation
editReally, it's a silly thing to go by. What sober historian would say this and this (page 112) doesn't establish conference membership? Saying they may have not been football members is imposing modern sentiment on it. Done a ton on Vandy and Florida football and can name tons of errors you would never just copy blindly. The media guide is no better than citing another encyclopedia. What is its source? Anybody who knows anything about southern football can see they knew they were in the SIAA when they were SIAA champs (1900-1903 and 1906, what a coincidence) - that doesn't mean they were independent otherwise. That hasn't been established in the slightest. Cake (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @MisterCake: Your edit asserts Clemson football is a member of the SIAA conference in 1898 and ignores the existing citation of Clemson's 2016 Media Guide, pg 200 which shows 1898 Clemson football was not part of SIAA or any other conference -contrast the 1898 visual treatment with 1900, 1901, 1938, 1953, and later years where the conference name and conference W-L-T record are explicity broken out.
- Do you have a WP:RS which supports your change asserting 1898 Clemson football participation in SIAA? UW Dawgs (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Media guides look to us more than we look to them. It's that simple. William Lofland Dudley and Walter Merritt Riggs were president and vice president of the SIAA. It wasn't like you'd be in some other regions basketball conference while in the SIAA for track. If you have a football team, are in the SIAA and following the rules, you would be included in a conference treatment. Do you have any source that shows the media guide knows of what it speaks? Do you have any source showing teams in the SIAA for baseball-only or something aside from not having a football team? I've answered you several times now without you answering that. Cake (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Roger Saylor's source is far from perfect, but far superior to the average media guide, and having quite a bit of progress on that front undone after lots of help with UNC (whose 1895 SIAA title is something like UF's 1911 South Carolina championship). Clemson sources were confused enough to place them in the SAIAA too (never were in it afaik). I've sources to back me up that Clemson was in the SIAA in 1897, 1898, 1904 1908, 1914, 1917, and 1921 aside from their championship seasons (1900 - 1903; 1906). Seems obvious to me the media guide is agnostic about years in which they didn't win the SIAA title. Far from the first time a media guide has been wrong. Glad for you to double check the SIAA affiliation, but you should corroborate what the media guide is telling you with a primary source. Cake (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please produce a link to whatever source(s) you believe support your contested 1898 Clemson/SIAA edits so they can be reviewed. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced content
edit@MisterCake: Your edit changed the article from stating Clemson was an Independent per this existing citation, pg 200, to being SIAA-affiliated without offering a valid supporting citation. Your citation appears to reference Clemson's general SIAA membership, but this is an article about the 1897 Clemson football in particular. School membership does not establish participation of a given team.
Per WP:BURDEN, your addition of unsourced and contested content has been reverted. Please produce a valid citation for 1898 Clemson football participation in SIAA before making any similar change. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @MisterCake: This edit fails verificaiton, as it does not directly support 1898 Clemson football as a SIAA member. The existing citation, pg 196, 200 shows no conference affiliation for football. The edit has therefore been reverted. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not re-add disputed content without using a citation which directly supports the edit. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)