Talk:2009–10 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team

College basketball Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why are fans of Clemson's in-state rival (South Carolina) editing material on this page in an attempt to put a negative tone to the article? Jober14 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason that fans of South Carolina's in-state rival (Clemson) are editing material in a similar fashion on USC's 2009-10 basketball season article? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Also, I see from your user page that you attend or attended Clemson, so please help me out with a few questions. Is the inclusion of notable losses enough to make an entire article have a "negative tone"?

No, but we should make sure that we're just stating facts and not trying to prove any other point. I know it's difficult when you're fans of opposite schools. I welcome any edit of anything I wrote that may seem POV toward Clemson. All I ask for is an explanation. Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should only notable wins and accolades be included in Wikipedia sports articles? Would that approach truly make an article "neutral"? In the case of the two losses that I added to this article, they were both notable in some way, and not simply "typical" losses incurred during the course of a season (like the upset by Texas A&M), that much should be obvious from a cursory glance at the primary sources for these two games, but I can explain it in more detail if you would like.

A cursory glance of the score between Clemson and Duke shows nothing unusual. Season and career highs/lows are achieved in almost every game. Clemson may have had a negative season-related stat happen in the Duke game, but there are other stats both negative and positive of other games for both Clemson and opponent that aren't noted. Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone can agree that 12 points in a half of modern college basketball is pretty rare, especially for a ranked team in a traditional power conference, and is thus notable. It's made even more so when it also is the lowest statistical measure in the seven-year history of a given coach at a given program. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I think you understand how I feel when a fan of the rival team comes over to make that edit. Jober14 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if you have such a problem with this type of edits, then I guess I'm left wondering why you aren't pursuing the issue across more articles than just the one for the team of which you are a fan, but I think the answer to that is pretty clear.

I really only care about Clemson and Clemson related sports articles. I do other edits to other articles, but this is my primary editting on wikipedia. Does this make me a bad person? No, I just ask that we're doing things in a neutral way. Clemson has had (and will have) its heafty share of shitty things happen over the course of a season, but to have fans of rival schools come on here and just edit and add the negative aspects really doesn't add anything to the article. Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it only seems highly negative only because Clemson hasn't yet had a notable win to balance the section out more. I'm sure now that conference play has begun, that will probably sort itself out down the road. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Clemson Fan I can only hope you're right! Jober14 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove notable and well-sourced content again without a valid reason or consensus that removal is warranted. Continuing to do so will constitute edit-warring and I guess I'll have to report it, and I'd rather things not get to that point. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right and I'd rather be able to come to an amicable solution to the addition of anything I might see as overly negative and anything you might see as overly positive from me. I really don't do much to defend my edits, I'd like to see the same from both sides. Regardless of what colors you wear. Please don't let other bad fanboy editors spoil it for those of really trying to make a contribution.Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on a side note, just because a newspaper article calls it total domination doesn't mean it was. It's just their point of view. Much like the Rod Gardner Catch/Push Off debate. I respect you're opinion of the lack of a call, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. Let's just present both sides of an issue when appropriate and let the reader make the decision. I appreciate you taking time to read this. Thanks Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this year's Carolina-Clemson football game (since that has spilled into this discussion), I agree that "total domination" would be an overstatement, but there is no doubt that it is a "dominating" performance when an underdog, unranked team doubles up their ranked rival in a game. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was dominating, I'm not arguing that fact, but when put with other notable games of the series, and listed as the only one that was "dominating" I think it can be taken out of context. Please see my discussion at Talk:Carolina–Clemson_rivalry#2009_Game_Notability Jober14 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]