Talk:Clemson Tigers football/Archive 1

Archive 1

History

I added the new history section, various coaching eras, the first coaching picture (John Heisman), and pasted the content from the recruiting "scandal" article. The only information not dropped from that article was the infraction list, which is available in the NCAA report (referenced). Wikipedia is not intended to be an indescriminate list for items of this nature. Thör ^hammer 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge of "Clemson University football recruiting scandal" into this article

This is the discussion brought forward from the talk page discussion:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Merge into Clemson Tigers football.--Thör ^hammer 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to follow through with the suggestion of the dispositioning admin from the original AfD and propose that this article be merged (vice split) with another article. Some discussion relating to the merge from the original AfD nomination (there was significant support in the nom for Merge):

• • Merge into a general article about NCAA football recruiting violations.JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clemson Tigers football. Notability in secondary sources is not sufficiently established to justify a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 1981 Clemson Tigers football team already makes a brief mention of this. I have no strong preference for merge targets. New York Times has a few articles that may be helpful in sourcing. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clemson Tigers football in a NPOV and supported and referenced fashion, as is typically done with this info on other WP:CFB articles. See Oklahoma Sooners football (a GA-class article) and search for "violations". MECU≈talk 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clemson Tigers football. Good grief, that was a long, painful nom!! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into relevant season article I realize that's a rather specific vote, here's my logic (speaking generally): If there is some baseline notability (I don't think NCAA sanctions automatically are, usually the media will tip us off to what are "major/notable" infractions), then this might warrant mention somewhere. I don't think this should be merged into any general "Clemson Tigers football" article, because its about a very specific period (although a small statement in the relevant area of a larger history section would be acceptable). Beyond one sentence, it would make sense as a sub-section of a season article (possibly a sub-section under "legacy" or similar such post-season section). If it can be expanded (legitimately) to a good size, then it might warrant its own article linked back from the relevant season page. For now, I am against merging it into a general Clemson football article, but in support of merging it into a relevant season article. I am neutral on deleting it altogether. --Bobak (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that is not completely accurate. The violations occurred over a period from 1977-1981, the probation was enforced through various means on the program during the 1982-1984 seasons. So it would be difficult to merge this article into just one season article. Also there is the issue of the probation which was placed on the program in 1990, I was planning to add a section to this article dealing with that. ViperNerd (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge into relevant Clemson football-related articles as mentioned by other voters above. ↔NMajdan•talk 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge Personally I don't think these types of infractions generally deserve their own articles except in rare cases such as the SMU death penalty case (which actually doesn't have an article) and should normally be handled in a section in University Mascots football but the subject does meet notability guidelines and reliable sources can be found so it certainly may stand as an individual article.
    Although there are many bytes in this kitchen sink nomination, a large percentage are dedicated to a misplaced behavior report and refutation of a single errant statement in the article that does not represent a fatal flaw. Furthermore, the nominator misunderstands/mistates not temporary and claims via bullet point the topic has not received "significant coverage" in secondary sources and then immediately backtracks acknowledging that reliable sources certainly exist. AUTiger » talk 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, let's wrap this up. Discussion seems to have tapered off, and the overall consensus seems to be keep/merge. Seeing how there is no single season article about Clemson football that this article can be tied into easily due to the two probations and years of violations, it would seem best to allow this article to stand on its own merits for now and allow editors to improve it, as they have been doing. I think a decision needs to be made and the AfD template removed. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Most of the sources cited in the article are press clippings, if the author could cite from a published book (which would provide perspective on the seriousness of the allegations) then I would say keep/merge. Gamecock (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no such article, and most of the merge votes above favor merging to Clemson Tigers football. As I stated previously, I disagree with creating a fork article instead of attaching this information to an article about the Clemson team. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - in a nutshell in terms of keep, merge delete - I agree with edg's well worded point to merge (which of course is another form of Keep!)--VS ^talk 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no Keep/Delete consensus from the original AfD nomination, and the overwhelming opinion was Merge, but the remaining question was what the merge target would be. As part of this Merge proposal, I think I would start the discussion where the contributors above left off - it should probably be targeted at the main Clemson Tigers football article, similar to the way Oklahoma Sooners football was handled with the mention of violations in the individual eras discussed in the articles.

In accordance with WP:Merge, I will be notifying ALL of the recent editors of the merge discussion. Please note that this should not be construed as canvassing as it is encouraged by the merge guidelines. Thör ^hammer 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Merge with Clemson Tigers Football Until editors can begin to add information about specific eras in Clemson Football history, I vote that a section be created called "Controversies" that can list stuff like this as well as other pivotal hot issues for Clemson football. Jober14 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Clemson Tigers football. Include the NCAA violation information in either a section specifically created for that info or in a section addressing the era (by coach, decade, etc.).Thör ^hammer 01:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Clemson Tigers football. I agree that an appropriate location inside that article would be defined by the era (coaching or otherwise). In this case, there could be either a 1970's and 1980's era or a Charlie Pell era and a Danny Ford era. I also agree with Mecu that the Oklahoma Sooners football article does a good job in this regard. If you read through the NCAA violations statistics that Thör included in the AfD nomination, it is obvious that to continue the practice of potentially having a separate article for NCAA violations is getting the CFB project on a slippery slope (look at the shear numbers). Putting this type of information directly in the University Mascots football as suggested by Autiger would appear to take almost all of the important factors mentioned above into account, including what to do about violations and probations over multiple seasons/coaches.CobraGeek (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Mergeinto a single page describing the top 10 infractions from each school (broken down by conference). We don't need to copy/paste the entire NCAA record of every time some booster gave a lineman a stick of gum for every school in division 1. Ultimately, these minor violations weren't noteworthy and shouldn't reflect on Clemson as though they were (contrary to what the original author would like us to believe). I think we need to be consistent and not start such a page for every school.Reverseknarf (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So we have consensus, then? Looks like Merge into a separate article in some fashion, with that article being Clemson Tigers football. Jober14, I will go ahead and add the structure for editors to begin adding information in specific eras in Clemson Tigers football#History so that will account for your comments and eliminate the need for a "Controversies" section. CobraGeek, good comments, agreed, and I'll make sure that the structure includes your thoughts also. Reverseknarf, agree we certainly don't need a separate page for each school for NCAA violations and probations, but I disagree about needing a page with a "top 10" infractions list for each school. That would start getting into the "what Wikipedia is not" category. I'll start making the changes to Clemson Tigers football, move the article content from this article, and add the redirect tag to this article. Thanks all. Thör ^hammer 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adequate Rationales were added to Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png

The image Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently proper rationales that followed guidelines were added to the image sometime ago, however several disruptive users attempted to erroneously remove the rationales out of spite. The rationales have since been restored.

After much research, it seems that the precedent had been set long ago that most articles pertaining to, or in reference to athletic organizations, are allowed to use their respective athletic logos, as long as the use of them follows certain restrictions, as in the conventional press.

*Note: College & university wordmarks or headers that are identical to their official source, as stated by some erroneous users, are not, in fact, "free." They too are subject to certain guidelines and restrictions as normally stated at the official source. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Any logo that consists of only letters/words is treated under Wikipedia policy as being free of copyright and thus in the public domain, and is therefore "free use" even despite being trademarked. If you need further education on the policies in play here (WP:NFCC), you may direct your questions to User:Zscout370 or User:Hammersoft. I would highly suggest that you familiarize yourself with these policies before you attempt to edit this content beyond what you have already attempted as an anonymous IP user. Also, the assertion that a unique casting of a tiger's paw print can be construed as "simple geometric shapes" does not pass muster. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not any different to logos being enhanced to follow guidelines entered in at wikipedia commons. If you read the source material, those images should probably retain their trademarks. How come you don't have an issue with those logos? Weren't you recently reverting 20 athletic logos, including South Carlina Gamecock athletic logos on January 5th, 2011 [1], claiming "fair use" and "officiality"? Yet, you also mentioned Zscout370, but before you altered all those logos, you were imploring him to let the ones you wanted to remain there, before you changed them [2] yourself? You seem to be jumping back and forth on this issue. Perhaps if you would reach a stance that is unbiased, fair, and "consistent" concerning all of this; then all parties might be satisfied and happy with the results, "working together." Just a suggestion. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard the phrase, "you can't fight City Hall"? That's the only reason I backed off my attempts to get the Block C on all Carolina sports articles. Because even though that type of non-free fair use makes the most sense to me (and many others), the consensus thrust upon us by a cabal of individuals doesn't agree with that point of view. Believe it or not, I'm actually on your side here, but it looks as though common sense isn't going to be allowed to prevail on this subject. Trust me, you're swimming against the tide on this one. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Free Use Clarification of Clemson Paw / Athletic Logo

This is being re-posted here for clarification. After having observed much of the ridiculous behavior concerning logos, I took it upon myself to research this particular subject thoroughly:

According to the University, & the Director of Marketing & Promotions who I contacted through the phone number listed on the website, where all the relevant information is documented, in both .html [3] & .pdf [4] formats:

1. The "Clemson Athletic Logo / Paw Logo" is the only athletic logo that represents the university's athletic programs. Unlike many institutions, corporations, or affiliate programs, the logo was marketed that way intentionally. There is no alternative or equivalent.

2. The logo falls under both fair & free use with certain restrictions, qualifying it for wikicommons, as well as internationally, because of the date the copyright was filed, & as long as the logo is not used for marketing or promotional purposes or misrepresentation, without permission, with certain restrictions.

3. The university wordmarks / letterheads [5] are copyrighted and reserved for use "only" by certain administrative departments concerning academics, and actually have more use restrictions than the actual "paw" athletic logo. They are not free to use, including for the purposes of misrepresentation.

For questions or more information, contact the Director of Marketing and Promotions office, or the office of Creative Services [6] listed on the website (www.clemson.edu) or (864)-656-3311. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

i want to update the recruit rankings for 2016

SportEdit23 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe he wants to add a 2016 entry to the table in the sub category "Recruiting". The latest entry is for last year. He would be adding that Clemson ranked #5 in recruiting per Rivals.com.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Danny Ford section

First off, in researching, a consensus doesn't constitute anything that was already removed all the way back in 2009 or 2010 due to past edit warring / block, which was already subject to immediate removal: [7], [8].

Secondly, in trying to administer good faith, that old consensus uses the Oklahoma Sooners football article as a reference (comprised of two sentences about violations), and the NCAA report as a "reference," and that wikipedia is also not to be used as "an indescriminate list" of items of this nature.

The version in that section that was just removed [9][10](5 sentences, in two paragraphs, with 5 references) was already a compromise, and is more than adequate and sufficient enough to let any reader know that the program was penalized, the coach resigned, etc., and is cited multiple times to give them further details. JustAGal2 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The consensus on how this material should be incorporated into this article was reached in 2008 (evidently merged from a stand-alone article that detailed the Clemson football probations), so edit warring or any other activity in 2009 or 2010 has no bearing on that decision, or the fact that the material incorporated by consensus has been steadily whittled away by POV editing in the years since the merge was agreed upon. I see no problem with new edits that add relevant, sourced information to this section, but there is no basis for deletion of well-sourced information. Yesterday, I restored the section to the consensus merge edit of 10 July 2008, and unless new consensus is attained that provides compelling reason for substantial alteration, I will continue to revert any deletions of material agreed upon at that time. 129.252.69.40 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

But you weren't even following that old consensus in most of the compromising edits that you changed. And you have been deleting other people's contributions. Four paragraphs of previously removed, redundant information for the purposes of degrading a University or a living person because of a rivalry is not necessary to the section, or for retailiory action because you disagreed on something on another page, whether re-sourced or not. My advice is to just revert minor vandalism on those pages and just let it go. The logs and the page history show that you are one of the primary users to be edit warring and pushing the same content that is redundant, and has already been re-editted as a compromise to keep people from warring over it again in the first place. JustAGal2 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Writing misleading edit summaries stating that you are "re-adding awards" or "adding / replacing out of place line about bowl wins in intro" is not fooling anyone with a pair of eyes from seeing what you are really doing here. If you want to know what material was merged here by consensus back in July 2008 (which you should be familiar with, since an editor called JustAGal coincidentally edited this article in May of that year), here is the material as it was introduced by an editor called Thör [11]. All I have done is restore that material, replace dead reference links, and make corrections/additions to some of the factual information contained in the refs. If you want to make the changes you keep mentioning in your edit summaries, you can do that without altering sourced content in this section. 129.252.69.40 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that User:129.252.69.40 is correct in this case, seeing as there are no diffs provided for the accusation that the IP editor deleted other editors positive contributions. However, I will say to the IP editor, that abusing multiple accounts[12], especially when you've been blocked multiple times for abusing multiple accounts will not help your cause. Boomer Vial^Holla 00:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct as he may be, this user needs to start using his actual handle instead of an anonymous IP address. His writing style and edit comments, plus record of edit warring, blatantly gives him away. He's been punished before by admins under his real handle and is using a different IP to do damage elsewhere while avoiding new punishment.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomer, the diffs were first in the report. IP removed a paragraph about awards (that I wrote), a sentence I replaced over one less directed to the subject (bowl wins), removed the undefeated seasons, a reference about another season that you had replaced, and all the sourced content that also met the Consensus, which was less redundant, more NPOV. I just simply "re-added" all the stuff that had been removed, before I started to actually "contribute" again. Oh and "welcome to the party," LesPhilky. JustAGal2 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And you guys aren't completely right: I just re-read (again) the "Discussion" (what GandB mistakes for Consensus) above, which was merely "carryover comments" from an AfD over a deleted article.[13]. None of those editors actually did any "work" on this, meaning any "writing or editing" to the actual article or section. The Consensus they reached was the "deletion" of an article they did not want, that they deemed inappropriate and unnecessary to wikipedia called "Clemson football Scandal" (yeah, I know) created by User:ViperNerd, who is the only one above who wanted to keep the article, and who was later banned.[14]. They merged, or redirected the deleted article title, but they never stated exactly how it was to be written, just that it would be included like in Oklahoma Sooners football, meaning it's open to editors to decide. Consensus happens between editors all the time, everyday on wikipedia. Nothing here is set in stone. JustAGal2 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@JustAGal: So, what you are saying is that the consensus that was reached on the talk page is irrelevant to the section that is being disputed? Like I said, you're going to get a third opinion here, because I'm not sure which revision (yours or User:GarnetAndBlack/IP) is correct here. @LesPhilky: I agree, and would strongly advise to to file and SPI against User:GarnetAndBlack|IP. Boomer Vial^Holla 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial:To clarify, it is looking like the person who created the original that got deleted and second and third are all probably the same [15][16], which seems even more evident since all of the reverts are the same: [17], and [18], [19], [20], and identical to the ones made recently. The reverts of all those editors over such a long time is pretty distubing to me. Alas, by default that makes all of this subject for removal. But I am going to try and assume good faith here anyway. JustAGal2 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial:Not irrelevant, just that it doesn't have to be set any one way, or be overly redundant. JustAGal2 (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that 129.252.69.40 and ViperNerd are one and the same user (as far as IP edits to USC and Clemson articles are concerned), in fact, I was convinced of that fact years ago when one particular editor [21] here made it a personal crusade to attempt to paint me as just another sock puppet of that disruptive person. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Unlike some editors, I don't logout from my account to make edits, nor make excuses for why that might be a valid thing to do. What's more disturbing to me is that an editor with an account started just 4 days ago is using that account (as well as a handful of IPs) for essentially one purpose on Wikipedia since signing up. Smells an awful lot like someone attempting to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, and definitely smacks of WP:SPA. Care to let everyone know who you are behind that mask, JustAGal2? Is that you, Thomas?[22] Or should I try to assume good faith in equal measure as you are doing? Oh, by the way, none of this bantering changes the fact that nothing has been said in this discussion thus far that would provide cause for previous consensus to be ignored in this case. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm done getting involved with this. Please stop pinging me, and get another opinion. Thanks. Boomer Vial^Holla 07:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Break

New section:

1) Let me remind other users that this is an online encyclopedia about actual people, not a tabloid.

2) Considering this was almost 40 years ago, the subject of this era, Dan Ford is BPL or alive. I am sure it would be unfair to him, family members, children, students, etc, to have anything dishonest, insensitive, exaggerated, redundant, or not factual published on an online encyclopedia especially over something as silly as a sports rivalry. Charlie Pell, according to the references, is cited as being the HC when the allegations began. This was already noted, even though it was deleted recently. Part of this should be included in "his" section. Don't want to push on the deceased guy, but there is much written about his time in Florida as well. Comparison to see how content is treated in related articles? I noticed the sentence that Ford was cleared by the NCAA was mysteriously removed.

3) I noticed the issue of WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE is somewhat occurring here. The major sanctions covered a two to three year period in comparison with the other twelve to thirteen of athletics. I see from reading other articles that this can become a problem with sections.

4) Possibility of addition of "controversies" section added at the bottom as with Florida State Seminoles football? Although I see that WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE was cited as being a problem there too.[23] I see in a previous discussion that was suggested before. I don't think those editors anticipated the conflicts that this was to create in the original discussion.

5) These articles I just found might be of interest to some for further reading, but shouldn't be included here: [24], [25].

6) The supposed Consensus which was really a discussion about an article deletion mentions other articles like Oklahoma Sooners football. Those sanctions are mentioned in the beginning of the Barry Switzer era, and at the end. They consist of two paragraghs, and are sourced. However, it is noteworthy to mention in comparison that those allegations were steeper, with rostered players, with heavier penalties, vacated wins, and involved some criminal activity. Programs like Alabama, Southern Cal, FSU, Ohio State, Penn State have had much worse.

7) The NCAA did a thorough investigation, but since the allegation involved recruits and not rostered players or ineligibilities, there were no "forfeited or vacated wins" I noticed that this was also removed.

8) The main punishment lasted for a two year period, and one extra by the ACC. I noticed this was removed. Having the same years mentioned 4 times in the article is redundant and is unnecessary. How about '83 to '84, and include the punishments. Obviously the program was "censured and publically repremanded" if punished by the NCAA.

9) Wikipedia again, is not a tabloid. A "laundry list" of allegations is unnecessary. I made a point earlier about how "seventy" was changed to "over one hundred fifty" with 69 charges added, to differentiate how the original Thor edit had changed. I'll take a look at the sources again. Again, Ford was cleared by the NCAA. The article has sources for a user to click on to get all the detail they will need at their fingertips. Long winded quote by Charles Wright, now deceased, reinterating the same information, unnecessary and can also be viewed in source. User:GarnetAndBlack has removed sourced content and citations using the same argument to do so.

10) Same thing in latter section. The fact that sanctions were not severe enough to get post season bans or television bans removed. "Cash to players" was re-added. Again, is this level of detail in other team articles, especially the ones with more severe violations?

Anything to add or amend? I am welcoming open talk here. JustAGal2 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add that you are welcome to add whatever missing information you feel is relevant to this section of the article, as long as it is verifiable and well-sourced in accordance with WP:RS. However, removal or significant alteration of material placed here by consensus is not welcome, and you have still provided no basis whatsoever for deletion of sourced content beyond your own personal biases. I do not see the "redundant" nature in this section that you continue to complain about, the fact that these events occurred 40 years ago is irrelevant, the first probation is mentioned in the Charlie Pell section but since it took place during Danny Ford's tenure the bulk of the material belongs in his section, the fact that other programs "have had much worse" is irrelevant, there is nothing in this section written in a manner that could be reasonably described as "tabloid" in nature, there is no "laundry list" of allegations anywhere in the section (all of that type of detail was determined to be excessive and as you pointed out can be read in the linked sources), it would appear based on the reference given that the correction from "seventy violations" to "More than 150 documented violations and 69 charges" is an accurate one unless you are suggesting that the Washington Post can't be trusted as a reliable source, and absolutely nothing "dishonest, insensitive, exaggerated, redundant, or not factual" is present in this section. Finally, your veiled threat to edit other articles in a retaliatory fashion if you don't get your way in this one isn't exactly strengthening your argument. But if you've got more detail you'd like to add to the sections dealing with probations at Alabama, Southern Cal, FSU, Ohio State, or Penn State, and you've got sources to support the material, then have at it. But if your plan is to make the same edits to this section of this article as soon as protection is lifted, I think you are going to find that to be an unproductive endeavor, to say the least. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you could stop with all the name calling and WP:EW on a mere talk section and learn to compromise or revert more conscientiously, I was going to comment on one of your sources. And it is possible to revert something without removing other people's contributions even on talk (you erased stuff I added including my signature) [26]as in the article, like the citation restored by Boomer, the other edits, the undefeated seasons, and awards paragraph I "wrote,"[27][28] which I merely re-"added" back in. Just to clarify. Trying to help you here, or give you an opportunity to contribute something. Nevertheless, I knew the Washington Post article had it listed as 150 as I read, however I was also pointing out the change from Thor's original version, to a later version. I also think the language interpreted from the sources is different from one article to the other, as "69 charges" must have been changed or interpreted as "seventy violations" in the old deleted "Clemson football recruting Scandal" article you wrote or the one you have been protecting. However, it reinterates one of my points, since the citation name is "List of Charges Made Against Clemson by the NCAA"-- it does just that, gives both a general and detailed list of those violations, which makes it unnecessary to summarize those in the section. A reader will have that citation to tell them exactly what those charges were. The term "laundry list" was just a phrase or figure of speech to describe what this section is not supposed to be, and what is already implicit in the sources. JustAGal2 (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2From experience, I can tell you you're going about this wrong. G&B won't yield unless an admin forces him to. He never thinks he is wrong and will vehemently defend what he believes is his sovereign right to control article content. You can try to be assertive, or you can try to be cooperative, but neither method will work. He's been banned before for edit warring, incivility, and other rules violations. Each time, he's never believed he was wrong and continues the behavior once the ban is lifted. He'll continue to edit war unless someone with authority stops him. He also plays the victim, games the system, and twists logic. I invite you to go read his absurd crusade in the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry to prevent people from actually calling the University of South Carolina anything but "Carolina". He said attempts to call the school "South Carolina" were POV edits. Seriously. Using the name of the damn school was POV. So that's what you're up against.

So, here are my thoughts on this situation. First, even as a Clemson graduate who appreciates all Danny Ford did, I think the NCAA investigation stuff should remain where it is. Despite it being primarily a Charlie Pell issue, the probation did occur during the Ford tenure. I do, however, see you made edits that were sourced and did a better job of explaining the Ford tenure, and those need to be restored. Thus, add more to explain the situation yet leave the current NCAA investigation information as is.

Furthermore, don't get sucked into G&B's game, a mistake I made years ago. He thrives off this, and he'll stoop to levels you won't. But you know what really burns him up? Adding positive, well-sourced information about Clemson. That's what I've seen anger him the most since he somehow thinks nothing good has ever come out of Clemson. There's plenty more to be added about Danny Ford's tenure that is positive and cannot be deleted if sourced properly. That would be my recommendation to you. As you do that, file the reports with admins over his incivility, false accusations of sock puppetry (I have one saved where he falsely accused me), edit warring, and continuing of past transgressions that brought about discipline from admins. If you do, I'll be happy to cite my past experiences to show the behavior hasn't changed.

Hey, the probation happened and we can't change it. But we won a national title and he can't change that. Our program is now elite while theirs is in shambles, and he can't do anything about that. Focus on the positive and report the abuses. Don't waste time in your life trying to battle him toe-to-toe over content like this.

Oh, and hey, G&B. Hugs and kisses. It's been a while. Solid recruiting class y'all landed there. Can't wait to see what all those two-stars do.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I really just wanted to make a few edits until the reverts seemed odd as how they removed almost everything else editors had contributed recently. I looked at the IP contributions and block log, to see what was up, and saw that the username and IP had been reverting other people's work together these articles FOR YEARS. And that admins haven't picked up on this and have apparently allowed it to continue to me is appalling-- just leave it for unsuspecting new editors to deal with? It so much harder to research and contribute than it is to just tear down others work and hide behind phony policy posts. I am not bothered by the sanctions so much, as I am how the content had been pushed on the page. Think it's this ViperNerd? Almost seems like he is protecting this content from some meaningless article from 8 years ago? Ever file an SPI? Who was this admin who blocked him last? It does seem overly redundant for something that can be stated in some clear sentences. I notice a less level of detail on those South Carolina pages, concerning anything perceived negative. So, did you read my points? Feel free to comment on anything you think makes a good point. JustAGal2 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct; there is a history of edit warring and obsessive protection of such material by this user over the years. Every so often the admins have intervened, but as mentioned before, he has contempt and disdain for their rulings, and instead tries to discourage and chase away any new editors. If a new editor arrives, he immediately screams "Sock Puppet!" and tries to throw rules at them while breaking those same rules himself. On one occasion, an admin had to remind him that making autonomous changes was not how Wikipedia works. But obviously that didn't help. He also has made an obsessive effort to eliminate or sugarcoat any negative information about South Carolina while putting emphasis on those for Clemson, which indicates his bias. Take a look at how he tries to play off the violations committed under Holtz and Spurrier, which were more egregious than the ones Clemson committed in the 70s and 80s. I never had any experience with ViperNerd so I don't know. I can look up all the past records from a few years ago and see where he was disciplined if that helps. That being said, I think you have a case to file SPI. I will contribute if you do. Also, I would recommend calling in third party arbitration on this article. G&B has a history of backing down once a third party comes in and sets it straight. I do agree that this section has WP:WEIGHT problems and needs clarification. I recommend making those clarifications and adding more of Clemson's accomplishments under Ford. You won't be able to change or remove any info unless you bring in a third party. I can guarantee he will edit war until that happens.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Right back at you, Les. I see it only took 2 years after a half-decade of beatdowns by Carolina for you to drop the false humility act you put on during those five seasons of Gamecock ownership of the rivalry, and now you're right back to your old swaggering misbehavior (which in case you've forgotten, led to your own block for 3RR/edit warring and topic ban from USC articles). Now you're violating WP:CIVILITY by calling me a sociopath, attempting to insult USC's football program and recruiting efforts by a new coaching staff (remember that stellar bunch that Dabo brought to Clemson in his first signing class?), and on, and on. Guess you won't be inviting me to any more tailgates, huh? At least not until Clemson's "elite" status wears off (likely as soon as Deshaun Watson takes his talents to the NFL) and you are losing games to us again. Congrats on a solid season, I've said my entire life that Clemson was Number Two, and now you can proudly proclaim it to the world!

And I see that JustAGal2 is still more concerned about the creator than the content in this dispute, but that's not a surprise, is it? "unsuspecting new editors"…that's a good one, Thomas. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy that brief blip of success in your program. You and I both know you would trade it in a second to be on the path Clemson is on right now. Man, it's gotta hurt. And with the direction Dabo has us going, you'll be enjoying a lot of losses to Clemson in the future. But I'm sure hiring your fifth coaching choice, a guy who crashed and burned at Florida, will work out okay.

I'm not wasting my time extending friendliness to you anymore as you refuse to change your behavior as evidenced here. Anti-social behavior, a grandiose sense of something being your right, refusing to admit you committed wrong doing, manipulation, vengeful behavior... these are all symptoms of a sociopath. Do you ever feel you deserve a punishment for your edit warring? No, you don't. But you expect others to be punished. I hope JustAGal2 and Boomer Vial file an SPI for you. I'll be happy to add to it. The person edit warring on the page is using a USC IP address and suspiciously uses the same logic and comments you do when edit warring. If it ISN'T you, brother, then someone at your university has recognized your behavior and is doing their best to mimic it.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been busy with real life stuff this week. I think there are without question WP:WEIGHT problems here, and the general negative redundancies. I don't think it's necessary to cut out neutral content, or reemphasize the same information or dates since it is already established it lasted for a 2 to 3 year period out a 13 year period. I am trying to stay out of the other stuff for now. I am trying to focus on content specifically, so any comments pertaining to that or tone, is always helpful. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP

JustAGal2, you implied above that the article might contain BLP violations. If it does, please list them here, but be very specific and succinct. BLP issues would include anything unsourced or poorly sourced, or anything unfair, about a living person. See WP:BLP for details. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The general unnecessary list of allegations [29] which are already detailed in the source List of Charges Made Against Clemson by NCAA and reinteration, re-emphasis of his name [30] in an era already named after him, is meant to imply and mislead that the subject "Danny Ford" was directly involved with the list of "allegations." This list was published before the investigation was even completed.

Of course intentionally removing the statement "It is notable that Ford was cleared in the NCAA's final report" when user reverted "all" of the other more neutral content didn't help the matter or section [31][32][33].

This article also states Ford and his staff were cleared: [34]. Also found an indirect article where his wife (under "will coach for free") discusses lack of "privacy"[35]. This article also states Ford was cleared. The 1981 season and championship which the user keeps trying to include in this redundant, slanted version is also recognized by the NCAA and favorably [36], the very organization that investigated the school. The investigation involved mostly boosters and recruits, and a previous coaching staff under Charlie Pell, not enrolled students and rostered players at the University. This was also removed in the more to the point, succinct version.

Similarly, more sockpuppetry/EW found: this edit [37] by ViperNerd, 2009 is almost identical to this [38] and the above are closely related to these [39], [40], [41] to further push with much more negative bias. JustAGal2 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight…you think it's a BLP violation to mention Danny Ford's name in the section of this article that deals with his coaching tenure at Clemson? I'm…I really don't know how to respond to something this absurd. None of the articles you've linked to "clears" Danny Ford of responsibility for a pattern of recruiting violations that were taking place when he took the head job (he was on Charlie Pell's staff, by the way) and continued under his tenure. It appears that his name was not specifically mentioned in the list of allegations that led to the second probation for Clemson football on his watch, but that hardly exonerates him from any responsibility, and it would appear that his higher-ups at the school felt the same way, because he was sent on his way shortly afterwards. I also don't know what the relevance is of pointing out that he would have coached at Clemson for free or that his wife didn't like the way the media infringed on their privacy. If you can't stand the heat, don't take a college football head coaching job, I guess, and if you do, don't be the top person in charge during a time when nearly non-stop rules violation is occurring to lure recruits to your program (whether they came to the school or played for the team is irrelevant, the NCAA still calls it cheating). The buck has to stop somewhere, and in college athletics, that's with the head coach. I'm not going to continue to dignify criticism of creators instead of content on this Talk page, but that still appears to be the primary concern of JustAGal2/ThomasC.Wolfe. Just be careful of that WP:BOOMERANG, Thomas. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Traditions

Could the "Traditions" section be covered in the History section? Cake (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clemson Tigers football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030722040816/https://www.metrobeat.net:80/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid:1647 to http://metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1647

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

conference affiliation

• Independent (1896-1899)
• SIAA (1900-1903)
• Independent (1904-1905)
• SIAA (1906)
• Independent (1907-1937)
• SoCON (1938-1951)
• Independent (1952)
• ACC (1953-present)

per 2016 Media Guide,/ pg 200-208. Updates to season articles to follow. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they pretend they aren't in the SIAA when they don't win the title. Cake (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Clemson Tigers football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306055124/http://blog.postandcourier.com/tiger-tracks/2013/05/30/1970-designer-clemsons-tiger-paw-logo-john-antonio-dies-cancer-thursday/ to http://blog.postandcourier.com/tiger-tracks/2013/05/30/1970-designer-clemsons-tiger-paw-logo-john-antonio-dies-cancer-thursday/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022101025/http://www.theacc.com/genrel/101006aac.html to http://www.theacc.com/genrel/101006aac.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208161419/http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/ring-of-honor.html to http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/ring-of-honor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503102555/http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/graveyard.html to http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/graveyard.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203004404/http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/south_carolina/opponents_records.php?teamid=721 to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/south_carolina/opponents_records.php?teamid=721

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clemson Tigers football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503102550/http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/071911aab.html to http://www.clemsontigers.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/071911aab.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210183929/http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/heisman_john00.html to http://clemsontigers.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/heisman_john00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225094407/http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2015/all/all to https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2015/all/all

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified external links on Clemson Tigers football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160826062831/http://www.independentmail.com/sports/college/clemson/1981-national-championship-put-clemson-on-the-map-27d8d6b2-2856-4fb2-e053-0100007f465c-363664101.html to http://www.independentmail.com/sports/college/clemson/1981-national-championship-put-clemson-on-the-map-27d8d6b2-2856-4fb2-e053-0100007f465c-363664101.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421102124/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/c/clemson/yearly_totals.php to http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/c/clemson/yearly_totals.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421111447/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/c/clemson/in_the_polls.php to http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/c/clemson/in_the_polls.php

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clemson Tigers football. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707190103/http://community-2.webtv.net/SeminoleFootball2/HISTORYOFBOWDENBOWL/ to http://community-2.webtv.net/SeminoleFootball2/HISTORYOFBOWDENBOWL/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322100745/http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072302aag.html to http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072302aag.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes

UW Dawgs: Enough. I appreciate the changes you're making to clean up some of the article, but enough with the heavy-handed edits of factual information. No more POV edits over what you deem to be "utter trivia". Let's have a discussion here and build consensus if you like, but there's not going to be any more of this back and forth, nor will there be any more copy and paste warnings on my Talk page (final warning).

The ACC all-time records, streaks, and first meetings is going to remain. I have added the link to Clemson's official media guide published each year, and this covers records. I already explained why the Winspedia one was off with all-time ACC record: they aren't factoring in Maryland.

Please stop removing content that is important to the overall history of Clemson football, just like it is for all college football teams.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Over In-State Records

Inviting @UW Dawgs: here to discuss discrepancies with the In-State records portion of the article. Please note that the provided source, the Clemson Official Media Guide, lists clearly on page 124 the head-to-head records, the win streaks, and the last time the teams met. Please explain issues with the source.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@LesPhilky: I have pinged Wikipedia:Third opinion to review, as this unsourced content issue has been discussed extensively on Talk including explicit content callouts, diffs, and links to relevant policy with no resolution.[42], [43], [44], [45].

Content has been inserted and restored into the article which editor believes is supported by their offered citation. Some of the content appears to be present in the offered citation, but not all. The offered citation uses the "2018 Clemson Football Media Guide," an annual document which is current through the conclusion of the 2017 season. This citation has been presented as, "Source: Clemson Media Guide, pg. 124" where pg. 124 contains no supporting content. The citation's use of "pg. 124" appears to incorrectly utilize the Adobe page search field, rather than the likely intent of the content found on pg. 122 of the PDF document. Per AGF, I continue to assume pg 122 is the intent. That page does not contain the disputed and unsourced "Streak|First meeting|Last meeting" content or 2018 game results (ex, Furman Paladins). And WP:V policy states All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

Editor's content/citation insertion and reverts per above: [46] (no pg.), [47], [48], [49]

My edits can be seen here (and elsewhere) which include addition of a section introduction which is time-scoped based on the citation ("...through the conclusion of the 2017 season."), makes a well-formed citation without changing the offered source, and only contains the content which the citation including pg "directly supports."[50] (note, has same minor pg. 124 vs 122 issue)

So 3O, what content is supported by the offered citation and how might a section introduction align with the content found in that citation? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting a Third Opinion. Actually, looking closer at the media guide, it appears page 117 has the all-time results vs. Furman including the win streak. Please note that I also included a link to the 2018 result between the two teams. Page 117 and this link should suffice, no?--LesPhilky (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute on what content is supported by citation):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Clemson Tigers football and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Greetings UW Dawgs and LesPhilky! I have read through your discussion, and I want to thank you both for your efforts thus far in ensuring that we have properly referenced information that is as up-to-date as possible. As a sports fan myself, I appreciate it when this sort of info is current, and as quickly as things change in the sports world, it's not necessarily easy to do so in a way that meets Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines. I agree that there does need to be a separate citation for the 2018 games, as the referenced media guide only contains results up to and including the 2017 season. I agree that pages 117 through 119 of the media guide do support the streak/first meeting/last meeting information being present in the table, as it lists the complete history of games played between Clemson and its 2018 opponents. However, I only see data for Furman and South Carolina, and not for Coastal Carolina, Presbyterian, South Carolina State, The Citadel, or Wofford. We would still need to find references for these teams. Page 122 will suffice for overall records (and should continue to be cited alongside 117-119), but it unfortunately does not contain the streak/first meeting/last meeting data. Perhaps past media guides can be found? Where did this information come from originally? For the information relating to the 2018 games that the media guide does not contain, I agree that the ESPN reference is sufficient; however, I would suggest either making it an inline reference for Furman specifically since it refers to that single game only, or perhaps using something like this as a reference for the 2018 season as a whole (which will be helpful later in the season when someone adds the result of the South Carolina game). In either case it would probably be a good idea to add a footnote explaining that the table combines data from the media guide and the 2018 game/season reference, whichever ends up being used. I hope this helps! Did I miss addressing any of the points you both raised? If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to ping me. CThomas3 (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ACC-Uniform-Clemson 2018.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

change links to Trevor Lawrence to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Lawrence_(American_football) instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Lawrence GoodBoyInc (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

White House food

@TheTruthiness:

This article is about over 120 years of Clemson football. Note the Clemson Tigers football#Dabo Swinney era (2008–present) section is currently tagged with Template:Very long section since April 2018, indicating that content should reduced and summarized. With these edits[51], [52] you added content about the food served to the 2018 team at the White House. This seems irrelevant to the context of both the article and the specific (too large) section, ala WP:NOTEVERYTHING which you have referenced elsewhere. Perhaps 2018 Clemson Tigers football team would be a more logical home. What say you? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; this is more relevant either for the specific page for the 2018 team (questionable there as well as it serves to record the team's game-by-game history) or Donald Trump.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, this article isn't about "over 120 years of Clemson football", it's about the Clemson Tigers football team. The 2019 White House celebration of the Clemson Tigers football team got more mainstream press than those 120 years of football which was mostly relegated to the sports section or sports outlets, as far as non-sports press goes it's probably the most notable thing about the team- that news even went global and people who'd never even heard of the team heard this story. The rest of the section being too long is irrelevant, especially for 1 measly little sentence about a huge news story involving the team. Cutting down the less notable stuff, not the huge story, is how to achieve that. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it's about the Clemson Tigers football team, then yes, it is about over 120 years of Clemson football. I'm not sure what your point was there. The idea that it's "the most notable thing about the team" or that it got more "mainstream press than those 120 years of football" is simple conjecture on your part without evidence to support the claim. I see you've already added the section to the 2018 Clemson Tigers football team as we suggested, so what's the debate? Clearly you see where the information belongs, so no need for posturing here. Let's move on. And some of that cut factual information is going to have to be added back.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's about the team overall, that's the subject of the article. Looking at news/search results shows that, it's not "conjecture"- Google news search for "clemson tigers -trump" has as many pages as "clemson tigers trump" since the meal. Also please assume good faith instead of accusing me of "posturing". I'm not re-adding it on this article because I'm following Wikipedia policies and getting consensus by making my argument here on the talk page- I still reject the notion it doesn't belong here. As far as your restoring edits- just because something's factual doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned- there's over 30,000 articles showing up in a Google news search for "trump fast food clemson tigers", that got a long more coverage than the Tigers claiming a six-game winning streak in the middle of their 2014 season and far more notable...yet you think a small streak one season should be mentioned and this huge news story shouldn't? --TheTruthiness (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry the posturing comment upset you. Just didn't seem to be a necessary response now that you've put the info in the correct place. Google searches aren't valid evidence of your claim that it's the "most notable thing about the team". That's not really how their search algorithms work. Please also note WP:NOTNEWS. Let's discuss specific portions of this page you feel need to removed and come to an agreement before autocratically deciding they don't belong. I'm sure we can reach an agreement.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed

The "History" section of this article is suffering from severe growing pains, and specifically WP:RECENTISM. The CFB project generally addresses some of these issues via creation of a History of Clemson Tigers football article per Category:History of college football by team norms. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG / History of Clemson Tigers football

This article is currently 143 kB.[53] WP:TOOBIG gives:

> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

One option is moving additional content and obvious WP:RECENTISM to History of Clemson Tigers football, as seen in Category:History of college football by team. Note, multiple coaching era sections in this article are already tagged with "This section is too long" re this issue. Other options include addressing non-standard sections and those with sourcing issues. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Rivals

Is there any point to putting "(rival)" after each team if they are under a section heading titled "Rivals"? 2601:1C0:6601:A800:DE7C:D6:E2CA:7CEC (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)