Talk:Fred W. Murphy

1900 season

Fred Murphy could not have coached Massachusetts AND Missouri in the same season (1900). After a year at Massachusetts (then Massacusetts Agricultural College) Murphy joined his former Brown teammate, Dave Fultz, at Mizzou in the fall of 1900. Fultz, who had coached Missouri during the 1898 season, left after the season opener to play professional football in the Pittsburgh area. Murphy coached Missouri the remainder of the year and returned to Missouri for the 1901 season. Sources: M.S.U. Independent, St. Louis Republic, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Kansas City Star, Boston Globe, Springfield (MA) Republican, Moberly Monitor Index, New York Times. Dan O'Brien dan@rubewaddell.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.235.145 (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1902 Massachusetts Agricultural College yearbook, The Index, credits Murphy as the coach for the 1900 season; see https://archive.org/stream/index1902univ#page/58/mode/2up. The 2013 UMass football media guide also lists Murphy, albeit erroneously as "Fred W. Murphy Brown", as the coach in 1900; see http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/umas/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/2013-fb-media-guide.pdf, page 77. I've come across a number of other instances in the early years of college football where one man is credited as the head coach of more than one school for a given season. I have the sense that in those days a coach often may have been more like what we think of as a consultant now, someone who may have worked the team before or early in the season and imparted some strategy, but wasn't necessarily with the team and on the sidelines all season. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On the sidelines all season? Fred Murphy wasn't within 1,200 miles of Amherst, Massachusetts, at any point during the football season. Yes, I've seen the UMass football media guide and the erroneous Fred W. Murphy Brown. Why would you cite an admittedly erroneous source. The University of Missouri football media guide lists Dave Fultz as its 1899 coach but Fultz wasn't anywhere near Columbia in 1899. He coached Missouri in 1898 and for one game in 1900. Ernest Cleveland "E.C" White coached Missouri in 1899. And, those are just a couple mistakes in college football media guides. There are many, many more througbout the country. Just because it appears in print once doesn't make it fact, and that goes for college yearbooks, annuals or any printed work. My college yearbook has a number of errors. Maybe the yearbook staff at Mass Agricultural didn't update the coaching records because the "Aggies" had no coach in 1900. A few years ago, I left a company and one of its subsidaries still printed my name and contact information for years before I found out. That doesn't mean I still worked for that company. And, what you have the "sense" for doesn't necessarily make it fact, either. You, or some Wikipedia editor, "sensed" that Missouri's Fred Murphy (Fred W.) was Fred T. Murphy. Obviously, that was not correct. Now, if you to want talk about this, actually TALK, and not hide behind some wall in cyberspace, my number is 317-215-4390, or you can email me directly: dan@rubewaddell.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.235.145 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the errors in media guides. And, yes, I'm not infallible. Remember when I thanked you for your help with Fred T. Murphy? If major listings like NCAA records, team media guides, or the College Football Data Warehouse have things in error, let's fix things here. We just need to back up the correct story with specific references. Can you point me to some sources about Ernest Cleveland "E.C" White? The point of having the discussion here is not to "hide behind some wall in cyberspace", but rather to have the conversation out in the open where anyone and everyone can join in. What about all those sources you list above? Are any of those available online? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciated your thanks but I don't consider your subsequent rebuffs a compliment in any way. I can, and will, back up EVERY source I have cited. I have provided my email address and telephone number but you choose to ignore a personal contact. A "conversation in the open" is pointless with regards to serious research if those particpating are uniformed. And, you apparently do not understand the difference between "conversation" and "discussion." I can provide specific resources and references, which I can email or mail via the old-fashioned method (some are HARD COPIES). What difference does it make if the reference are online??? The sum total of the knowledge in this world is not yet online. Some research has to be conducted the old-fashioned way, by pouring over old files and microfilm. You obviously fail to comprehend that. By the way, according to my sources, Fred W. Murphy spent the greate part of the 1899 season as coach of Amhert Collge, not Massachusetts Agricultural (now UMass). He apparently spent time coaching the "Aggies" in the early fall but switched to Amherst College for the bulk of the football season. He may provided the same pre-season service for the agricultural school football team in 1900, but was definitely in Columhia, Missouri, to assist Dave for the Tigers' season opener. Dan O'Brien 317-215-4390, DAN@RUBEWADDELL.NET. If you can't respond to me DIRECTLY - as a real person -- that's all I need to know about you and your integrity. How can my responses by "unsigned" whe I have provided my REAL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS and TELEPHONE NUMBER aside from the collosal arrogance, bureaucracy and bigotry of Wikipedia and its editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.235.145 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As someone who's basically uninvolved here (and let the records show, college football is a moderate interest of mine, not a passion. I'm a college basketball guy), I just want to mention that I've known Jweiss11 as an editor for years since some of our topics overlap. I assure you none of his compliments were back-handed or condescending. I believe you, Dan, about your references, research, and knowledge. The reason why Jweiss11 was saying it is better to have these sorts of discussions in the open (such as this talk page) is so that anyone down the road can be caught up/informed on the changes that were made to this article; the history of these contested changes are free to everyone editing to see. While a phone call would be a good way to more quickly hash out your differences, an avenue such as this talk page is the way Wikipedia operates. Information, or the contested information therein, must be in the open in order for others to participate. Jweiss11 isn't "hiding" behind the internet, he's actually extremely open about this discussion. You provided your name, email address, and phone number, which was your prerogative (for what it's worth, that probably isn't a good idea and that's generally discouraged on Wikipedia, but for this it can remain visible), but that in no way makes Jweiss11 cowardly for deciding to maintain his own security and safety. Wikipedia is one of the top five most trafficked websites on the planet, putting one's personal information out there could have greater consequences than originally intended.

As for your inquiry wondering why offline sources aren't accepted on Wikipedia: they actually are. If the offline source (let's say, for argument's sake, a 1900 Missouri football media guide) is properly referenced in the article to back up a claim, even if no link can be provided to it, it is up to the rest of the Wikipedia community to accept in good faith that the offline reference provided is valid and not made up (one time, a vandal added a phony offline reference to an article, only to have Rush Limbaugh use his guest's Wikipedia article for his guest research; when Limbaugh erroneously mentioned something about that person on live national radio, it was found to be false information... this is where accepting offline sources in good faith can get murky). I encourage you to continue your conversation about Fred W. Murphy here. It is up to Jweiss11 whether he would pursue an external dialogue with you about Murphy, but to ridicule anyone, let alone a highly active editor who's done more for this website than 99% of the editors on here, for hiding behind a talk page is not a high road to take and only looks poorly upon you. Please try to keep your emotions in check and more productive dialogue can occur. I've been on this website for 7 1/2 years myself, and I can assure that if your sources check out, the changes will be made to this article. The important thing to do is cite them in-line and make a reference to this talk page for further proof. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)