Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Footnote about state population

Does it actually pertain to the article? Zchris87v 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence about how it's unusual to have two major universities competing for recruits in such a "small" state--SC is in the top half in population (at #24 of 50) in the US and there are several smaller states that have the same "problem." --Littledrummrboy 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry Among South Carolinians

Since the article already established that the rivalry stems from socio-economic conflict within the state, not just athletics, I think it would be a good idea to have a section discussing how the rivalry manifests itself among the population of South Carolina. I just don't know where to find sources. Agree, disagree? ColonelDEH

Disagree. I find absolutely no evidence in everyday life that this is any means of socio-economic conflict. I live in both Columbia and Clemson and spend time nearly everywhere in-between and so many places around the state. There is very little to support this claim. I see as many beat-up old cars driving around with Gamecock stickers on them as I do new Escalades with the same stickers on them. The exact same goes for Clemson - of the people I work with, none went to college but a couple are USC fans, a couple are Clemson fans. The colleges are too big and too close to merit this. Now, if there was some school as prestigious as MIT in South Carolina...that'd be a different story. But if anything is evident through this article, it's that these schools are similar, which makes the rivalry so strong. If there was a South Carolina-Furman rivalry, well it wouldn' t even be notable, unless there was some odd circumstance. Zchris87v 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

additionally...how the rivalry "manifests itself" seems to be a quite random pattern - literally. My friend's supervisor is a Clemson fan because he had a friend who had a Clemson mug, or something to that effect. Not even a real reason, just a luck-of-the-draw type scenario. Obviously, the closer you are to the school, the more fans there'll be. But I'd say the ratio of Carolina fans to the population of Pickens county (where Clemson is) is around the same as the ratio of Clemson fans to the population of Richland county (where Carolina is). And about the rambling sentence above...IFurman is a more expensive school than Carolina (and I believe private), hence there may be some sort of conflict with economic class there. But since Carolina and Clemson are just the two largest schools in the state, it's natural for people to either choose one to pull for, or already be pulling for one for whatever reasons there may be. Hope that ties my thought together more. Zchris87v 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that ColonelDEH was referring to the original conflict within the state in the establishment of Clemson as an agricultural institution. This conflict is no longer the primary reason behind the rivalry. Like Zchris87v has said, the rivalry stems from the close proximity of the schools and their many similarities and the almost natural inclination of South Carolinians to choose sides. It is worth mentioning that South Carolina lacks a major professional sports franchise and this likely contributes to the interest in collegiate sports in the state. Arwalke 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Clemson was founded as a school for farmers and is still better known for its agricultural school than any other program, while USC was originally a school for the elite and is still famous for its business school. This blue collar versus white collar distinction played itself out in the state's General Assembly in the early days, but it is now played out on bumper stickers and t-shirts (eg, a picture of hick and his son with the heading "Clem's son"). Of course each school has some sophisticated fans and some not so sophisticated. However, it is interesting how the hick-factor continues to be one thing that USC fans point to about Clemson and how USC's football program seems to be the Achilles’ heel that Clemson fans like to harp on. The section suggested by ColonelDEH could be a collection of the different jokes, sayings, bumper stickers, and t-shirts related to the rivalry. 74.249.3.253 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand this, but a collection of bumper stickers and shirts doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Perhaps an image of one of each side or something (which must be used with given permission) as an example of the bitterness of the rivalry. After the above statement, I can perhaps understand about the whole socioeconomic difference may be the root of the rivalry, but like I mentioned before, it doesn't seem to prevail today. For example, I saw a new Bentley going down the road a few months ago with a Clemson plate on it. Not saying that this makes USC a "non-white collar" school, but a Bentley is far from a blue-collar vehicle. And I've seen just as many beat-up cars in Columbia with USC stickers on them as I have expensive cars with Clemson stickers on them in Clemson. Perhaps a mention of this difference would be in order, but a needed mention would also be how it doesn't seem to be pertinent today, as engineering has become one of the most popular majors (at both schools) and it seems to "even out" the scales between USC's business school and Clemson's agriculture school, making neither quite as prevalent today. Zchris87v 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot - this section is titled "Rivalry Among Average South Carolinians"; that would be assuming that the definition of "Average South Carolinians" would encompass either going to Clemson, Carolina, or attending neither and being a fan of one (obviously). With this in mind, it seems that most people who don't attend college or go elsewhere just pick a team, as I've noticed. Around Columbia, people will obviously support USC. Otherwise, they may just watch a football game and decide they like one team over the other. But it doesn't seem that in real life, not just on written text or statistics, that there is no real trend that tends to separate Clemson and Carolina fans based on economic status. I go to Clemson, my sister is likely going to Carolina. You can't say there's much of an economic separation between two people in the same household, can you? Zchris87v 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article, as of August 1, 2007, does a good job of explaining how the rivalry got started, but it needs to expand on how the rivalry evolved and continues. The last paragraph of the Origin section alludes to "turf battles" but doesn't elaborate. Obviously the rivalry is no longer socio-economic and more about which university is better suited to serve as the flagship university of the state. Although USC is already the flagship, it's strange how it struggles with some sort of inferiority complex. For example, USC bumper stickers indicate that it is "The" University of South Carolina. This kind of advertising is a direct shot at Clemson and could mean that USC is proud of how its programs educate a broader range of South Carolinians and/or that USC feels that Clemson is encroaching on this mission. However, why does USC feel like it has to produce such advertising? It has many distinguished programs and many accomplishments that Clemson cannot even touch, but you don't see Clemson producing such bumper stickers. Perhaps the long history of the General Assembly's support for Clemson has put USC in a permanent defensive mode. Whatever it is, it goes beyond athletics, and exploring it would be an interesting way of expanding this article. 70.144.6.86 09:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"THE USC" was a marketing campaign from about 15-20 years ago, I think. It started when USC played the University of Southern California at Williams-Brice. Since both teams use "USC" the scoreboard read "USC" for So. Cal. and "THE USC" for Carolina. (The Cocks won the game, by the way.) Even if it were a shot at Clemson, it would be true. USC came first and is, in fact, the flagship school of the state. But this seems to be a recurring theme on the discussion page of any Clemson related article. Taters clamor that a page is biased untill a few objective editors (which I obviously am not, as I am a Carolina alumnus) tell them to shut their mouths. Perhaps the articles seem biased because the actuall history of Clemson, what with it's founding by rascist extraordinaire Tillman and its fanbase growing from there, shows Clemson to be what it is. 208.104.77.17 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"The" University of South Carolina is different from "The" USC and more recent. Having lived in SC for a long time, it strikes me that the Carolina community wishes to pigeonhole Clemson as a farm school because, as 70.144.6.86 indicated above, Clemson has encroached on Carolina's turf. Clemson has grown to compete with and surpass Carolina as a liberal arts school. However, this in-state competition is not healthy. Resources are spread thin and wasted on duplicative facilities and programs. Similar programs are watered down instead of being top-notch (exceptions being Carolina's business school and Clemson's agricultural school). The result of this overlapping of missions is lots of antagonism between the two universities and among the state's citizens. It's counterproductive and continues to generate unreasonable behavior and sometimes deadly consequences (eg, Carolina fan shoots Clemson fan for not paying bet). The rivalry is just one of many examples of why the state needs to be restructured. 65.4.79.181 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Clemson has passed South Carolina as the best institute of higher education in the state. The old adage of Clemson being an all Ag school is just that. Clemson has more Palmetto Fellow and Life Scholarship winners (eg: best students in the state) than any other school including South Carolina with an enrollment of over 10,000 more students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.48.40 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Palmetto State

This was removed, as it was stated that it "was not and has never been referred to" as that name. However, I found three sources in about 10 seconds that mention this: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. The removed line was "(sometimes dubbed The Battle of the Palmetto State)"; clearly, it has been referred to as this. I propose this be added back to the football section of the article. Zchris87v 09:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Palmetto State Rivalry

It's a rivalry, and it's between two South Carolina (the Palmetto State) schools. Maybe this is better than "The Battle of the Palmetto State" because it refers to the rivalry instead of a singular game? However, I still stand by my views that the sentence mentioned above should be re-added, as the annual football game has been dubbed "The Battle of the Palmetto State" before. Zchris87v 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, when this page is no longer protected, someone please add "Category:College football rivalries"" to the bottom of it. Thanks. Zchris87v 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Games

On the same thread, was the 2006 game really notable enough to be mentioned? Aside from the fact that it was the first win in five years, I don't see what the big deal is. Moberho 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the '81 championship enough to claim elite status for all-time? Obviously not. The only reason anything in this rivalry is notable is because neither school has much else to talk about (as far as athletics). 68.154.130.31 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section has been edited to add "the first time either team had made it to a national championship", making it more noteable. Also, the fact that the 2006 game was mentioned could be in part due to the fact that '05, '04, and '03 were all mentioned. If someone could create a table with all the scores and years on it, we wouldn't have to have anything other than an asterisk besides noteable games with a footnote under the table. Zchris87v 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding "the first time" comment is totally unnecessary and completely untrue. Besides, the fact that Clemson won a championship that year is notable enough. As for the '06 football game, it's notable for Gamecock fans for many reasons, including their first win at Clemson in 10 years. See the following link for an incomplete but easily accessible table: [4] 70.144.13.83 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then, "the first time either won" perhaps. Zchris87v 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the years of the 'notable games' in the Football section to the left of the heading. Makes a little more sense, and makes the table of contents more readable.--CobraGeek (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wide Left" and "The Kick"

I feel that recent history is just that - too recent - to add in names for such games. Being that the others were in a sense "mile markers" in the history of the rivalry (most points scored, highest combined ranking, etc.), I feel that the last two years really weren't any special milestones in the rivalry. What I propose is a "recent history" section that describes the outcome of the recent games. Reason being is that it is hard to believe that 40 years from now, either of the past two games will be remembered as being "historic" by any means. As visible by numbers, the series is always close - close games don't hold much meaning in this rivalry. The problem I see is not now, but an additional section describing the key play in each of the succeeding games from here on out - we'll have those ten lines or so from 1896 to 2003, and then just a long string of outcome descriptions afterwards. I think the brawl is notable, and the 4 wins for a QB is notable, but since neither "wide left" nor "the kick" held much significance, I think those years perhaps could be combined or removed. I do understand that Spurrier's first game was part of the reason 2006 was important, but since many coaches have come and gone, I find that one as notable as Tommy Bowden and Lou Holtz's first games - there have been many coaches in the history of the rivalry. As for the first time that a game-winning play was made as the clock hit zero (2007), I think this might be somewhat significant, as I hadn't seen it before. However, I don't believe it is deserving of its own section. Perhaps something as I mentioned above (Recent History) or a section entitled "Other Milestones" would be more appropriate for less significant games. Of course I'll get called out as being biased because I proposed this, but compare this to the other games, and just think for yourself which ones will be remembered 50 years from now. Zchris87v 09:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"4 wins for a QB" really isn't that notable either, especially as Whitehurst wasn't the first QB to accomplish the feat in the rivalry. Tommy Suggs beat Clemson 3 years straight (1968,69,70) as starter for the USC varsity football team, and also in the JV game as a freshman (1967) which was common in the days before redshirting became almost standard operating procedure for promising underclassmen. Most schools fielded JV squads back then, in this case Suggs led the Biddies to a win over the Cubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.149.230 (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts after editing. In response to this - "4 wins for a QB" is in reference to Varsity football. JV is not in the same category and is not recognized for any numerical contributions to the varsity football rivalry between the two schools. If Cullen Harper beat South Carolina 4 years in a row at tiddly winks and then beat them at football his last year, does that mean he won 5 in a row? Zchris87v 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with 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.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:USCGamecocks.png

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)

Role Reversal

The section "Role Reversal" kind of makes it seem like USC is more popular without mentioning the fact that Clemson has been termed a "more selective" school in comparison, and that the targeted size of the incoming freshman class has remained at 2800, despite receiving more applications year after year. Also, the part about Clemson trying to keep veterans out doesn't make sense - part of the reason for changing Clemson from a military college to a civilian college was that veterans wouldn't want to come back and go to a military college after fighting in a war. Additionally, I don't see the necessity of the blurry chart - at least make it a little clearer and readable. Also there is no mention or note of the CU-ICAR, a graduate school campus which has its own students. I would like it if this article remained neutral, as was my original intention in creating it. Zchris87v 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Blood drive

Though not a rivalry "game", the annual blood drive is always a competition (in this case, for a good cause) between the two schools and has been going on since the mid-80's, I believe. I think the fact that the rivalry even extends to a blood drive is something worth noting. I proposed adding it before, but got no response, so I'll propose it more clearly this time. Zchris87v 12:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this section, I think it's a good one to have. It shows that the rivalry can be a good thing with a positive outcome - in this case, saving lives. And it is usually a close competition, USC won this year, Clemson won last year, and the overall record is close at 14-10. While the article itself discusses some of the bitterness of the rivalry, a section pointing out how the rivalry can be a good thing that can help people seems like a good way to close it out. It seems like a completely neutral section to me as it presents nothing but facts, and there is nothing negative that can really be said about either of the schools for participating in a blood drive in a necessary time of year. Since it mentions how both schools band together in the common interest of giving blood, it dispels some of the mentioned "bitterness" about the rivalry. Zchris87v 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 Game Notability

Aside for an actual discussion on whether the game was notable or not, I'd like to have three questions answered from the editors of this subsection.

And for the record, I am a supporter of Clemson University and welcome any discussion on any items that might seem overly favorable to Clemson on this page

That being said, here are my questions:

1) Aside from the article noting the game as a dominating performance by South Carolina, how is the 2009 game more notable as a "dominating performance" than the 1994 game where USC won by 26 points? Also, the 1975, 1987 and 2003 games are all listed here as notable games but they are not noted as dominating. Also note that the article states that "South Carolina put a temporary halt to Clemson's series dominance."

2) The title of this subsection is "Turning The Season Around" but subsequent articles after the bowl game discuss that it might have been bit of a misnomer. I think a good analogy is that if Clemson had won this game, most articles would have stated that Clemson beat South Carolina on their way to the ACC Championship, but with Clemson losing the ACCCG that wouldn't have been the case and inappropriate for the title of this subsection.

Anyways these are just my thoughts from as neutral a standpoint as I can get and I'd appreciate quality discussion on these points. Thank You. Jober14 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, but what about this...

The comment regarding probation following Clemson's National Championship is just more of the same old "Oh yeah, but what about this" mentality that has gone on in this series. One year it was, "ya'll pushed off to win", another year it was "ya'll won again, but ya'll started the fight by standing over our QB", and another year, "yeah, ya'll won a National Championship, but you cheated to do it". The probation comment, as I mentioned in the edit summary, violates Wikipedia NPOV guidelines on neutrality and is controversially assertive. Controversy can be presented, as long as it is not advocated, and as long as it can be accepted by both sides. This is the bar that the edit must meet, and in the referenced edit, it does not rise to this level.--CobraGeek (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What does the probation have to do with the rivalry? Moberho (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What does Clemson's tainted national championship have to do with the rivalry? ViperNerd (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems you believe that is important, seeing as how you added the bit about probation rather than deleting the section as irrelevant. Moberho (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I tried going down that road before, but people kept adding it back. ViperNerd (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I could I add a bit about the USC Steroid Scandal to the 1987 game? That's a game we can all agree is notable, and the issue appears to be just as relevant. Moberho (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? I didn't realize that the NCAA placed Carolina on probation as a result of one player's unsubstantiated allegations against his teammates and coaches. That would be news to me, and many others I'm sure. ViperNerd (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are implying Clemson beat Carolina because of violations, then how come Carolina was put on probation for violations committed under Lou Holtz and yet he only went 1-5 versus Clemson? It doesn't add up. What proof do you have that the committed violations directly coorelates to the rivalry or to the national championship? -Jober14 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm implying is that the Carolina-Clemson game in 1981 wasn't relevant to the rivalry as a whole. Clemson didn't win the national championship by beating Carolina that year, so it's just another game in the series, as nothing of note to the rivalry happened in that contest (unlike the 1987 game). But if some people insist on including that game in this article (in an obvious POV effort to tout a Clemson achievement), they'll just have to accept the whole story being told. ViperNerd (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the questions about the probation that resulted from the Lou Holtz era and the 1987 steroids issue. National championships help give relevance to the rivalry on a national stage. If Clemson had not beaten USC that year, they would not have played for a national championship. Had USC beaten a #1 ranked Clemson team, it surely would have been notable to the rivalry. A lower ranked USC team beat Clemson in 1987 under the cloud of a steroids scandal and yet thats not noted? -Jober14 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Clemson's probation is not relevant in connection with the national championship. Players on Clemson's national title team were not ruled ineligible and the major infractions occurred with recruits who never signed with Clemson. The information regarding Clemson's probation is not relevant to the rivalry and should either be moved to another Wikipedia page or included in a separate category with South Carolina's own NCAA punishments to maintain neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.179.133 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

National titles

It is ridiculous for South Carolina to be claiming more national titles because of their EQUESTRIAN team. It is not an NCAA sanctioned sport. What you're actually comparing is four NCAA-recognized titles to one NCAA-recognized title and five equestrian titles. Looming baseball title would make 2, not 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.133.135 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

National championships are national championships, period. I'd also point out that there is still no such thing as an "NCAA-recognized title" in Division I football, and there certainly wasn't back in 1981. Just thought I'd throw that out there for those who think this should be some sort of requirement for inclusion in the table in this article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The national titles for South Carolina must be edited to five. The national titles are as follows: Two for baseball, two for equestrian, and one for women's track and field. The two NIT tournament championships are not considered national championships. The NIT is an invitational tournament for basketball teams that are not good enough to make the NCAA tournament. It serves as a consolation tournament. If it were to qualify as a "national championship," then every school in the country could claim one for winning any basketball invitational tournament. The NCAA tournament serves as the recognized national championship in basketball. I'm not sure where the eighth national championship claim comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.179.133 (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hunt Seat National Titles are also not valid national championships. It's a style of equestrian, not the overall equestrian competition. South Carolina's two overall national equestrian titles are valid, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPhilky (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That is your OPINION, not CONSENSUS, which is required to remove sourced and verifiable content from an article. Eight national titles are claimed by the university, it is verifiable that those titles were won, therefore this content will remain in the article. Continued edit-warring by you (or your IP sock, 99.4.179.133) to push this POV change will be reported. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the collegiate equestrian competitions, the hunt seat is a type of riding style and is part of winning the overall national championship, which South Carolina has two of. Even if you do count four equestrian national titles, two baseball, and one women's track and field, where is the eighth championship? This adds up to seven claimed by you (and not claimed by South Carolina... it is merely listed as a championship per their website). Report me all you want, but I can point out easily in a counter-report that your edits are in error. Instead of becoming angry and irrational, why don't you list the national championships for all the schools and let readers judge their relevance rather than just listing the number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPhilky (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be operating under the belief that your opinions carry weight at Wikipedia. They do not. Only facts which can be verified and properly sourced are relevant here. USC recognizes 8 national champion teams from the school's athletic programs, 2 baseball teams, 1 women's track team, 2 equestrian, and 3 hunt seat titles. This information is sourced by the 3 references listed, readers can judge relevance for themselves by checking those sources. If you persist in attempting to remove verifiable and sourced information from this article, you will be reported and you will likely find yourself blocked from editing. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clemson's probation

How is this relevant to the 1981 game? Should we also attach Carolina's probation to their wins within 4 years of its commencement? Probation happened the following year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.151.27 (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How is Clemson's (bought and paid for) national championship relevant to the 1981 Carolina-Clemson game or the rivalry as a whole? Did the Tigers win the title by defeating the Gamecocks in that year's game? Then it's really irrelevant to the rivalry isn't it? Remove the reference to the 1981 game and the mention of Clemson's probation goes with it. Otherwise, it's notable and sourced information and will stay in the article. ViperNerd (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reference to the 1987 game also include a mention of the steroid scandal at USC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.57.130 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly valid. However, one could make the argument that it does show Clemson's football superiority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.232.3 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Superiority in cheating in order to win, maybe. ViperNerd (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevance of NCAA infractions and scandals for both schools does not apply to this page. These cases are well-documented in the appropriate pages, for both Clemson's football page and South Carolina's. South Carolina had nothing to do with Clemson's violations, and Clemson had nothing to do with South Carolina's. I propose these items be left off this page and that we instead focus on the history of the rivalry. Everyone can agree that both schools are guilty in their history of NCAA violations, and those have been documented in the appropriate places. Neither school was required to vacate wins due to their infractions. If we get into a war over posting each school's infractions here, we will defeat the purpose of the page and Wikipedia.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

As an anonymous reader of wikipedia, it is outside my means to revert the considerable amount of vandalism related edits to this page. I am a South Carolinian and while I do understand the heated rivalry that is covered in this article, I find the number of malicious edits (that have no redeeming qualities to them, not even humor) rather ridiculous. I attempted to make some changes to reestablish at least a bit of the sections that were vandalized but things like the colors of the win-loss records being all orange or all garnet make this a challenge outside of my ability on this site. If there is someone with the administrative power to possibly revert to the last stable edit and then lock the page, that would be a positive step. As it stands, this page will likely flip back and forth between vandalism propagated by both university's fans for the foreseeable future. It seems that rivalries as fierce as this are bound to lead to petty vandalism which is detrimental to the wonderful resource that is wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.109.25 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Bias/editorial control by one viewer

This article has been, and continues to be, biased toward South Carolina. User Garnet and Black (an obvious USC supporter), for whatever reason , has become the defacto rule on everything that is edited. For example-there are many uses of flowery terms like “rout” when Clemson loses, like in a 29-7 point loss, but there is no such description in the 63-17 beating Clemson gave USC in 2003.

Other places of inconsistency are where South Carolina is listed first, when if done alphabetically, Clemson would be listed first. South Carolina is place over Clemson in the teams unofficial logos. There is no consistency for that. Usc is referred to by differing names throughout the article for no apparent reason. Other areas are the attempted smudging of Clemson’s history in several areas starting from its origination, but mentions none of USC’s recent failures of past presidents and failed financial investments. Much of this entry should be simply deleted and rewriten. It's plainly biased. Clmsntigr (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Clmsntigr

I agree that the portions regarding Clemson's origins need to be reviewed. The tone here implies that Clemson was a rogue entity that victimized Univ. of South Carolina, and that is far from the truth. The sources cited for these parts are those pertaining to SC's history produced by the USC press. Another line suggests that Clemson does not cater to minorities, which is absurd.

I don't think we need to get into the past failures of individuals connected to the Univ. of South Carolina as it likely is not pertinent to the rivalry. Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to touch up the wording of Clemson's origin and provide some neutral sources that will make the article appear less biased.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add the flowery references to wins should be changed to be less descriptive so as to be less biased. If one were to read this article on face value, they might somehow think a 29-7 win was a worse beating than a 63-17 score, or that a "runner up" in anything is actually important, or remembered by anyone. Additionally, USC is referenced by 3 separate names--Carolina, University of South Carolina, and South Carolina. Which one are they? Its ambiguous and has undertones of bias by its placement in order to make USC appear first.Clmsntigr (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Clmsntigr

Just a forewarning... Anyone can edit Wikipedia, that is the entire idea behind the project, but no attempts at revisionist history or deletion of well-sourced and verifiable material will be tolerated at this article simply because a particular group of people (or just a few individuals) wishes to whitewash the past. Clemson University's early history (and that of the school's founder) is documented and is very well sourced in this article, and provides an excellent backdrop for why the present-day sports rivalry is more contentious than most. A previous editor clearly spent a good deal of time adding this material, and providing proper references, and this work will be preserved. Attempts to remove this material without consensus will be reverted as vandalism. Other than that, feel free to add sourced and verifiable material as long as NPOV is maintained. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

G&B, I'm not sure what you mean about whitewashing the past. That isn't the intention, nor do we think this material needs to be deleted. The wording clearly takes a POV stance in favor of South Carolina, and the documentation comes from pro-USC sources. The picture painted here is that Clemson was an entity out to get USC from the start, and that isn't the case. Both sides took shots at each other. Here is an example of some of the biased/POV wording:

"Tillman directed the legislature to defeat Hampton's renomination for another term in December 1890, thereby finishing what Sherman had left undone in 1865." Really? Tillman's actions are on par with a general who tried to destroy Columbia and USC through rape, pillage, and fire?

"Tillman pitted 'the poor against the rich, tenant against landowner, hireling against employer, country against town, all of South Carolina against Charleston and Columbia, upcountry against lowcountry, white against black, do-somethings against do-nothings, and outs against those in power" so that 'he could rile them up and then appear as their champion.'" I think you can see how this is POV, and the source is a pro-USC one.

"Clemson on the other hand, claimed to have been founded for the common man, sought to restrict entrance to veterans returning from the war and has a substantially lower percentage of minorities in its student body (Clemson enrolled its first African-American student in 1963)." This statement is uncited (with the exception of Harvey Gantt) and not very accurate. USC's is 83 percent whiteCarolina. Clemson is 87 percent[5]. That's not a "substantial" difference. The insinuation here is that Clemson doesn't cater to minorities. Not only is it POV, it's not factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPhilky (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I think 99 percent of this page is great and well done. I think a few things need tweeking to eliminate POV. I'm sure you also won't have a problem with adding a non-biased source or a pro-Clemson historical one (since pro-USC ones are used). Finally, to suggest that any attempts to edit this page will be considered vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I would like to point out the "ownership" policy here [6]. As you can see, attempting to discourage people from editing with threats of reverts, accusations of vandalism, and insinuations that someone's hard work can't be touched is against Wikipedia policy. In short, there's no need to threaten or try to discourage. Plus, it's not Wiki-kosher (ha... I should trademark that).

Look, I don't want to eliminate what was done. It's some good stuff. But some things need some reviewing, and the changes will be minor. There's no need to toss around threats. See what we do, and if there's a disagreement, we'll take it back here and work with it. I think I've shown you that I can work with you on this.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Finally, to suggest that any attempts to edit this page will be considered vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy." Please show me where I made that statement, or anything close to it. Who is "tossing around threats" now? My statements about the removal of well-sourced and verifiable material from this article without seeking consensus were quite clear and I stand firmly behind them. Please stop twisting my words to suit your ends. This article takes a VERY light hand with the actions of "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, one of South Carolina's most odious and notorious racists, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't think that the documented history of how Tillman pushed his ag college on the state and his attempts to diminish USC is presented here in a particularly POV fashion. Also, what are these "pro-USC" sources that you keep referring to? You do realize that USC Press is nothing more than a publishing house[7], not "press" in the sense of a newspaper or other media outlet, and not a propaganda arm of the university? The books referenced here are scholarly works of historical non-fiction, and there is no reason to believe that any of them were written to be "pro-USC", thus there is no reason to search for sources that are "pro-Clemson" in order to balance scales that aren't tipped in the first place. In fact, any source that is readily identifiable as "pro" one side or the other would not qualify as a primary reference for this or any other Wikipedia article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's take a step back here and take it easy. Both Clemson and USC have had some despicable people working there (I can name a list of some who STILL work at Clemson), but we're not going to get anywhere working in our opinions or POV on them. I think you would agree it wouldn't get us anywhere to try to include the actions of Jim Holderman in this article, right? Strom Thurmond had his racial issues and BOTH schools have named buildings after him. Do you disagree that comparing Tillman to Gen. Sherman is absurd? That's like folks who constantly want to compare people to Hitler.

The word "pro-USC" may have been a poor choice on my part. I'm not saying the sources are "Rah, Rah, Cocks!" The sources are books about the history of the Univ. of South Carolina. Not one of these books cited is specifically about the history of Clemson, yet at least two of them are histories about South Carolina. I believe this is why some of the wording has been slanted, which I clearly pointed out. It just needs to be tweeked (while maintaining the factual content) to take out the slant. As I pointed out, there was already one factual inaccuracy regarding minority admission between the two schools (despite what some opponents try to fabricate, Clemson is not a racist school... the idea that a university in today's society would not welcome minorities is ludicrous). Regardless, you don't have a problem citing a book about the history of Clemson, do you?

Finally, I'm not trying to remove information that is well-sourced or verifiable. I'm removing POV and factual inaccuracies. You can check my recent edits.--LesPhilky (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither Holderman nor Thurmond had anything to do with the FOUNDING of the University of South Carolina or attempts to tear down Clemson University, and thus they have nothing to do with the history of the rivalry. Ben Tillman was Clemson University's champion from day one, and his actions were a key component of the animosity that cause this rivalry to be especially bitter.
Oh, and your source for how "white" USC's student body is, is pretty far off the mark. Per USC Institutional Assessment as of Fall 2011, demographically the university is 75% white (77% if you only look at undergrads).[8] Statistics don't get much more official or current than that. If you'd like to find the official source from Clemson University pertaining to their demographics, that would be far more useful than whatever site it is that you linked to above that references only "1st-year students". GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Anyway, I don't have time this weekend, but I'll review the sources and adjust from there. How about you change it to more accurate sources rather than reverting? You've reverted it again back to the text that insinuates Clemson doesn't cater to minorities. Also, back off the animosity and confrontational attitude. As I've said before, you don't have to treat every Clemson person as if they're enemies or trying to vandalize the pages. After all, it's the USC student IP addresses I just got banned for a year for vandalism. We can make these changes in a civil fashion.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, found Clemson's on the website. Just over 4,000 minorities if you count both undergrad and grad, so that's 22 percent. I'll update statistics later.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

South Carolina vs. Carolina

The article bounces back and forth between these two names. I propose we pick one and stick with it. I honestly don't care which one it is, but it seems to make more sense to go with "South Carolina" to avoid confusion with North Carolina, and since "South Carolina Gamecocks" is how the school is referred to in logos and links.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article "bounces back and forth" because the University of South Carolina is referred to as South Carolina, Carolina and USC in everyday life. It makes sense to avoid reader fatigue by using the common sobriquets in an article dealing with the school. Also, there are instances in the article where one would want to avoid confusion between the university and the state. At any rate, this is hardly seems to be a problem for anyone but the occasional fan of one of USC's rival schools. I think the average unbiased, intelligent reader can absorb the information being presented in this article without confusion. Why would anyone think that the term "Carolina" would refer to UNC in an article about a rivalry that doesn't concern that school? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Schools' Minority Enrollment

I removed the section regarding both schools' African-American enrollment as it doesn't make sense to single out one minority for comparison. Why would only African-Americans be the focus? Why not Asian-Americans? Pacific Islanders? Instead, it is adequate enough to address both schools' overall minority numbers. Honestly, neither school has very admirable African-American enrollment, and pointing out that one is better than the other in this department is like saying one school has fewer cases of VD than the other one. We're trying to maintain balance in this article. There's been a longtime insinuation that Clemson does not welcome minorities, but this is far from the case and the overall minority numbers show this.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You don't think how the two largest universities in a state that is 28% African-American serve that segment of the population is important? Seems pretty disingenuous to me. The statistic is relevant, verifiable and sourced, and it will be restored. You are once again operating under the belief that your OPINION carries weight with what is and isn't relevant for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. It does not. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

First, what's with the hostility? I'm failing to understand your animosity in these issues. I'm pretty confident there are some Wikipedia policies on this. Second, how is this any more my opinion than yours? I pose these questions to you: Why are we only highlighting African-Americans for minorities? Since 28 percent of the state is black, why are we pointing out both USC and Clemson's dismal numbers in this area? How does this contribute to the rivalry in any way, shape or form? Is it to simply point out that South Carolina leads in this department? If that's the case, then we can go back to pointing out more "notable" games that Clemson has over South Carolina since Clemson DOES have more. But we know what a mess that was, and personally, I don't want to go back down that road. I'm going to revert it back to my changes since mine are also relevant, verifiable, and sourced (you'll note that you deleted information that I sourced as well). I'm open to discussion as to why the percentages of only African-Americans should be highlighted here and how it is relevant to the history of the rivalry. Until you explain that, I will not see the pertinence of that information regarding the rivalry. I ask that you try to discuss this in a civil fashion. Also, I again refer you to Wikipedia's policy regarding page ownership[9]. Please explain relevance here and refrain from making demands as to what will appear in the article. If need be, let's pull in a third party.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask yourself this simple question, and perhaps the obviousness of the issue here will become clear. Why is Harvey Gantt referred to not just in this article, but in the article for Clemson University itself? I don't see any mention of the first Native American student to attend Clemson, or the first Hispanic student to enroll at the school. Why do you think that might be? Also, threatening to disrupt this article hardly makes your point more valid. I'd be careful throwing around statements like that. You are the one who wanted to start down the path of editing the history section of this article (admittedly, because you felt Clemson was somehow being put down), and in doing so you've uncovered some facts that aren't putting Clemson in the best light. I'm sorry that you are bothered by the inconvenient truth, but that doesn't change the facts. Please stop edit warring to remove sourced and verifiable material from this article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid a bit of narcissism flows with your actions. You fail to see when you remove sourced and verifiable information, and you believe only you have the right to edit the pages (again, clear violation of the "ownership" policy, which I think you still haven't read). Secondly, I haven't made any threats to disrupt the article, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Third, I already know Clemson's African-American enrollment is dismal, just as South Carolina's is as well. What I don't know is how their numbers are relevant to the rivalry. The reason Harvey Gantt is mentioned is to show how South Carolina admitted blacks before Clemson did, hence the reason to back up the statement that South Carolina became the more popular institution following WWII. Obviously African-Americans had the opportunity to go to USC during segregation in the South. It still doesn't explain why we're focusing solely on this minority group and how it pertains to the Clemson vs. South Carolina rivalry. Since when has the number of black students between each school created the hostilities between the institutions? Do you have a source that can point this out? What's especially sad about this debate is that you're neglecting (intentionally) the other minorities at both schools in a pseudo-altruistic attempt to show that USC is somehow "better" than Clemson in this department (again, both schools fail miserably here).

Don't worry, there isn't going to be an edit war. I'm not getting suckered into your semantics with rules again. Instead, I'll take the road mapped out by Wikipedia's policies. I advised you a while back to grow up, and it saddens me that you haven't done so. Good day.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. First and most importantly, there's way too much invective about this issue from both sides. I understand that this is an article people are going to feel (and edit) passionately about, but both of you have gone a little too far. Both sides need to calm down and focus on the task at hand.

That said, I feel that this content issue is a complex one, and both sides' arguments have merit. I think the information fits in the section as it stands, and as such, it should stay in the section. It's sourced, it's relevant, keep it. BUT, and this is a big but, I think LesPhilky's problems with it are symptoms of a greater issue: it seems to me that the entire "Origin" section is ill-fitting within the article. Having a section on the origin of the rivalry is a good thing, but the section seems to be pretty unencyclopedic. It uses a lot of excessively colorful language, it goes into too much detail, and it has a lot of irrelevant information. In particular, I would say the last two sections, which include the text in question, don't really fit the section at all. The last subsection (entitled "Continued hostilities") seems especially problematic; it provides no information to the reader and is apparently just there for flavor. It certainly has no relevance in a section explaining the origins of the rivalry.

TL:DR version: the information is fine to be included within the article as it stands, but the "Origins" section should probably be reworked as a whole, which would probably include removing that text as a matter of course.

As for actually reworking the section, I'd be happy to help, if there's consensus to do it, although I don't have access to the sources, so I'm not sure how much help I'll be able provide. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt assistance. I think you've summed up the feelings Clmsntgr and I have; the language is a bit too colorful in one direction and doesn't seem to hold relevance. I'm glad this article maps out the history of the rivalry; I think it's a rich and important background. Much of it, though, doesn't seem to fit. My initial problems in this dispute is that there is a history of fans from the South Carolina camp calling Clemson a racist school (not in this article, though), and the minority percentage compared with SC just doesn't fit that claim.

I welcome your help in reworking this section and slimming down the irrelevant material. However, for that to happen, I ask that GarnetandBlack discuss this in a proactive and civil manner rather than immediately tossing out threats and/or accusing anyone's edits of being POV or disruption (as you can see by my edits to that section, they are not POV and they are well-sourced). The problem we're running into here is that any attempts to build a consensus are met with an immediate revert, a demand that it not be changed again, and a threat of "edit-warring" reports if any new attempts are made to edit the page. I hope having an impartial party such as yourself can alleviate these problems. I'm willing to stay hands-off the article and help build a consensus so that we can improve it. Thanks again.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And my edits are also not POV and are well-sourced (using the sources you provided, no less). You claim that Clemson is somehow slighted for a perception of low minority enrollment, and you sought to address that point in this article. However, you need to put the term "minority" in its proper context. In the state of SC, and indeed much of the southern US, the word "minority" is often used interchangeably with the word "black". African-Americans are by far the largest minority group in the state of SC (28%, compared to the next closest group, Hispanics at 5%), so it makes sense that if you are going to claim that there exists no substantive difference between the two largest public universities in the state, that you demonstrate that to be the case with the most visible group of minorities. USC has nearly twice the percentage of African-American enrollment as Clemson (and the gap is actually widening), and that fact, more than anything else, is what has led to the perception that continues to this day. Attempting to skirt this issue isn't going to change the facts. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please check your facts. The gap is not widening. In fact, USC's African-American enrollment has declined steadily over the last ten years (dropping five percent)[10]. Clemson's has actually stayed about the same as of the last ten years or so. I know your edits are not POV and are also well-sourced. I just found it to be a disservice to other minorities. Just because African-Americans are the most populous minority doesn't mean we should neglect the others. But if you're deadset on keeping the African-American percentages, I'm sure you won't mind the source I just posted that shows USC's steady decline and Clemson's stagnant numbers. Then again, I still don't see what any minority enrollment has to do with the rivalry at all. Could you clarify this?

Aside from that, the main issue is what Writ Keeper stated: this article is full of irrelevant and overly-colorful language. What are your thoughts on this third party opinion?--LesPhilky (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is not that the information you've posted is incorrect. My point is that it's irrelevant to the origin of the rivalry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I just wiped the entire mention of present-day minority enrollment from the article. It really doesn't have any relevance to the origin of the rivalry. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreeable. I also removed the "Continuing hostilities" for relevance.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! This is good progress. As far as further improvements to the section, I think that giving a (relatively) short summary of the information already there, reducing details given, would go a long way to addressing the rest of the issues. I'm somewhat busy today, but I'll try to see if I can write a summary that's a little more concise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings

The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

Important things to know about this subject

not:

Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:

• capitalize the first word,
• capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
• begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:MSH for more information. Ground Zero | t 11:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

However, some of the corrections you made were to things that are considered proper nouns in this rivalry, such as "Black Magic" and "The Catch".--LesPhilky (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that these are proper nouns because some football fans consider them to be proper nouns. THis seems like an example of using capitalization to provide undue emphasis. Ground Zero | t 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Black Magic" was a nickname used by the South Carolina Gamecocks in the mid-80s for their team, particularly in the 1984 season. It was well-documented in the SC media. Even though I'm a Clemson fan, I agree it should be capitalized. The other games had such memorable plays or incidents that fans now use these terms to signify the specific game. For example, if I said, "The Brawl," every Clemson and USC fan would know I was referring to the 2004 game. I don't believe it's for undue emphasis but rather names the fans have attributed to memorable games over the years. Kind of like the Immaculate Reception for Steeler fans.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

William Watt Ball's book

A quote from William Watts Ball's book (a notoriously racist book from the 1930s and a man who advocated lynching) is incorrectly attributed to being a quote directly from Thomas Green Clemson's will. Upon attempts to remove this factual discrepancy, GarnetAndBlack has refused to let it be removed. In addition, he incorrectly changed the statement again to claim it came from Ben Tillman without any factual evidence to back this claim. Attempts to discuss this issue with GarnetAndBlack on his talk page as well as any previous issues has been futile as he has claimed ownership of the page.

In addition, a previous third party opinion was brought in during the Schools' Minority Enrollment dispute above. Writ Keeper noted that "it seems to me that the entire "Origin" section is ill-fitting within the article. Having a section on the origin of the rivalry is a good thing, but the section seems to be pretty unencyclopedic. It uses a lot of excessively colorful language, it goes into too much detail, and it has a lot of irrelevant information." However, GarnetAndBlack insists on keeping POV and irrelevant information. Attempts to discuss these issues with GarnetAndBlack are again futile as he resorts to demands of proof against the questionable information and threatens disciplinary action.

Any insinuation about the racial opinions of Thomas G. Clemson and Ben Tillman are irrelevant to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page and the usage of Ball's book is a misinterpretation of the facts by attributing his quote to someone else in an attempt to paint Clemson as a racist school. Hence, a skewed POV in what is supposed to be a balanced rivalry page.

The disputed section can be found here with the line, "The agriculture college, as specified in Clemson's will, was to be privately controlled and Tillman therefore felt it would be able to prevent any 'possible invasion by the negroes'."--LesPhilky (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote was never attributed to being "directly from Thomas Green Clemson's will". This would be rather absurd, given that Clemson's will can be viewed in its entirety on Clemson University's website, among numerous other places. The material was written in a manner that was slightly confusing in its wording (the specification in Clemson's will being referenced is that the school be privately controlled), but given the context of the section that it is in, the quote is obviously attributable to Ben Tillman (sentences before and after are about Tillman's push for founding the college). As far as the personal feelings of the author of this book, are we to believe that a racist can't write a book in which he comments on another racist (Tillman is one of the most notorious bigots in SC history, who also advocated lynching)? What's next on the agenda for the revisionist sanitization of the history section of this article? We remove all mention of Tillman because someone might click through to the article about him which details his racism? Remove the link to the article about Thomas Green Clemson because it reveals that he owned slaves? How far will some editors be allowed to go in an attempt to gloss over a checkered past because they are personally embarrassed by it? How many other articles will see such POV pushing if a precedent is established here? It's a slippery slope. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to show the relevancy of this issue to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry. While it may be relevant to a Wiki page on Tillman, it has nothing to do with the rivalry between the two schools. I invite you to show how it directly correlates with the rivalry between the two schools.

Furthermore, observe the following link [[11]], which allows a search for all terms inside the book in question. Type in the word "invasion". There is only one occurrence, and it's on page 99, not 215 as the article suggests. It also does not use the term "invasion by the negroes". How do you explain this? How do you also explain that the quote "possible invasion by the negroes" can be found nowhere online as attributed to Ben Tillman except from the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page? Does it not seem to you that this "fact" is rather suspect?--LesPhilky (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Books is beta software (isn't everything that company makes?), a work in progress. I searched for the word "the" and the result claims that it only appears on 81 pages...of a book that is 307 pages long. Riiight. Show me a PDF file of the book, or simply of page 215, and if the quote is not found there, I'll accept that as proof. You are basically claiming that another editor fabricated material and the source to which it is attributed, a very serious claim which is not to be taken lightly. I'm not saying this doesn't happen on Wikipedia, but I'm going to need more evidence than a flawed Google Books search to accept that is the case here. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep dodging my request to show relevancy to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry?--LesPhilky (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep dodging...well, every point you attempt to make about your claimed illegitimacy of this material that gets shot down in flames? The material is relevant to the section on the historical origin of the rivalry vis-à-vis the inflammatory atmosphere in which Clemson Agricultural College was spawned and the white supremacist who pushed the school's founding through the state legislature, in large part to suit his own racist agenda. Now if your ultimate goal is to get that entire section eliminated from this article, piece by unflattering piece where Clemson is concerned, then you have at it, but I think you'll find that quite an uphill battle. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on our earlier third party interpretation, a good portion of the origin probably needs to be eliminated and moved to another article. In fact, I propose it be moved here. It's laughable that there's more of Clemson's founding history on the rivalry page than there is on the school's history page. Other rivalry pages lack this detail in the founding of each school (and clearly slanted language in that arena). Second, while no one is denying Tillman's racist background (but again laughable if you think he was the only white male associated with either school who cornered that market), to suggest that his founding of Clemson was largely in part to a racist agenda is completely unfounded and false, and it brings question as to how much of a hand you should have in editing this page. The own text you're trying to defend doesn't even make that statement.

Would you find it relevant to highlight every Gamecock racist from 1860 to 1968 and somehow connect them to the rivalry? I wouldn't think so. It isn't relevant. Tillman's history in founding Clemson belongs on the school's Wiki page and not scattered throughout this rivalry page.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming by the day-long silence that you also do not feel it is relevant to highlight the racial and slave history of South Carolina's past founders as well. I am removing the portion once more with the argument that it is irrelevant to the topic of the rivalry.--LesPhilky (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty GarnetandBlack, and in the spirit of reasonable and productive compromise, I have to side with LesPhilky on this particular issue. The rivalry page is probably not the place for the quote from WWB's book. However, it would be appropriate on the Benjamin Tillman page imho. The quote is fairly well-known historical fact with regard to its origin. If I am able to find a piece submitted some years ago by Greenville Attorney Edwin Turnage, I believe he also makes reference to the quote in question and cites at least two other sources in his article. I'll try to find that and it does deserve to be on the Tillman page, but not on the rivalry page imho. LesPhilky has made a well-stated case in that regard. Scrooster (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A neutral third opinion: Wow, that was a lot to read and mull over. You both make excellent points and I had to re-read some of it, so I apoligize for taking so long to post something. There is no doubt in my mind that William Watts Ball's book is notoriously racist. It is. The question then comes down to how important it is to mention it (and Thomas G. Clemson and Ben Tillman's opinions) in the article, will mentioning it skew the article? This is a toughie, and both of you deserve barnstars for being so civil about it. I think they need to be mentioned, I also think they will skew the article. I think that these and other similar items can be inserted into the article with such wording that they do not skew it too badly. I think that perhaps an unobtrusive box to the side of the article with this information may be the most appropriate. I know it's not exactly wiki standard, but it might be something to consider. because of the nature of the information, everyone has to think in terms of the "lesser of two necessary evils" here. The information is important, it will also probably unfairly skew the article. Perhaps you guys can come up with some way to present the information in some sort of subtle way. Good luck guys, I am sure that as long as you continue your civil discussion, a solution will present itself. Feel free to contact me if you find any of this helpful. --Sue Rangell 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Early years: 1896–1902

How would everyone involved feel about the possibility of adding a graphic reproduction, suitable for entry, of the poster depicting the Gamecock riding the Tiger that incited the fight so prominently mentioned in this section? There are plenty of optioins that available out there, no trademark or copyright restriction or infringement issues, that could be added. As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words. Scrooster (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No objections.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, someone help me here. Why was the 1901 game not played? Scrooster (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Swinney vs. Spurrier

Proposal to add recent media spats between Swinney and Spurrier since it has added new intensity to the rivalry. Proposed text is below:

The current head coaches for both teams, Dabo Swinney of Clemson and Steve Spurrier of South Carolina, have rekindled new fires within the rivalry's hostility's with their verbal jabs at each other through the media. Following South Carolina's 2011 win over Clemson, Gamecock play-by-play announcer Todd Ellis said, "As Coach Spurrier says, we may not be LSU or Alabama, but we ain't Clemson folks."

Swinney responded to the statement five days later with a lengthy reply. In his response, Swinney made the following statements:

"They're not Clemson. They're never going to be Clemson to be honest with you. No three-game win streak is going to change that."

"This is a place that's won a national title, 17 conference championships, two Division titles. Heck, we've won more bowl games than they've ever been to. That's reality."

"Carolina is in Chapel Hill, USC is in California and THE university in this state always has been always will be Clemson. You can print that, tweet that, whatever."

Spurrier later stated that he never made the comment about Clemson and Ellis took full credit for the quote.

On Oct. 9, 2012, shortly before the Gamecocks' game vs. the LSU Tigers, Spurrier made the following statement during a press conference: "Most our players have never been to Death Valley. That is the Death Valley, isn't it? Is there another one around?" The comment was a jab at Clemson's Memorial Stadium which has the nickname Death Valley. LSU's Tiger Stadium also has the Death Valley nickname. Swinney responded the following day: "I can see where he might have a little confusion. Our guys have never been to USC. California is a long way from here. I can see where there would be a little confusion, got two Death Valleys, two USCs, but only one real one."

On Oct 27, 2012, South Carolina running back Marcus Lattimore suffered a season-ending knee injury in a game against the Tennessee Volunteers. Swinney commented on the injury during a press conference the following day: "It took my breath away, Swinney said. I was watching it and it just breaks my heart. I mean I just hurt for him and his family and his teammates. This is a guy that to me represents all the good things that college football should be about. He's a guy I know personally, he's a class young man and so is his family. I know how hard he has worked.

Just absolutely took my breath away. I was watching it, and it breaks my heart. I am sorry for him and his family. This is a guy that represents all the good things that college football should be about. He is a class young man and so is his family and I know how hard he worked.

If there is anybody I would bet on it is Marcus Lattimore. I know it will be a long process but I tell you what, I would put my money on Marcus Lattimore In a heartbeat. When he comes to terms with this, he will do everything he can to come back. My prayers go out to him and his family. I have been heavy-hearted for him. He is a winner in every regard. Hopefully we haven't seen the last of him from a football standpoint. He has been a great representative for his family and his university. I will lift him up in my prayers."

During a rally for Lattimore on South Carolina's campus the following day, Spurrier took another jab at Swinney: "A lot of quotes came across the country and I read one today from the head coach at our Upstate school. You know, that school that used to beat us a lot that doesn't beat us much anymore, that one. Usually when that coach up there talks about South Carolina it's a bunch of garbage and a bunch of BS usually. But I have to agree with him on what he said the other day. He said, 'Marcus Lattimore stands for what's right about college football.'"

Swinney first responded that Spurrier's comments were "an embarrassment," but later made the following comments during a press conference later that week: "People just need to kind of back off the ledge. Personally, I really think he was trying to pay me a compliment. I think. I think. I know there was a roundabout way of getting there, kind of like me telling my wife, 'I think you should wear this dress. This dress looks great on you. You don't look near as fat in that dress.' But it's kind of a roundabout way but I'll take it as a compliment. I think that is what he was trying to do. So, you know, I do take it as a compliment that he would use something that I said to compliment one of his players."--LesPhilky (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus among the editors involved[12] would appear to be that this material is unsuited for this article (WP:NOTNEWS), especially in its current lengthy, one-sided state. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and subject dropped. The continuous problems with how you treat other editors is still an ongoing issue that should be addressed shortly... unless you care to make amends for a more proactive resolution.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with LesPhilky here, it has been six years since I have visited this page, and as the creator, I still do not agree with GarnetAndBlack being the de facto ruler on anything edited within this article (clearly a violation of NPOV). Reading through the past discussions, I can see I have remained relatively neutral (or at least attempted to do so). On a side note, I've almost completely forgotten how to edit Wikipedia. Zchris87v 03:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Postponed Games?

Was the 23 Nov 1963 game the only Carolina-Clemson rivalry game to be postponed? If not, when were the other games and why? The 23 Nov 1963 game was postponed due to the assignation of John F. Kennedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.102.131 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The reason I tagged this, is because I read the article that most of this information comes from, and it's pretty biased toward Carolina, in my opinion. Much of the "interestingly enough" stuff is more of opinion than anything, and is mostly copied from the author of the article, which is more opinionated than news-based. Zchris87v 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A rivalry article needs real-life stories ("interestingly enough" stuff) to explain the passion of the participants, and although some of the stories may be a little embarrassing for a Clemson fan, they are facts, not opinions. On the other hand, there are plenty of facts in this article that make Clemson look good too, so I really don't know what you are complaining about. If you dispute something, then be specific on this discussion page. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then a tag could be placed on the article. 65.4.96.64 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the "interestingly enough" stuff entails a story, such as the fact that fake tickets were handed out, and ends with "Carolina won the game" or "Clemson won the game" - unless it has something to do with the play of the game, how important is that? I mean if it was under a new coach, sure. But stuff like ticket sales? The outcome shouldn't exactly matter in that case. Zchris87v 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Clemson leads the football series 63-37-4. However, the series would be tied if only 13 games of the 104 had gone the other way. Considering the Tigers have tied or won by less than a touchdown in almost twenty games, this series is much closer than the record, which explains the fans' passion for this game."

Good call on this removal, it's basic math. 63 minus 13 is 50. 37 plus 13 is 50. Woohoo. Also, the removal of "game would've gone into overtime" - if you're familiar with football at all, you know a field goal is 3 points, if you have the final score and add 3, you would get equal numbers. Dee dee dee Zchris87v 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina forfeited their 17-16 victory in 1965 for the use of an ineligible player, so the record is technically 64-36-4. Even counting that game as a victory, 19 of USC's 37 wins against Clemson (as opposed to 16 of Clemson's "63" against USC) were by a touchdown or less. To drag up this anecdotal tidbit but ignore its flipside bespeaks of bias. KingmanIII 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The alleged forfeit is not recognized by anybody and is one of many reasons the Gamecocks left the ACC. (See the official NCAA records and the media guides for both programs.) To use such info to discuss bias certainly shows a lack of neutrality on your part. 70.144.2.98 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I really was biased, I could've just vandalized the page by providing a link to "This Is South Carolina Football." And any perceived biases I may have is a moot point since I didn't even edit the article.The forfeit wasn't the gist of my objection, anyway, which was already addressed in the most recent edit, so this is a moot point.KingmanIII 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You initially argue 16 vs 19 close wins while bringing up a bogus forfeit to show the "flipside," then you act like you made your point by not vandalizing or making any edits. Kind of odd reasoning, but thanks for not being a dick. 68.154.130.31 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I repeat, the alleged forfeit, justified or not, was not the gist of my objection. I didn't bring it up as part of my argument, just as a side note. The article has been edited anyway, so it's a moot point. 75.87.110.147 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to start a major argument here, but I'd like to see a full justification of the supposed non-NPOV material removed from user 76.26.192.86's recent edits. At quick glance everything stated appeared to be factual and with little bias, but with this section of the article having more mention of notable USC wins, these contributions seemed to add some balance. The fact that USC beat Clemson in the 2002 CWS is frequently removed and re-added, but the information that this was in the prior format of the tournament is relevant (to both Clemson and USC's chances for the title). Anywho, I've always thought that the notable events section needed some serious cleanup and maybe its time for a complete re-write. What does everyone else think?Arwalke 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Recent addition stating point spreads in football is not cited and is worded with a bias towards Clemson. Please do not revert back unless you are willing to find citation and rewrite in a unbiased manner. 70.144.12.91 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see an innate bias towards Clemson, but I take your point on citing. I've added a comparison table in the history section (from the article about the Georgia Tech-UGA rivalry, Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate). While the article is titled the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, I'm of the opinion that it should simply be more neutrally titled, "The Battle of the Palmetto State" as commentators have recently taken to calling it. The title of the game alternates every year depending upon the host (host is always listed second) anyways. The table is in alphabetical order, as the GT-UGA article is. The Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate article is what this one should aspire to be, well cited, clear, and relatively free of clear bias. Arwalke 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll create a rediirect page for "The Battle of the Palmetto State", if it hasn't already been done. I don't think there's any bias in it, as I created the article. Had I called it "Clemson-Carolina" rivalry (which is in actuality a much less common way of saying it), people would've cried "bias" on my behalf. Nevertheless, that wasn't the reason I created it like that, it was simply the most commonly referred to name. Zchris87v 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I live in SC and hear the rivalry called "Carolina-Clemson" a lot more than "The Battle of the Palmetto State." "Clemson-Carolina" is rarely, if ever, spoken... I like your comparison chart and agree with your goal of an article "relatively free of clear bias." The bias I mentioned previously was more about the wording than the alleged facts about point spreads. If such facts can be verified, then they could/should be added. However, wording such alleged facts to make it look like Carolina hasn't had any success on the football field is what I believe to be bias in favor of Clemson. 70.144.12.91 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are y'all talking about? Didn't y'all mean "Clemson-Carolina" is easily the most common saying and "Carolina-Clemson" is rarely, if ever, spoken or heard? And that you never, ever, ever, ever hear "The Battle of the Palmetto State"? I was born and raised in South Carolina, and I know that this rivalry is only known as the Clemson-Carolina game, and not ever as the Carolina-Clemson game. And definitely not the "Battle of the Palmetto State." I've only seen that one in the Madden game and I can't figure out why it's there. I always grew up with it like this, even among the Carolina fans. And, on a similar note, I also grew up with the Georgia-Georgia Tech game, and certainly not the Georgia Tech-Georgia game. And I like Georgia Tech a heck of a lot more than Georgia. The current title of this page makes it sound wrong and look like it needs to be switched around. 130.127.44.28 07:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point on the naming of the rivalry and will leave it as is for now, there are more important things to fix with this article. This article is plagued by hidden attempts at biasing it one way or the other (history previously written from an anti-Clemson standpoint, football statistics manipulated one way or the other). Ideally, I think a table for the football section should just be added to settle the issue for good and only a few noteworthy facts be mentioned (examples: win/loss records for each team at home and away in the series, coaching comparisons (should be added for the three major rivalry sports), total number of games under 7 points difference). The football section is just a collection of "memorable" moments in the series...not quite encyclopedic material. A table would allow people to draw their own conclusions and just be the facts. Arwalke 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added that the University of South Carolina's original construction was funded by the sweat and blood of enslaved African-Americans, or that it was founded by a South Carolina government that mostly consisted of slaveholders. After all, we're mentioning the fact that Benjamin Tillman was racist. Zchris87v 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the USC Football topic box at the bottom of the page? Shouldn't there be one for each team if there's one for either? For the record, I've always heard Clemson-Carolina not Carolina-Clemson, even from Carolina fans and students, but it probably has more to do with where you grew up. I grew up and live in the upstate. Disclaimer: I graduated from Clemson. --68.115.224.12 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with USC having 6 National Championships? Both Clemson and USC are members of the NCAA and the NCAA doesn't recognize the NIT champion as the National Champion. You have to be in the NCAA Tournament to be crowned National Champion. In addition, The NCAA does not award a National Championship in Equestrian (You can look it up at - http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html). It would be like Clemson claiming National Championships in Concrete Canoe (We have 3!). Don't try to claim things that don't exist. It makes you look needy. And BTW, I don't really care but NO ONE says Carolina-Clemson. Its always Clemson-Carolina. Whatever it takes to feel important though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.48.40 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The name of the page needs to be changed to Clemson-South Carolina Rivalry or South Carolina-Clemson rivalry. Who comes first is inconsequential, although for alphabetical purposes it probably should be Clemson. "Carolina" could be confused with UNC (and likely would be by most people outside of South Carolina). I understand some Gamecock fans wish to claim "Carolina" to sound more distinguished than UNC, but there is nothing insulting about being referred to as South Carolina. For the sake of accuracy (it is the actual name of the school), it needs to be changed. I will do so when I have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPhilky (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you make the equivalent change at the Carolina-Duke rivalry article, that's acceptable. However, if you pursue this change at this article only, it will be reverted. There is no valid reason for a double standard. I understand you are bothered by three straight football wins by Carolina over Clemson, but POV-pushing on Wikipedia is not going to change the outcome of any of those games. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not unacceptable to call the University of South Carolina by its proper name. That is not POV pushing nor is it a double standard. Most people outside of South Carolina recognize "Carolina" as UNC, so it is good to avoid confusion. How is calling South Carolina by its full name degrading or POV pushing? My edits are inconsequential to the three straight losses. I have only altered information for factual clarity and added nothing that would degrade the University of South Carolina (I haven't even added South Carolina's NCAA punishments even though you insist on keeping Clemson's, which is irrelevant to the rivalry). How exactly does this upset you? I do not have time to alter every page regarding the University of North Carolina, but feel free to do so for the sake of equality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPhilky (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I realize you are new to Wikipedia, but once again let me point out that your OPINIONS are not relevant here, only factual information which can be verified and sourced is relevant to this project. Your personal views on who you believe owns the rights to being called "Carolina" are totally irrelevant to this subject. I notice that you even let your biased POV push you to the point of actually altering the title of a source used as reference in this article. I think that sort of behavior speaks for itself. You "don't have time" to pursue this agenda of fighting confusion in one other article, but you can edit war for the better part of a day in this one to push your POV? That also speaks volumes about your interests in editing this article (and others dealing with USC and Clemson). My advice to you would be to do some reading on the policies of consensus seeking and edit warring at Wikipedia before you continue with this type of tendentious editing, or you will likely find a block in your near future. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone looks at Garnet and Blacks Contributions, you will see that he hes going to every single article on the Gamecocks and removing South from every South Carolina. Why you would even chance the confusion with Carolina Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, (North) Carolina Tarheels is confusing to me. This pages are for information, and will most likely be read by people outside the state of South Carolina. This may be a nickname to the university in South Carolina, but you have to realize that the world does not know The University of South Carolina as simply "Carolina". For the sake of clarity, please use the whole name. this is not the place for fighting over which football team is the REAL Carolina. If that be the case. The Carolina Panthers are the REAL Carolina, as they represent both Carolinas. The Gamecocks are South Carolina. It is apparant that you are pushing your opinion and agenda in these articles. If you wish to argue over who the REAL Carolina is, join a message board on the issue. Do not use Wikipedia to push your biased views. Maybe there should be an article on "The Real Carolina" for a place where Garnet & Black can spend all his time. Sandlap123 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I read this article for the first time today & immediately noticed how bias it is towards Carolina. A majority of the facts stated are accurate but some are taken out of context & from limited sources. Over 50% of the cited articles are from the University of South Carolina Press & not one from the opposite standpoint. It's easy to list facts when you pick & choose what you feel is revelant from the sources you selected. As for the uncited comment about Clemson not wanting WWII veterans you fail to mention that Clemson was a military school & actually had many programs for returning soldiers. This page should just go under Carolina Football because thats the only team you are promoting not the rivalry. Mmwl80 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)