Talk:2003 Fiesta Bowl

Game summary

This article has already had one problem with a game summary being adapted from a website. The present game summary is so detailed that I wonder where it came from. Does anyone know its origins? Is there any assurance that an editor can give that it does not breach a copyright, please? BlueValour 23:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the game summary myself because I have a tape of that game and I had to make this page for class. I found this article was a stub and that is one of my favorite games ever so I watched the game as I wrote the game summary on the page. Adk4786 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Adk4786

Games statistics/Scoring summary

I have removed these as possible Copyvio from http://ohiostatebuckeyes.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/010303aaa.html . They should not be replaced. BlueValour 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They were copied from that site but I didn't think it would be a big deal for a couple of reasons. They are actual fact because I could have gone anywhere to get the information and make the table myself and the scoring summery but I found it on there. Also, I figured that if that article was already sited at the bottom of the page then it wouldn't be that big of a deal. I want to thank you for doing so much work on this article but I would really appreciate it if we could put those back on the page by citing the table and scoring summary inside the page after each of those two sections. I am also trying to put images on this page if you could help me out with that in any way. Adk4786 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Adk4786

Wikipedia is being put at risk by possible violations of copyright. I offered you a compromise. Since this is not acceptable, and you repeatedly reinsert the material from this website, it will need to go to be cleaned up. BlueValour 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Adk4786 is correct. Statistics and boxscores are facts and not copyrightable. I don't know what other objections there are to the article (images, game summary, etc.), but as far as the statistics go, they do not raise a copyright problem.-PassionoftheDamon 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am open to argument on the stats but the way they are presented are, IMHO, copyrightable and some ot them are open to judgement. Bear in mind that they have been removed previously from here by an admin as Copyvio. When this has been resolved we can look at the other aspects - the copyright tags on the images I find unconvincing and the game summary is described by the author as his own work from watching the video and, therefore, seems to fail WP:NOR. BlueValour 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is correct that the statistics themselves are not copyrightable, but copying the very specific presentation from that website makes me uncomfortable. Could a different way to present them be found? --Robth^Talk 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way is to make an editorial summary of the main features with a link to the website for the details. These statistics will have very expensively been assembled from a technical analysis of the video footage and I can see the copyright holders being unimpressed at us pinching them. BlueValour 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Painstakingly assembled or not, the statistics themselves are not a creative work, and thus not copyrightable. --Robth^Talk 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of "The Call"

I revised the section titled "The Call" since it was under review for neutrality. I tried to retain the content of the section while rewording it to sound less biased. NCErnst 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The only way to satisfy everybody is to list the arguments by the critics of the play and the opposite points by those (including the officiating crew) who saw otherwise. Let the reader decide. It has already been stated in the game summary that both teams were awarded a 1st-and-goal from the 2 as the result of PF penalties when they needed a TD to force another OT, so that need not be a "point".--Buckboard 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The second part of "The Call" was pure editorialization, so I deleted it. The first part seems relatively neutral; the second part isn't and it used a "some people" statement and unsourced statements.

It seems someone edited out your attempt to remain neutral in the description of the controversial call. There are published photographs showing evidence which is in direct conflict with what is stated on the entry, currently. (just my 2 cents.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.50.217 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The last part of "The Call" is just fanboy rambling, with no links, references, or even any attempt at fairness. I am not sure how long it has sat there, but it needs to be removed and/or reworded and sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.109.19.254 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Narrative quality

While I don't want to see a pedestrian quality to the prose here as a result, it clearly needs a lot of work. Changes of tense between present and past tense, many repetitions of the same cliches, use of position abbreviations instead of writing out the term, unncessary repetition of first names of prominent players, etc. --Buckboard 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This is a very biased piece, for example at the beginning when it says, "too bad a really bad call ruined the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.200 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page from editing due to the revert war. Please discuss your desired changes here. Sean William @ 17:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but using College Newspapers as a prime source is a joke. USAToday's addition was more unbiased as well as the quotes used in the Miami Herald. using Collegiate Journalism is akin to using Huffington Post and The Daily Kos for unbiased political reporting. Just add in the USA Today material, the links to the photographs telling the full story and the Miami Herald quotes if you let the College junk stand and its fine. Otherwise the Call section is mere editorialization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.180.89 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Ohio State vs. Miami, Fiesta Bowl, 2003: The Buckeyes defeated the Hurricanes 31-24 in double overtime to win the national title -- but the game is remembered for a questionable fourth-down pass interference call against the Hurricanes late in the first OT. The Buckeyes eventually won on a Maurice Clarett touchdown run. If Clarett can wrangle a work-release furlough, we might be able to make this one happen. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=replays/080307&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab6pos1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.180.89 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss here.

The only thing that needs to be "resolved" is the drivel certain people keep editing in to this article; deleting sourced material and adding a negative tone to what is supposed to be a neutral point of view. Thank you for protecting the best version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.178.38 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not endorsing any particular version of this article. This article will be automatically unprotected in 72 hours, and if the revert war resumes, I will begin issuing 3RR blocks. There is something to discuss here, as evidenced by the haphazard reverting on the article. Please participate in some sort of discussion so that we can avoid blocking people. Sean William @ 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2003fiestabowl.gif

Image:2003fiestabowl.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2003fiestabowl.gif

Image:2003fiestabowl.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More on the call

I just watched ESPN classic. They aired the game. At the end, after Dan Fouts, did in fact, energize a whole lot of people by declaring "Bad call! Bad Call!, he did admit that the Miami player held after the line. That was like a couple of minutes in after the replay at the end, instead of where the hold was. And he said to Keith Jackson that it is holding not interfernce.

The reason it is interference and not a hold, is the ball was in fact in the air. It is hard to see with the replays not showing the beginning, and only the dropped pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.214.11 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation 5

The citation referring to Dennis Dodd's original statement is either A.) Outdated or B.) The wrong link. The cited reference makes no mention of Dodd's "supposed" criticism of Terry Porter. TPershiganv50 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2493/is_3_54/ai_n8579135/pg_2
  • In 2003 Fiesta Bowl on 2011-05-25 07:32:16, 404 This requested article does not exist.
  • In 2003 Fiesta Bowl on 2011-06-11 05:50:12, 404 This requested article does not exist.

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2007/01/on_tv_tonight.html
  • In 2003 Fiesta Bowl on 2011-05-25 07:32:12, 404 Not Found
  • In 2003 Fiesta Bowl on 2011-06-11 05:50:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)