Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal

Violations by year

This is an unencyclopedic level of detail. Is there a way to summarize this? / edg ☺ ☭ 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone is certainly welcome to try and improve the article by doing so. Isn't that the whole point of WIki? I didn't think just because some people don't like the way an article is presented (in its first version, no less) that it becomes fodder for deletion. People are welcome to help present this information in a different manner, but don't try to act like it doesn't deserve to be presented at all. That's simply disingenuous. ViperNerd (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Violations by year section doesn't have a narrative or anything; it's mostly an information dump. I think the way to improve it would be to add a few more illustrative examples to the 2nd paragraph, and simply ditch this list, which can be read on the NCAA link.

The article's length need not be dicated by the number of violations—if there were 300 violations, the article wouldn't need to be 4 times as long. And making the article longer doesn't make it more notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The titles

I'm lost ... how is this POV?

The Tigers, however, were allowed to keep their Atlantic Coast Conference titles from 1978 and 1981, as well as the 1981 national title.

From my perspective, these were some major, major, major violations (getting kicked off live TV for two years is telling), so how is noting that they were allowed to keep two conference titles and a national title POV? I'm lost. Blueboy96 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It was never implied in the Punishment section that they were stripped of any titles or forced to forfeit the results of any seasons, so bringing them up has no bearing on the topic that is being covered in the article. It's injecting a positive mention about the Clemson football program into a place where it doesn't belong, hence it's POV. Why not also say something like, "Danny Ford was not forced to immediately resign following the NCAA's findings." Because if he was, it would've been mentioned in the first place. It can be ASSUMED that no titles were stripped from the Tigers, otherwise that would've been included as part of their PUNISHMENT. ViperNerd (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree--most of the 1978 and 1981 teams were recruited during the time the violations occurred, so the fact they were allowed to keep their titles is stunning enough it should be in there. I'm surprised--a Gamecock doesn't think that's pretty telling? Blueboy96 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Telling of what, exactly? Are you trying to imply something by the inclusion of this unnecessary information? To my knowledge, titles weren't stripped from programs when Clemson received their 1982 probation, and the death penalty also didn't exist, because it is widely believed that if it had, Clemson would have been the first school to receive the NCAA's stiffest penalty, instead of SMU in 1987. ViperNerd (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first, get your facts straight, then cut out the weasel words. That would go a long way toward improving your contributions to the project. 1). The NCAA Death Penalty DID exist in 1982 (not in its current "repeat violator" form - it was actually easier to apply before the 1985 change, but the criteria for when to apply it was not as well defined - and it was implemented by pressuring schools not to participate against the offending school). Kentucky Basketball was given the Death Penalty for the 1951 season following their point shaving scandal. 2.) "Because it is widely believed" is a cluster of weasel words, and you are very effectively labelling yourself as a weasel by using such words in your argument. If you strongly believe that something is true, please, just provide a reference instead of the weasel words. 3.) The NCAA does not strip National Championships in football because it does not sanction a football National Championship, third party organizations do. Thör ^hammer 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's telling of just how lucky the Tigers got ... usually, with violations this serious, you don't get to keep your titles. I've seen titles get stripped for lesser violations than this--according to my research (I've got a 2000 sports almanac on hand), they actually did strip titles back then. The earliest I can recall a title being stripped for a major violation was back in 1933. And the death penalty did exist back then ... just not in its current form, and it hadn't been slapped on a football program at the time. Blueboy96 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, pointing out how "lucky" Clemson was or wasn't would I think definitely fall within the realm of speculation, and as such is not worthy of consideration in an encyclopedic article. Not that I disagree with you, by the way. I think they actually got off pretty light considering the violations they committed and the lengthy period over which not just one, but two separate coaching staffs committed them. But to start discussing this in the article itself would definitely cross the line into POV. Let's just leave well enough alone in this instance. ViperNerd (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting this article

To the editor who arbitrarily decided to split this article: before you take it upon yourself to make an edit this drastic, it's usually customary to have some amount of discussion about it first. I've restored the complete version of the article until this can take place. Your article about the 1990 probation seems too short to stand on its own, but we'll let the WP community decide what is the best way to present this notable material. ViperNerd (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles need to remain split (see 1982 Clemson University football probation and 1990 Clemson University football probation) along with the changes in writing style from sensationalistic to encyclopedic. The lead is not well formatted, using sensationalized statements such as "due to a lengthy history of recruiting violations to gain an athletic advantage." The usage of "1981 National Championship season" is incorrect, it should just be "1981 football season." Instead of "Punishment," "Result of violations" should be used. In the 1990 section, which did not involve recruits, using words such as "Just five years later," "once again found their football program," "found themselves on probation once again," and "second time in less than a decade" are unnecessary. The NCAA did not convict Clemson of having illegal contacts in 1990, only giving $50 to $70 to one player. A portion of the original 1990 accusations were not true according to the conclusion of the NCAA.

I also do not believe the events warrant a "scandal" title; they were probation periods, not a Monica Lewinsky situation.

It must be noted that this article as whole has been nominated for deletion in the past. Other editors have noted that this particular editor is a single purpose account with an agenda to cast Clemson University in a negative light in any way possible. Evidence for this can be found at the user's talk page, where he frequently references to Clemson Tiger fans as "taters." and speaks of the fans/alumni as a whole in an extremely derogatory way. It should also be noted that many of his derogatory and offensive statements have been removed from his talk page, as if we're all dumb enough to not notice. These are a few excerpts (I have added red for emphasis):

Excerpts from ViperNerd (talk · contribs)'s talk page deleted, as he/she objects to them quoted out of context.
Interested editors can check the History there. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He also has a long history of removing comments from other users off of article talk pages. I have no idea why this is allowed to go on. See here and here.

All in all, this user obviously has an agenda and an axe to grind. I have rewritten and split the articles for easier understanding. I fully believe that the two versions I have revised and created are superior to the one that currently exists. Once again, those can be found at 1982 Clemson University football probation and 1990 Clemson University football probation. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Split: Well as a Clemson fan, I know right off the bat ViperNerd will attempt to discredit anything I have to say, but my main beef is that the probation in 1982 and 1990 were NOT part of the same "scandal", and no proof has been brought forward that they are. Also, other users have attempted to add in the fact that Clemson was allowed to keep all titles won in the years the violations were committed only to be deleted and scolded by ViperNerd for doing so. I think this is valuable to note, because it helps the reader understand that the violations may have been severe enough to give Clemson an unfair advantage that resulted in multiple championships. That fact alone should make this article more noteworthy. Other schools cheat and get caught, but it's never national news because the cheating didn't result in championships. If we're going to allow articles like this to be created then we need to make sure it's done fairly and objectively, and having an avowed fan of the subject school's rival lead the fight to determine what's objective should be a clear violation of multiple Wikipedia POV rules. Jober14 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait and see what ViperNerd has to say. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Not part of the same scandal?" Well, most of the violations occurred under the administration of one head football coach, who also just happens to be the one who won the national championship during this period and is still the most revered coach by Clemson fans. And if "having an avowed fan of the subject school's rival" editing is objectionable, then what would you call having avowed fans of the school ITSELF trying to "lead the fight" to decide what is and isn't relevant for inclusion in an article of this sort? ViperNerd (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is I openly welcome a debate by OTHERS as to what's acceptable and what's not. I also use Wikipedia guidelines when writing my articles. You on the other hand, think you know what the rest of the world should read, and how they should read into it. Wikipedia is for other people to make.... you know what, I'm not going to answer your drivel anymore. I'll listen and respond to others only. If you want to debate which team is better and more respectable, we can take it back to your talk page unless you're going to delete everything again. Jober14 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I already know which football program is more respectable, there really isn't any debate there. One has been found guilty of over 70 recruiting violations over a period of 5 years, and almost as soon as they were off probation, they were right back to their old dirty tricks. The other program is the University of South Carolina. I know you wish these weren't the indisputable facts (and would like to be able to just sweep them under the carpet of history and ignore them), but sadly for you, they are. ViperNerd (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, USC was placed on a 2-year probation for illegal recruiting practices in 1967 (year they won their one and only conference title) and then again in 2005. In fact, the 2005 probation JUST ENDED in June. Sad but true. Jober14 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Split: Factually-unrelated incidents that should be separated into different articles - if an article is even warranted for either - which I don't believe is the case. I nominated the original article for deletion - probably one of the worst Wiki articles ever, and plenty of grounds for deletion (see the AfD nom). The original was essentially just one fabricated statement (to create the "illusion of notability") thrown together with copyrighted material from the NCAA report. The closing admin actually dispositioned this as "discuss a merge in talk." I propose that this series of comments be that discussion for merging with another article.Thör ^hammer 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think it warrants another AFD nomination? I split them instead of nominating them for deletion because, to be honest, I didn't feel like going through the hoopla of the last AFD again. I think don't think either topic deserves it's own section in the Clemson football article, much less it's own article. I think it was created and fueled by someone with a serious axe to grind. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the comments related to Clemson being allowed or permitted to keep their titles is another fabrication. The NCAA does not sanction National Championships in football, and is therefore in no position to permit any school to posess one.Thör ^hammer 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then couldn't it be noted that the Coaches/AP pollsters did not chose to revoke the championships? Same for the ACC? The problem is that ViperNerd refuses to allow any information that may divert from his message through these articles that Clemson is a "dirty dirty school". Jober14 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jober14, don't you think that the article's suggestion that Clemson was allowed to keep their national championships actually diminishes them winning it by suggesting that they had done something bad enough to have it stripped? As far as the ACC is concerned, I think the only time they ever revoked a football conference championship was in 1966 when they said South Carolina cheated during the 1965 season. They forced the Gamecocks to forfeit all of their conference wins and the conference championship (their first). The NCAA followed suit and placed SCU on two years probation in football and basketball.Thör ^hammer 01:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's just that ViperNerd has been hammering the fact that EVERYONE (except Clemson sympathizers) thinks that what Clemson did was down right despicable and comparable to murder! When obviously the ACC, AP and Coaches all had different (or no) opinions on the situation. Hence why I think it's important to discuss the ENTIRE situation of the so called scandal. Not just the punishments recieved. It would be like writing an article on a trial with just publishing the prosecutors case and the jury's verdict. Let's put things in context, contrary to the way this article was written, this wasn't an end-of-the-world situation for Clemson, and this shouldn't be presented that way. He has done NO research other than just what the NCAA has said and a few articles from the NYT, and then when someone tries to change the article away from the exact way he wrote it, he blows up as evident on this talk page. Something needs to be done. Jober14 (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jober, go look up the word "hyperbole" please. I think it's important that you know the definition of the word, as you are a MASTER of the practice. I compared Clemson's football probations to murder and said that "EVERYONE" believes this to be true? Really? Please show us where I did this. "Obviously" the ACC, AP and Coaches Polls had "no opinion" on Clemson's probation for 70 recruiting violations which led to 2 years probation? Really? Please produce some sources which back up your belief. The fact is, MANY sports columnists over the years have commented that Clemson was lucky not to have received the Death Penalty from the NCAA, such were the number and type of violations committed and the long period of time over which they were committed. But you'll notice I never added this to the article (despite your belief that I'll do anything possible to paint the Tigers in the most negative light) because these are the SPECULATIONS of people, knowledgeable though they might be, and as such do not belong in an encyclopedic article. ViperNerd (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please cite your source on the "almost Death Penalty" verdict? Sports writers are opinionated much like yourself and their(your) commentary has no place on Wikipedia. In fact you are the one who proclaims this article to be nothing more than the "cold hard truth" about Clemson. And as far as the belief that you'll do ANYTHING to make Clemson look bad, I don't believe I've ever heard ONE SINGLE PERSON defend your neutrality. Jober14 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry WN1971...but what was the point of this discussion again? Was it to discuss splitting a NOTABLE AND SOURCED Wikipedia article, or was it so that you could express every instance of how I decide to manage MY Talk page? If anyone is grinding an axe here, it's you. I'd go so far as to say you are either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jober14 or Thor. I guess I'll have to file a checkuser to find out if this is the case. Just as in the AfD for this article, there are more users running their mouths about me, and not about the merits of this article. To say that this information is not relevant to an online encyclopedia that contains far more inconsequential minutiae is such an obviously biased statement that it doesn't even warrant further comment. Users like WN1971, Jober, and Thor expose their personal agendas when they can't even keep a simple discussion like this on topic. You do nothing but damage your cause, if indeed you were honest about what that was from the beginning. If the WP community decides that there needs to be not one but TWO articles covering Clemson football probation, who am I to stand in the way? I just thought it was simpler to cover it all in one place. ViperNerd (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, run a checkuser. At the present time, however, it seems as though the consensus is to split the article. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "consensus" from YOU and two other people who have made this entire issue a personal one, as evidenced by your comments here (copypasting a user's talk page comments out of context is a pretty desperate move, btw). Pardon me if I'm not impressed by all the "support" you've gathered for your proposal. I think we'll wait for the outcome of your 3rd party appeal before we just assume the three of you represent a consensus of WP users. Thanks, anyway. Oh, and I notice neither you nor Thor denied having a personal agenda at work here. Why bother denying the obvious, I guess? ViperNerd (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bring on the checkuser, princess, you asked for one on me the last time I got you blocked for 3RR/edit warring. Besides, the WP:Checkuser policy "grounds for checking" explicitly states that "the tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute", so you are actually violating Wikipedia policy by making such a threat. Bring it on, I voluntarily submit, just to show how wrong your thinking is. Thör ^hammer 01:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion A request was made for a WP:Third Opinion. However, more than two editors are involved in the dispute as I understand it, so I have removed the request. Please try other options in WP:DISPUTE, such as WP:RFC. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION VIPERNERD DO NOT remove, edit, or otherwise alter others' comments from this talk page. It is not your duty nor your place to do so. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

Subsequent to my action on the Third Opinion, editor ViperNerd (talk · contribs) removed several large blocks of comments by other editors that he or she argued violated WP:Talk page guidelines. I asked for justification that the material qualified for deletion from this Talk page despite WP:TPG#Others' comments and specifically WP:RPA. ViperNerd reverted my restoration of the comments, citing the clause of "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". The material I restored is in this diff. While much of it is directed at ViperNerd and some of it quotes from his or her Talk page, removing this large amount of text may make it more difficult for other editors to understand the dispute.

ViperNerd earlier justified removing the comments with an Edit Summary reading "If you have problems with me, take them to my talk page, this is not a forum for your personal agenda" (directed at WN1971 (talk · contribs)). Some of the material removed may have been relevant to the article, but ViperNerd's comment indicates he or she feels it consists mostly of WP:personal attack. By that reasoning, WP:RPA would might suggest keeping the material. ViperNerd's other reasoning, "not relevant to improving the article" is open to debate.

It is my suggestion that the clear record of the discussion, however flawed, should be here, as long as it does relate to the article. I also suggest all editors avoid personal attacks, as they are not very convincing and will cause the attacked editor to extend the debate in that direction, which is not helpful. They are also against policy. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An edit war over the comments between the two editors followed. Both editors should be aware of WP:3RR, which can be applied flexibly. Perhaps you could each briefly restate your position on how the current article (not this Talk page) should be changed or split, so that other editors can understand the issue. Please be brief if you follow this suggestion. You might attach a sample edit. Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion was what I asked for in the first place. You can go to the talk page of WN1971 (talk · contribs) and see that. What this user decided to do instead was produce the garbage you see above. No real discussion of why the article should be split (and if there is good reason to do so, I'm all for it, as I've already stated), just a recitation of old comments from my talk page TAKEN OUT OF THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT. How what was said between myself and another user (who was just as contentious as I was) is relevant to the discussion of why this article should or shoudn't be split into two separate articles is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain to us why it somehow has relevance to the topic at hand, that of improving this article.

As an outside editor (coming here from WP:Third Opinion), all I can do is try to understand what is the issue at hand. Having one editor change the text of the discussion is confusing, probably as confusing as any distortions in the text being deleted! I am interested in the proposed edits to the article, but if I have to read two versions of the Talk page, I might never get to the part about the edits for the article. In any case the article is no longer up for Third Opinion. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, my removal of the material referenced above was not "despite" WP:TPG#Others' comments, it was done to ADHERE to the guidelines. Maybe you need to re-read the section you keep referencing. It states:

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article

Again, if you can explain how a contentious exchange between myself and another user taken out of its original context is relevant to improving this article, and thus belongs on this talk page, I'd be interested to hear the justification. ViperNerd (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment may be correct, but as a third opinion editor I still have to read both versions. In other words, removing the comments does not make them go away, it just makes it more confusing. And I have re-read the section WP:TPG#Others' comments several times, and discussed the aspect of it you mention. :) -Colfer2 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then both WN1971 (talk · contribs) and ViperNerd (talk · contribs) were blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule. One reported the other and then I reported the reporter. Well that's all a shame but let's return the discussion to what changes if any should be made to the Article(s) in question. Thanks!

(The result of their Talk page edit war was that I then reverted most of ViperNerd's deletions, with some exceptions. I did remove the quotes taken from ViperNerd's User Talk page since he or she objected that WN1971 had used them out of context.) -Colfer2 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Splitting this article and removing bias

The current revision of this article has been heavily edited by an editor with a proven track record of bias against the subject of the article. Please see Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal#Splitting this article for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WN1971 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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