Talk:Miami Hurricanes football/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records

Should we really list them here? They are informative, but they require a tremendous amount of upkeep to keep them current. As is, I think most of the records listed are current as of 2002, so I'm not sure some of them are even records anymore. For the same reasons, team designations for alumni should not be listed. They are too fluid for current players and retired players may have played for 3, 4, or even 5 teams. The link to the individual player page will inform interested users of what team the player played for.-66.254.232.219 05:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has voiced an objection, so I'm going to go ahead and dump the record sections. There's really no way we could stay on top of all those records to keep them current. Hopefully, we can add to the article with individual sections on championship seasons (an 83 section, a 87 section, an 89 section...) and sections on rivalries and maybe Cane commaradarie (about how former players remain intensely involved in the program and still work out with the current guys at UM in the off-season). We'll make up for the loss of the records, to be sure.-CaneMan 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I started on the seasonal sections. I've got 2001 done so far and added headings for '83, '87, '89, and '91. Feel free to add to them at your desire.-66.254.232.219 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NFL team affiliations

It seems to me that the NFL team affiliations, along with the names of the NFL players, adds substantially to this article and should remain. Its addition is not "vandalism" as the recent edit suggests, though its removal may be.

Speaking as the person who created this article, I have to agree with the first user -- I don't see the propriety in keeping the NFL team affiliations. These affiliations are continually subject to change and the article is not updated frequently enough to ensure there's no outdated and incorrect information regarding the team affiliations of former 'Canes. Besides, an interested user can just click on the link to the player's page, which should accurately state which team, if any, the player currently plays for. Also, please be sure to sign your future contributions to the talk page.-Brian Brockmeyer 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverted the affiliations. I think we have an emerging consensus that they shouldn't be included.-CaneMan 04:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we have a repeat anon vandal on our hands here.-66.254.232.219 21:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


NPOV

In trying to maintain the NPOV, I have deleted this sentence:

"The 2001 Miami Hurricanes are universally considered one of the greatest teams in the history of college football, and some would say the greatest."

Yeah, I am a fan of the Hurricanes and I have never heard that claim before. The few greatest college teams of all times discussion I've heard or seen on TV never even mentioned this team. Rooting for a team is fine, but not for a Wikipedia article. Sorry.

L pour soi 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You must not be much of a college football fan then. Did you not see the result of the USC: Place in History series? Of all the teams of the past 50+ years, 2001 Miami was the only team voted a victor against 2005 USC--and handily so [1]. Not to mention Herbstreit deemed them the greatest squad in modern college football. That 2001 Miami is considered one of the greatest teams in CFB history is beyond dispute.-RicardoTubbs 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In the "NFL U" section, I removed the word "unrivaled" from the sentence "Miami has had unrivaled success in producing players who go on to the National Football League.", though an anon user keeps reverting it back. Many schools such as Notre Dame, Florida State, Michigan, SC have had just as much success spanning the decades that the draft has been in place. The article accurately reflects the recent success in the first round of several drafts, but fails to recognize that there are several rounds after that in which players make the leap into the NFL. AriGold 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since 1980, no college football team has had anywhere near the success at producing NFL draft picks as the Miami Hurricanes. I will have to find the research I have done on this and get back to you all. --Mcmachete 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "Actually, since 1980, no college football team has had anywhere near the success at producing NFL draft picks as the Miami Hurricanes." Yes, but the draft did not begin in 1980. If you only go back 25 years, Miami may have had the most players drafted, but, the draft began in 1936. Picking and choosing certain years to make an argument is what makes some of the "NFL U" stuff in the article nnpov. If you go back to the beginning of the NFL draft, Miami is by no means the most successful team in the draft. If you look at this years draft, Miami was by far not the most successful. But yes, if you pick and choose certain years, Miami was the most successful. Do you not see the problem with that? Going back through the history of the draft, 1936 through 4:33 p.m. EST today), Miami comes in at #10 on the list of most players drafted, and they have a LONG way to go before they come close to being #1.


1. Notre Dame- 450 players drafted
2. USC- 430
3. Ohio State- 372
4. Oklahoma- 327
5. Nebraska- 320
6. Michigan- 317
7. Tennessee- 309
8. Penn State- 305
9. Texas- 299
10. Miami- 285
AriGold 20:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This is one of the most disgustingly slated articles I have ever seen. How can this be allowed to happen on Wikipedia?!? This is supossed to be an online encyclopedia, not a recruiting tool. Gimme a break. Whoever is in charge, get this crap fixed. Cuz I know nobody wants me to do it. If I did I'd totally erase all of the "NFL U" crap. Disgraceful. J-Dog 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC
  • i hate to hear about anybody talking about draft picks at a college before 70. The parity in college football has completely changed, and miami did in 20 years what no other team will ever do. if anything, miami CREATED the disparity by being another independent (along with Penn State and notre dame), and i cannot think of another program that could rebuild from 67 scholarships under butch davis being taken away an being robbed of a 3-peat (should have played OK in orange bowl in 2000, beat fsu heads up, won in 2001, should have won 2002. if anything this program has been robbed because of an image that was created 8 years before, they paid their dues, and still got the short end of the stick. for such a small school to rebuild, words cannot describe. that is why you say "nfl u." these guys came in trust of the program, fsu, uf, ucla, oklahoma, would all look better than um. but it was the mystique. this team came out of nowhere in '82 and won the whole thing, proceded to win 4 of 10 national titles....with a shot to win more. the list of players that played on those teams compare to the "new gen" that were drafted is incomparable. the past 24 years of this program are unparalleled in my opinion because of that. also, arigold, there were 4 conferences in the nation back in the 30's. and i also find it ironic that a bunch of those team's best ones were ran over by UM.

Ohio State

With all due respect, this article reads like an advertisement. It mentions the team's record and its last National championship, but it should mention the hype over the next championship bowl game and its lost, it reads like it never happen. Coker went into the game undefeated. It also ended a winning streak. Stephen Rodgers--65.24.77.104 03:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Va Tech fan myself and you have to agree the "U" got robbed in that BCS title game with Ohio State. What a shame!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.71.45 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, who is the creep who keeps bringing in biased material to justify the Fiasco Bowl? To begin with, the National Association of Sports Officials is not going to abandon one of its own, and make them look fallible, nor is "Referee Magazine" going to admit that one of their boys blundered, or sold out. The fact remains that SI devoted a full page to that call in the same issue that reported it, and SI is no fan of the Hurricanes. Remember, this is the same magazine that called for Miami to drop football. CBS analyzed it during a 30-minute episode, and ESPN calls it one of the Worst 50 Calls of All Time. Some damned Buckeye fan without the guts to sign in or admit that they were handed the game, probably.

The game was five years ago and I am guessing your bitterness did not allow you to add it to your collection. However, if you WERE to watch it, Porter signaled holding, then interference. The flag came about 2 seconds after the play. Holding did occur http://buckeyefansonly.com/notcalled.html and Ohio State went on to win the NC! Boo to the Hoo! P.S. since the ACC expanded to 12, they are 0-3 in the BCS great move!(How is this relevant?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcspro (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The flag came four full seconds after the game ended. The back judge on top of the play signaled game over, yet Porter, who was nowhere near close enough to make such a judgment call, threw the flag. Why did Porter not signal interference on Jenkins on the 4th and 14 play, when he pushed off on Glenn Sharpe? You lost, 24-17, but you refuse to man up and admit it, which is why Ohio State fans are hated nationwide. Again, consider the source: Buckeyefansonly.com. before that, you quote the NASO, and Referee Magazine. Could it be that you have NO unbiased source? You repeatedly overlook SI, CBS, and ESPN, who have no ax to grind for either team. Why don't you keep your gutless Suckeye self over there where you belong?Jimconch (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimconch (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you WERE to watch the game, ball hits the ground, TWO seconds, then flag. I do apoligize for my last comment. However, bias source or not, the pictures DO confirm holding. You can forget about the "no-calls" because when it came down to the end Porter made the correct call which the photos with "ball flight" and "pass interference" confirm. You can argue that it was one of the 50 worst calls, but back it up with a source. Oh, and I am not even a "Suckeye" fan so you can take your bias sock-puppet point of view somewhere else! Bcspro (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I watched the game, watched the replays, watched the 30-minute special CBS devoted to analyzing the call, and read the Sports Illustrated article on it. In one paragraph, you say "about two seconds", then you shout "TWO" seconds the next time around as if it were a fact now that you emphasize it. I have unbiased sources, which I've mentioned, and ESPN is another one. I called you a suckeye fan because I cannot imagine anyone else doing this repeatedly, and speaking of sockpuppets, you definitely have an ax to grind. All during the game, the officials were content to let them play, even to the point of throwing no flag on OSU's Jenkins for offensive pass interference when he pushed off on the 4th and 14. I'm retired; I have nothing but time on my hands, and I will not let you rewrite history. Everything I've added is from unbiased sources (in fact, SI did a cover story on why Miami should drop football; they are no fans of the U). Sources you quote, such as Referee and NASO, definitely have an agenda: covering their asses and those of their members. Sorry, but that is simply unacceptable.Jimconch (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You say I am rewritting history, what about you going on the OSU page and changing the score of the game? Got a bitter taste in your mouth? Since your now retired, maybe you can go back to school and CITE your sources, then AND ONLY THEN will people accept your opinion. I also said forget about the no calls and you continue to bring up Jenkins. Bitter. Bcspro (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Want to see pass interference? Watch Glen Sharpe's left arm, not his right. He holds Gamble's back while the ball is in the air. (http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9913/osupi4lo7.png) Yes, that is a clear hold, but it's worth noting that any contact whatsoever is grounds for interference. Finally, Gamble was called for pass interference in a very similar play earlier in the game, and Dan Fouts actually said, "The hand on the back. The official will make that call every time." Stop living in a fantasy world, Miami fans. That "50 worst calls list" does not exist, and those were unbiased Big 12 officials with no affiliation to Ohio State. This call has been defended by ESPN, CBS Sports, officiating publications, officiating organizations, and the kitchen sink. Ohio State won fair and square, and it's time to move on. The fact that Buckeye fans can argue their point using sources and citations, whereas Miami fans cannot, should say something. Lucid6191 (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it says that you have selective memories. I have not even mentioned "The Cane Mutiny" by ESPN's Bruce Feldman, who covered that game in detail. Read it before you say that Suckeye fans can argue their point using sources and citations. The sources you quote, NASO and Referee Magazine, both have an ax to grind in defending one of their own; these are not unbiased sources by any stretch of the imagination. And, how can you complain about someone changing the score on the Ohio State page when you come here and rewrite our page? Leave us alone and I will show the same courtesy. By the way, the fact that you defend the call at all says something about it. Why bring it up at all, if it doesn't bother you? And you are strangely silent on the subject of the ineligible Maurice Clarett. For the record, I do not blame Ohio State fans for the loss; I blame the officiating. I only blame the tiny percentage of Ohio State fans who come in here and add justification to the article, when it was best left alone to begin with. There was, and is, no reason for you to come to this page and make changes whitewashing Terry Porter. The fact that he was a Big 12 official does not exonerate him from favoritism It would save me a considerable amount of typing to simply change the score on the Ohio State page. Is that what you want? I'm trying to be fair. The best thing to do is to leave it alone, but if you insist on altering the Hurricanes page, then expect the same in return.Jimconch (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimconch (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one was happy with just editing the 2003 Fiesta Bowl page, but the constant vandalism by a certain Miami fan inspired me to edit this page as well. You're gonna have to live with it. On Maurice Clarett: He wasn't retroactively ineligible until Ohio State's 2003 Winter Quarter, which began on Jan 8th, five days after the Fiesta Bowl. NCAA investigators examined this scenario and reported that Clarett was eligible when the game took place. Funny how Miami fans always forget that detail. Your accusations of favoritism and bias are speculation, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It really says something that Ohio State fans are sourcing ESPN, CBS, and Referee Magazine for their side of the argument, while Miami fans are using no sources, and instead are passing off homer drivel as fact. I'll say it again; if you can find a citation for that "worst calls list" - and you won't - and if you can find a citation for Clarett's ineligibility - again, you won't - then I would have no problems whatsoever with you adding them to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucid6191 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have to live with a damn thing. At least, after your second shaming in a row in a national title game (3 if you count basketball)I can understand why you do it: You poor pathetic OSU fans have little enough to be proud of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimconch (talk • contribs) 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think this picture is pretty cool. http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9913/osupi4lo7.png What do you think? Lucid6191 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is not the duty of this article to establish whether or not it was a good call. That would indicate this "encyclopedia article" has taken a stance and that is clearly not a NPOV. The article can mention the call was controversial (or not), but it does not have to defend or refute it. ObiWan353 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ACC isn't 0-3 in BCS bowls since the expansion to 12 teams, they are (if I'm correct), 1-5. And Jimconch, your posting is drivel on this subject. I don't have a dog in this argument but Miami has faded into the paradigmatic portal of irrelevance ever since the Fiesta Bowl. I believe "The Call" was correct and like Lucid6191 said, Ohio State fans are actually sourcing Referee Magazine, CBS and ESPN, while Miami fans are spewing folk lore, myth and "we wuz robbed". TPershiganv50 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

2005 + 2006

In an effort to consolidate the article a bit, I'm going to give the sections on the 2005 and 2006 teams their own articles. This seems to be the general treatment, as I've noticed it down with LSU, Texas, USC, etc. I'll try and condense the sections into a paragraph to add to the history section here, then provide a wiki link to the new pages if users want to see a more in-depth treatment of the 2005 and 2006 seasons.-DSJ2 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Players

Does anyone have any objection if I move the list of past Hurricane players to its own article? I think it would help shorten the article considerably since there are so many notable 'Canes who went on to play in the NFL!-PassionoftheDamon 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brawl record

why does someone keep removing their brawl record? (in the infobox) --24.178.78.17 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) if it's incorrect, the least you could do is correct it.

This information in unnecessary Cablebfg 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on terminology and peacock words

I recently removed the term "all-time" from the phrase "Miami holds the all-time advantage..." since it's unclear to me what that phrase actually adds, other than boosterism, which is not allowed on wikipedia. The score is there; my question is why the numbers can't speak for themselves. If someone can explain "all-time" as a technical term in sports, I'll be glad to learn something new. I'll wait one day before reverting if no explanation is forthcoming. A note to the editor who threatened me (User:PassionoftheDamon): please use talk pages for working through a dispute. --Anthony Krupp 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of peacock terms. Referring to a 29-21 advantage in the all-time series between Miami and Florida State is hardly a peacock phrase. Perhaps you're new to the sports world, but the historical series between two teams is typically called the all-time series, and the team that holds the edge holds the "all-time advantage" [2] [3] [4] [5][6] You've been warned. If you persist in vandalizing the page, you will be reported.-PassionoftheDamon 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You have again failed to assume good faith. Your explanation that a historical series is typically called the all-time series completely satisfies me. Thanks for (finally) explaining that. Your rude statement ("You've been warned") is uncalled for, given that I specifically asked you to please explain the term. Your threat is empty, since I have never vandalized that page. People who throw around terms as loosely as you do tend not to fare well here. Good luck with that. -Anthony Krupp 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't fail to assume good faith; you took care of that when you edited in bad faith with such edit summaries as "b.s." and "hardly called for." You vandalized the page, I called you on it, now it's over. Vandalism is not appreciated here at Wikipedia. Good luck with that going forward.-PassionoftheDamon 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that I could have asked about the terminology before editing, but the edit was in good faith, and any reasonable person who would look at the history would see that. After learning from you that the term in question is a usual sports term, I have not removed it. But a mistaken good-faith edit is not the same as vandalism, and I've tired of repeating that to you. I'm sure you'll now feel the need to add yet another comment, or call me another name (a "bad-faith editor," on both of our talk pages), but I'm done talking with you. I trust we both have work to do and others to talk to, so I at least will get to that now. Ciao. -Anthony Krupp 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We both know otherwise.-PassionoftheDamon 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On defining vandalism to this article

I recently noted that PassionoftheDamon reverted a change by User:74.229.5.6, in which the list of rivalries was expanded to include FIU's Golden Panthers. (Here is the diff: [7]) In his reversion, PassionoftheDamon provided this edit summary: "rv vandal." My question is whether User:74.229.5.6's edit was (1) correct, (2) mistaken, or (3) vandalism? I don't see evidence for concluding (3), as PassionoftheDamon did. Do others have thoughts on this? --Anthony Krupp 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be useful to read this wikipedia policy regarding the ownership of articles. -Anthony Krupp 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my Edits

I made numerous edits from fixing errors in spelling and grammar, to easing some bias, clearing some points, adding information, reverting issues. PassionoftheDamon just reverted all these edits that i spent quite some time making. If there is a specific adjustment you'd like to make, Passion, I recommend making that single change instead of reverting all the edits. I'm no joker. I've contributed to this page for almost a year, including some significant contributions in April. I'm reverting back to my edits. I didn't see too many of the edits as being controversial, but if they are, let's discuss. But throwing out all the edits because you don't like one or two is ridiculous. Anyway, I think we share the same intentions in making this wiki page better, so let's figure this out. --Mcmachete 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For one, Cleveland Gary didn't score a controversial "touchdown" in the 1988 Miami-Notre Dame game. He was controversially ruled to have fumbled the ball, even though it appeared on replays that his knee was down. Referring to the play as a "touchdown" and saying the fumble call was "incorrect" is gratuitous POV. Labeling the referee's call "controversial" and pointing out that Gary appeared to be down is good enough. Second, Ken Dorsey had nothing to do with the Quarterback U moniker. That was a nickname that developed during the 80s and 90s. I also had a problem with your use of the word "dynamic" in describing last year's victory over VT. It seemed a bit awkward in that context and superflous in light of the win being described as a "dismantling" just a few words later. I've reverted those specific edits. The rest of your edits are both unobjectionable and helpful.-PassionoftheDamon 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of your edits. But regarding Dorsey: the media used used the "Quarterback U" moniker continuously after the '01 championship and through the '02 season leading up to his heisman nomination. Though he may not be why that name was created, like "NFL U," Dorsey continued the lineage. I'd keep him on the list. --Mcmachete 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, but I believe the language reads something like "the designation came about as a result of the program turning out a number of high-profile quarterback prospects in succession." While Dorsey no doubt continued the Quarterback U. lineage, the nickname predated his career. Thus, we can't really include him among the QBs responsible for the establishment of the nickname. I'd have no problem though with an extra line saying something like, "Miami's proud quarterback tradition was continued/carried forward most recently by Ken Dorsey."-PassionoftheDamon 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That could work, though with that in mind, "Quarterback U" I believe was coined circa '86 with Vinny, so Walsh, Erickson, Torretta, et al would be part of that second sentence. Or, preferably, we can find a way to include all the quarterbacks together in the same line. --Mcmachete 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Official Colors

Aren't the official colors Orange, Green, and WHITE. The Orange Tree: Green for the leaves, Orange for the fruit, and white for the blossom... That's what they were originally, though white could have been officially dropped as a color. --Mcmachete 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a third color is not an option. I imagine that's why it's excluded? --Mcmachete 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If anyone knows the information, I'd like to know what Miami's original colors were. I know that at least in the 60's, their colors were green and gold, not orange.
White is indeed an official color. It is listed here http://hurricanesports.cstv.com/trads/mifl-colors.html in the traditions section of their site. It does state that the school colors were selected in 1926 and while there was gold included in the 60s football uniforms, it does not appear to be a part of what is considered the university's official color scheme. Jcwilson34 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When did Miami change to the current dark green from the lighter (teal?) color? The Logos and Uniforms section could use this information. phreakydancin (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Maintenance

I'm just cleaning some stuff up. The article is a bit too long and some of the wording is bad. I also moved NFL U and all that stuff under traditions instead of keeping it under it's own heading. Drew1830 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some maintenance has turned into a major overhaul. I'm adding some pics that I have and cutting some extraneous paragraphs. Just trying to clean it up a bit. Drew1830 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thug U

I can't believe there is a whole section on "NFL U" but nowhere is the nickname "Thug U" found in this article. That's a WAY more popular nickname! Google both and you will get way more hits with Thug U. 131.46.41.71 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History section

Many parts of the history section look like they have been copied and pasted from this webpage. Unless permission was given by the author (Jim Martz) to add his work to this article, it would be a copyright violation otherwise. Please rephrase, or at least remove, the sections that have been copied word for word. Also, the section is getting overly large for this article. Perhaps a new article can be created? BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

POV regarding removal of names

I have edited the section about Shannon removing the names from the back of players jerseys. It semmed to only give one POV on the issue, instead of giving both sides (see the Leaving Orange Bowl section for an example of using both sides of an issue in the description). I think both sides should be represented, or neither.

==Putting in unpleasant facts is NOT vandalism Contrary to what the homer editor McMachete says, my edits WERE NOT VANDALISM. Vandalism is adding things like "penis" into the middle of a section, NOT adding facts to complete the story. Further, they do not violate the trivialities policy. And unsourced? HARDLY ANYTHING in this entire article which was ripped off from this webpage is sourced? Don't you see how hypocritical it is to delete "unsourced" unpleasant facts while ignoring the rest? I don't think you have enough distance from the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.223.78 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct: putting in unpleasant facts is not vandalism. However, what is abuse is your continued efforts to make these changes and start an edit war (WP:3RR). You call me a homer, however your sole purpose is to place these so-called unpleasant facts into the article and change wording/phrasing into more negative terms (WP:POV), as you do not make any efforts to make any other edits. This article is NOT a repository of all tidbits of Miami Football (WP:NOT, WP:IINFO). There are plenty of unpleasant facts in this article, including controversy and tragedies sections. For further, expansive details, one may see specific season articles such as 2006 Miami Hurricanes football team. To your delight, you will see the "stomping" of the Louisville logo and the LSU fight, etc. This article serves as an overview of Miami Hurricanes football and CAN NOT be a complete, exhaustive history. Discontinue your revert edits and insults immediately. --mc machete 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You are the ultimate in doublespeak and hypocrisy. There was no "edit war" until you undid, wholesale, my edits without adequate explanation or subtlety. If you want to end the "edit war," then stop making your biased POV undo's. It really is as simple as that. Again, it is clear that you need some distance from the wiki subjects that you edit. If you think that there are too many details about a specific season, then why don't you delete all the details and instead link to the separate season? Why only delete the negatives? If it is not a complete, exhaustive history, then why do you add back in a duplicate mention of "5 national championships?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.223.78 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If you notice, I did not add that back in. Originally, I did remove your first edits in their entirety since they seemingly carried ulterior motives as you are an anonymous editor with the majority of the edits to your name being adding "negatives" and shifting POV for the Miami Hurricanes football article. I subsequently made some changes to those sections to allow for more neutrality. Ultimately, there are certain minor details that simply do not belong in the main article. Furthermore, discontinue any and all personal attacks (WP:Civil). --mc machete 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Discontinue editing and posting on subjects you are incapable of being neutral on. Discontinue use of "discontinue" commands to pre-emptively intimidate posters you disagree with. Discontinue using "machete" as part of your name to try to intimidate posters you disagree with. Discontinue allowing minor details that do not belong in the main article that happen to be favorable for your slanted POV while deleting those you don't like. Discontinue calling some facts "unpleasant" as it shows that you are only here to place UM in a more positive light. Discontinue calling an accurate description of your behaviour as a "personal attack." Discontinue crying wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.119.184 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is key in these articles. Civility is key in dealing with others on wikipedia. These two concepts appear (if you are the same poster as 67.67.223.78) to not concern you. To recap what you call "homerism" and "the ultimate in doublespeak and hypocrisy" (how could I ever confuse that with an attack?!):
  • Certain minutiae function best in articles specific to seasons. Whole books have been written about the history of the Miami Hurricanes; a wiki page is not meant to be as exhastive. Links are included within the page to those specific seasons.
  • Neutrality cuts both ways.
  • "Unpleasant facts" was your wording, which I refered to as "so-called unpleasant facts."
You found the words "discontinue" and "machete" (my actual surname) offensive? Perhaps you are reading too much into things... And AGAIN notice some of the changes you made regarding neutrality were kept.
I hope this is the last time I have to respond to you. --mc machete 09:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scouting Overall the scouting of the Miami Hurricanes have a great football scouting program. 2008 the Miami Hurricanes have the number one recruit in the nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.42.82 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Winning streaks

I was reading over the main article and under the section Records:Winning streaks, where there is text describing the streaks from other programs that Miami has broken, I was very surprised to see that there was NO mention of the 2001 game @ FSU that the Hurricanes won 49-27. Going into that game FSU had a 10 year old, 37 game home win streak and a 54 game home unbeaten streak that coincidentally began after a loss to the Hurricanes. Also coincidentally was that FSU was closing in on the NCAA record for the longest home unbeaten streak of 58, held by the same Miami Hurricanes who broke FSUs bid to tie or break it. Considering the rivalry, and the historic importance, I feel this bit of information is worthy of mention. I'd be happy to contribute the edits for consideration if the powers-that-be deem them appropriate. Rna2dna (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg

The image Image:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Four Fingers?

I'm not really sure this is a tradition unique to the U. The fans and players do this at every high school and college football game I've ever been to. Jamie1743 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a unique tradition anymore, but it was started at the U.ObiWan353 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Is there any source for this. Do we have any source for the date or season where it started? Racepacket (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Today, another editor has added "B.S." to the Four Fingers section. Since nobody can document this with independent secondary sources and it has drawn critics and vandals, I am deleting it. Racepacket (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Current uniform

The image in the infobox incorrectly lists the green jersey as the primary home jersey and the orange jersey as an alternate, when it is actually the opposite. Does anybody know any way to fix this?-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would notify the creator, User:JohnnySeoul. Bcspro (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

VTech rivalry

POTD: Would you please explain why you are continually removing Virginia Tech as one of UM's rivals? ObiWan353 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

VT is not a UM rival, plain and simple. Does the game involve a rivalry trophy? No. Is the game played at the same time each year? No. Are they a traditional rival? No. Is there a history of bad blood between the teams? No. Does a victory over VT make the season, regardless of each team's record, the way a victory over a rival is supposed to? No. Is there an abundance of MSM sources even referring to a Miami-VT rivalry? No. Sorry, not a rival. The game carries none of the defining characteristics of a college football rivalry, which is why it's nowhere to be found on the Wikipedia page for CFB rivalries. You'd have more of a case for including Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, or probably even Boston College or West Virginia.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't you just have said that instead of having me banned? I'm here to help this article, not the other way around.ObiWan353 (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, don't blame me for your block. You knew about 3RR (your talk page indicates you were warned this past January for similar behavior on this same exact article), yet you chose to ignore it anyway.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

seperate article

I think we should do a History of Miami Hurricanes football article. It has enough content and Miami has been one of the elite programs.--Levineps (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The history section is getting very big. I'm all in favor of moving it to its own page and replacing it here with a three or four paragraph overview, with a link to the history article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, I've perused the articles of some other prominent programs (Michigan, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc.) and none of them have a separate "History of..." article. The history section here can be condensed, but a separate article is inappropriate.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of View

I can see that there was some controversy over whether to keep the Orange Bowl vs use the Dolphin Stadium. However, the contentions of each side should be included only if they are referenced by reliable sources. The text should refer to each sides beliefs, rather than have them attributed to the narrator. I am removing the POV statements. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Could you please explain your disagreements with these edits? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Oilman vs Oil prospector" - an oilman generally owns an "exploration and development" company, i.e., an independent oilman. "An oil prospector" is typically a geologist who hunts for oil, but is not personally involved in the drilling and development of the oil field once it is located. Jerry Jones made his money in the former category. Racepacket (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific Improvements

I have tried a few times to fix certain flaws in the article, only to receive blanket reversions without comments. I am not married to exact wording, but the present article does not work as a Wikipedia article. 1) There are many factual asserts that require references. Merely removing the [citation needed] template does not help matters if you don't find a citation to support the asserted fact. 2) Phrases like "brought great success with x" should be shorted. Sports writers and encyclopedia writers have different rules. 3) As explained above Jerry Jones owned an independent oil & gas exploration and development company. He made his fortune drilling wells and and operating them as they produced oil. "Oil prospector" does not describe his profession accurately. 4) The team did not "move" to Dolphin Stadium, only the games moved. 5) The move to Dolphin/Land Shark Stadium should not be described from the point of view of someone who did not want to see the Orange Bowl torn down. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to be used to express such opinions. Please see what we can do together to fix these problems, because there is a lot of work to be done. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


What makes Miami's contributions to pro football (be it players or coaches) has exceeded what any other school has contributed in the past couple of decades. That's why "great success" is used. The difference must be made.

Secondly, there are no "opinions" in the Dolphin Stadium move section. There is nothing there that says the OB shouldn't have been torn down. There is also no reason for you to remove the fact that the OB is / was one of the more historic stadiums in the US.

You may be right about Jerry Jones. Everything else stays.ObiWan353 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your feedback, but as I understand the rules, we keep the templates on the page until there is consensus. Again, I am not wedded to any particular wording, but I think that many people would believe that Wikipedia is not in the business of labeling people as a "great success" or not. If a player gets a pro contract, that fact speaks for itself. If a player or a coach lasts only one year in the NFL, the reader can make his own judgment as to whether the career was "successful." There is a concern from User:PassionoftheDamon that UM coach Howard Schnellenberger did not go directly to a NFL head coach job, rather he previously worked for the Baltimore Colts and later coached a USFL team. So, the wording needs attention because it implies direct to NFL.
The current paragraph on Dolphin Stadium can be easily fixed but has been reverted a few times. It was obviously written by someone who has sour grapes about the decision to go to Dolphin Stadium. If you want to quote someone as having that view, you can, but need to have a source. As it reads now, it speaks with the voice of Wikipedia as advocating that position.Racepacket (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why delete the link to the rap video discussed in the article?
  • If statement is made by a newspaper isn't it more accurate to say "reports" rather than "said"?
The thing is, we're not labeling an individual as a great success. We are describing the success Miami has had in contributing to the professional ranks. Especially in recent years, this has been vastly evident. But like I said, the difference has to be established. Simply saying "Miami has had players go to the NFL", well, so has just about any school. But what makes Miami different is the "great success" they have enjoyed in sending many players (and many of those first-rounders) to the NFL, and having their coaches (as well as assistant coaches) move on to the pros. I don't know if you want to find another way of saying it...but it must be said. They aren't known as NFL U for nothing. As far as the Dolphin Stadium section is concerned, I fail to see any underlying opinion. Perhaps we should get the feedback of another editor. I'm not sure about the last two items. I've seen links to YouTube removed before. I suppose "reports" as opposed to "said" is a matter of preference. ObiWan353 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback, but as I understand the rules, we keep the templates on the page until there is consensus. Again, I am not wedded to any particular wording, but I think that many people would believe that Wikipedia is not in the business of labeling people as a "great success" or not. If a player gets a pro contract, that fact speaks for itself. If a player or a coach lasts only one year in the NFL, the reader can make his own judgment as to whether the career was "successful." There is a concern from User:PassionoftheDamon that UM coach Howard Schnellenberger did not go directly to a NFL head coach job, rather he previously worked for the Baltimore Colts and later coached a USFL team. So, the wording needs attention because it implies direct to NFL.
Regarding the Orange Bowl paragraph, consider these three alternative sentences:
  1. "One of the most historic stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl stadium was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the famed stadium."
  2. "One of the most decrepit stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl was retired following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the outdated stadium."
  3. "The Orange Bowl was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the stadium"
Which of the three was written by an Orange Bowl fan, a Dolphins Stadium fan, or a neutral party? Racepacket (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know why you just copied and pasted what you said earlier, but it does not address the statement I made, so I will not address it further and consider it closed unless you say otherwise (which I suspect you will).
Regarding the OB, it was both decrepit and historic. But your sentence is far too plain. ObiWan353 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"Far too plain" language is a key to an encyclopedic, non-point of view tone. I am keeping the new references, but scaling back the claims because they are not a direct quote from the sources. Racepacket (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a complete non-issue. Three sources have been given to support the statement, which alternately describe the venue as "one of the most storied stadiums in college football history"; "historic, venerable"; and "historic."-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Both sides of the debate over whether the Orange Bowl should have been demolished and replaced with a baseball stadium have been reviewed in Orange Bowl (stadium) and don't need to be revisited here. Racepacket (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they do, it provides the necessary context for the decision and does so in a concise manner.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a fundamental difference between what sports writers produce and the way that encyclopedias are written. Either way, active voice, and specific concrete language is better. Sports writers try to establish rapport with their audience by using cute nicknames and slang. Encyclopedias are written for audiences with little familiarity with the subject matter, so it states the obvious, uses full proper names and tries to be as precise and concrete as possible. I suggest that we be open to clean up of the text without automatically reverting every single edit that is made. Racepacket (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many normative POV statements still in the article that can easily be fixed. The article is supposed to read as being neutral toward the football team not a fan homage. (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid) Specific examples are:
  1. For example, the heading "NFL U" could be read as a mischaracterization of the entire University of Miami. The section heading should reflect the topic of the section (which is also the name of a separate article) "Miami Hurricanes in the NFL". I appreciate last night's revisions to that section, but the phrase "The school has earned the designation of 'Quarterback U' " is a POV judgment by Wikipedia, rather than attributing the nickname to a third party source. There is no time period associated with 'Quarterback U' and no source given.
  2. The phrase "hotbed of professional talent" in the lead paragraph is a POV laden term that could be read as saying the coaches and players bring a sense of professionalism to their roles, or that many coach and players later join the NFL. Such judgments should be either deleted or attributed to a specific individual. For example, "The New York Times describes Miami as "a hotbed of professional talent..." (They do not do so in the cited reference.)
  3. Flowery language and passive voice could easily be removed. For example, "Randy Shannon was officially introduced as the program's new head coach... " should be shortened to "Randy Shannon became the new head coach..." Active voice helps particularly to make clear who is doing what.
  4. Over-the-top, POV pushing needs to be scaled back. For example, the sentence "The 1997 season saw the Hurricanes suffer one of the program's most humiliating losses, a 47-0 beating at the hands of in-state rival Florida State." puts Wikipedia on the side of Miami rather than being neutral. This could easily be replaced with "The 1997 season included a 47-0 defeat by in-state rival Florida State."
  5. The phrase "the night after Thanksgiving, Miami was a victim again as Doug Flutie's hail mary pass (see Hail Flutie) to Gerard Phelan helped Boston College beat the Hurricanes, 47–45." could be replaced with "the night after Thanksgiving, Doug Flutie's hail mary pass (see Hail Flutie) to Gerard Phelan helped Boston College beat the Hurricanes, 47–45." The word "victim" is POV here.
  6. The paragraph, "After taking the job, Schnellenberger spoke in front of countless alumni groups and community organizations to extol his vision of Miami winning a National Championship within the next five years, a claim that no one took very seriously at the time." literally says that not a single person who attended any of "countless" speeches by Schnellenberger took him seriously. This is over-written, and could easily be deleted entirely or replaced with the phrase added to a later sentences "After some initial doubts about his goals...."
  7. The term 'Canes is used 10 times in the article to refer to the football team. WP:MOS state "In general, the use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided." it is confusing to the reader to use both 'Canes and Hurricanes to refer to the same team. The article should be consistent in using one or the other, so I suggest using Hurricanes consistently.
  8. In the sentence discussing the impact of Hurricane Andrew, the nickname Hurricanes causes confusion to the reader, and it that situation a word like "team" works better.
  9. Attributing causation can be tricky. For example, "Following a Liberty Bowl berth in 1966 and a 1967 trip to the Bluebonnet Bowl, Tate's program fell on hard times. Lackluster seasons in 1968 and 1969 prompted his resignation as coach and athletic director two games into the 1970 season." could be stated "Following a Liberty Bowl berth in 1966 and a 1967 trip to the Bluebonnet Bowl, Tate's less productive 1968 and 1969 seasons were followed by in his resignation as coach and athletic director two games into the 1970 season. " If you have a reliable source saying that Tate resigned because of X, then cite it. Otherwise, just give a chronological sequence and let the reader decide.
  10. Say what you mean or don't say it. For exmaple, "Offensive coordinator Carl Selmer immediately signed a five-year contract, becoming Miami's fifth head coach in six years." could be phrased "Without any national search, offensive coordinator Carl Selmer signed a five-year contract, becoming Miami's fifth head coach in six years." or "With a five-year contract, offensive coordinator Carl Selmer became Miami's fifth head coach in six years."

Please discuss these proposed changes. I will wait a few days, see your comments and then make the changes to the article. In the mean time, let's keep the {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} templates on the article. Thanks,Racepacket (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again with the same frivolous laundry list of complaints.
No reasonable person would take a subsection of an article expressly on "Miami Hurricanes football" to be a characterization of the "entire University of Miami." And no, the designation "Quarterback U" is not a "POV judgement by Wikipedia," but a popular nickname used in numerous mainstream sources [8] [9][10]. Stop blanking statements and instead use tags to request sources.
The phrase "hotbed of professional talent" is firmly supported by both the program's numerous draft records and the New York Times article given as citation, which uses such terms as "singular period of Miami football dominance" and "mind-boggling run" in reference to its success in producing NFL players.
The language "Randy Shannon was officially introduced..." is hardly "flowery" and simply notes when he was officially hired and presented to the public.
No reasonable person would interpret the statement, "The 1997 season saw the Hurricanes suffer one of the program's most humiliating losses, a 47-0 beating at the hands of in-state rival Florida State." as "put[ting] Wikipedia on the side of the Miami." Since when is describing a significant loss to an archrival as a "beating" considered POV in favor of the team that lost?
Using the term "victim" in reference to Miami's loss to Boston College in the Hail Flutie game is certainly not POV. Being as Miami is the subject of this article, the article logically focuses on how games/events/people impact it and the use of the word "victim" simply underlines that they were again on the wrong end of a historic game that season (the other time coming in the Maryland game, in what was then the biggest comeback in college football history).
Hurricanes is itself a nickname, so by your strange logic that should be avoided to. Use of 'Canes is non-confusing and sporadic use of the widely-used nickname breaks the tedium and redundancy of continually using "Miami" references.
Concerning your final two complaints, both of those passages are paraphrased from the official university history of the program, so if you want sources, those could very easily be provided. Instead of wholesale blanking, try using tags.
In sum, you seem to be mainly upset that you haven't gotten your way in remaking this article in the exact way you want, to suit your own subjective biases. Where your suggestions have been reasonable and legitimate, they have been incorporated into the article, but on the whole, your concerns have been imaginary and tinged with your own well-recorded bias regarding UM, and that is a conclusion made not just by myself, but by others on this page as well. The majority of your edits lack consensus, yet you continue to try and push your POV, and that is why you continue to be reverted.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I am not aware of any "well-recorded bias regarding UM", I don't have any feelings toward the institution one way or the other. I am concerned that the article seems to read like a team-booster blog. Some of this is active voice being substituted for the less desirable passive voice. I disagree with the premise that word like "victim" are appropriate, or that any Wikipedia article should be written from the UM perspective. They should all be written from a NPOV perspective. If the NY Times does not use the phrase "hotbed of professional talent" and there is no other source for that phrase, then either take it out or use the phrase adopted by the NY Times and attribute it to the Times instead of speaking in this manner with the voice of Wikipedia. Phrases like "beating at the hands of" are inherently POV-pushing and and should be replaced by more neutral statements of the facts.
  • I am saying that it will confuse the reader to use two different nicknames for the same team. If Wikipedia MOS prefers "can not" over "can't" it would follow that we should spell out "'Canes" as "Hurricanes." I understand your concerns about "tedium and redundancy" which is why some of my edits used the word "team", but they were reverted. To my knowledge I have not engaged in wholesale blanking. However, whenever I add a {{fact}} tag it is quickly reverted without giving any other editor the chance to see it and to search for a source. There are one or two sentences in the article that are so argumentative that even if a source were located, a major rewrite would be required.
  • This is a Wikipedia article seeking to report objectively about the UM Football team. Its purpose is different than the Miami Athletic Dept website. If people want biased or colorful coverage they can go to that site or to some fan site, but Wikipedia claims to offer a neutral, fact-based reference with an encyclopedic tone.
  • I don't think that university athletic dept. sources meet the RS criteria in certain cases, but go ahead and add the refs to them and we will see.
  • I am not insisting on having the language "the exact way [I] want", I just want to remove the POV and editorializing. I have no way of knowing what other editors think about these changes, because you revert them before anyone else has a chance to read them or work off of them. See, WP:OWN. Based on your feedback, I will try to come up with something. Racepacket (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You do have a well-recorded bias regarding UM-related articles (as well as a history of sock puppetry), as evidenced by the repeated run-ins documented on your talk page and the talk pages of the relevant articles. You also have no understanding of what NPOV means; Wikipedia does not prohibit adjectives or descriptive writing. The only issue is whether the statements are verifiable, which they are. As for your obstinate insistence that describing a 47-0 loss as a "beating" is somehow POV-pushing in favor of the team that lost, it is beyond ridiculous—especially when references have been provided that label the game "humiliating," "embarrassing," a "blow-out," and in similar synonyms. Nor do I share your strange view that a mainstream, widely used shorthand of the team nickname (Hurricanes --> "'Canes") would confuse any reasonable person reading the article.
You're also wrong that the official university history of the program fails RS: "Self-published or questionable ...may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves."
I understand that for some odd reason you seem to bear hostility towards the university, but that can't and won't be allowed to seep into the article. Nobody here shares your contrived concerns; Wikipedia operates on consensus, and you don't have one for the edits you stubbornly keep proposing.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I absolutely do not bear any "hostility toward the university" and I can't see how you could draw that inference. Perhaps someone here bears hostility toward the English language? The question is not whether anyone "here" shares my concerns. The question is whether the article conforms to Wikipedia standards. It clearly needs cleanup and a removal of POV statements, peacock terms, etc. The article can say that "x was offered job y" only if there is a source. The article can say that "x considered the Miami team to be y" only if it is sourced. However, under no circumstances can Wikipedia describe the Miami team as "bitter", "the best in the country", "great success" or "hotbed of professionals" without attributing that thought to a reliable source. Otherwise, the reader will think that Wikipedia is making that statement, and of course, Wikipedia is not in the business of making those judgments. If you don't like seeing {{fact}} tags in the article, please find a source, otherwise leave the tags in until someone else can find the source. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deny it all you want, but your record speaks for itself, a record of starting fires on one UM-related article after another with a plethora of unconstructive, POV-tinged edits. And yes, the question is whether anyone here shares your concerns. Wikipedia operates by consensus (a concept you don't seem capable of grasping), and the consensus is that your edits are by-and-large unconstructive and your stated concerns unfounded; hence why you keep getting reverted by multiple editors. You are simply—perhaps deliberately—making inferences no reasonable person would make and taking issue with things that are non-objectionable. When there has been a reasonable request for sources, such sources have been provided...yet you respond by intransigently ignoring those sources and trying to force your own chosen version into the article anyway...facts, sources, consensus, and good English be damned. Sorry, but that's not going to work.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


  • The problem with relying upon the sportswriters at the Miami Athletic Dept. website is stated at WP:SELFPUB is that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1) the material is not unduly self-serving; and 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;" I don't think that the condition is met here, but I have not see you rely upon it as the basis for any of the challenged statements. Racepacket (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Both conditions are satisfied. You're delusional if you find either of those innocuous statements "unduly self-serving" or somehow "making a claim" about a third-party rather than the football program.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am open to specific cases of using that website, depending on whether it is a factual statement or a stating an opinion about a third-party such as the opposing team or fans. I did not see any cases where you used the website to propose the statements which are being disputed. If the UM Athletics Dept. uses the word "whopping" and you quote them verbatim with a footnote, the reader can decide for himself whether the UM Website has bias or credibility.
  • If an editor corrects the grammer of a sentence, or untangles the sentence, and you disagree with the edit, then leave an edit summary explaining why you believe that the grammatical mistake is preferable, rather than just reverting the change and saying "good English be damned" above.
  • There is a question about the way that you are using sources. There is a difference between saying "The moon is made of green cheese. footnote to Joe Smith" and "Joe Smith advocates the view that the moon is made of green cheese. footnote to Joe Smith." You have provided some sources and today I have proposed shifting some of the sentences to the form that attributes the view to them rather than to Wikipedia. Some sportswriters have used the phrase "Quarterback U" in their writing, which you have provided in a series of footnotes. However, that cannot justify a sentence reading, "The school has earned the designation of 'Quarterback U' ..." Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what UM has "earned." That is why I am proposing "Some sports writers (footnotes) have used the term 'Quarterback U' to refer to Miami as a result of the football program..." (see section below.)

Racepacket (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no question about the use of sources; the only issue is your obstinate refusal to acknowledge sources anytime they contradict what you wish to be reality. The operative criteria at Wikipedia is "verifiability," not abstract notions of "truth," and the surplus of sources referring to Miami as "Quarterback U" unambiguously support the statement that the program has earned that moniker.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes the juxaposition of sentences or ideas can create bias even if each sentence is itself sourced. Other times, if the article leaves the reader scratching his head asking "Why did the author bring that up?" then the article needs improvement. Finally, inclusion of an opinion inherently lends Wikipedia's weight to the opinion, unless the sentence is carefully phrased. For example, the sentence "Joe Smith describes the Miami football team as 'Quarterback U.'[fn]" lends Wikipedia's weight to Joe Smith's credibility, until you find out that Joe is a 12-year old kid or that his article was published 30-years ago. The sentence "Three sportswriters described the game as "the most humiliating defeat in college football history[fn]" is POV because it 1) implicitly adopts the view that the game was a mountain rather than a molehill worthy of emotional investment. 2) adopts the emotional viewpoint of one team rather than the other, and 3) colors facts that could easily be presented without any shade or bias. Racepacket (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of specific changes

This afternoon after our generalized discussion, I applied a number of changes to the article. Each one [has been reverted even changing [[Orange Bowl (game)]] to [[Orange Bowl (game)|Orange Bowl]]. This is really disruptive of the process of improving the page. Let's go over the edits and discuss how to solve the problems:

I welcome hearing the opposing viewpoint. Racepacket (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Many of the above concerns apply to sections of the history that were plagerized from the UM athletics website. Hearing no opposition to the other changes, I have made some changes. I have also left detailed comments in the edit summaries. The basic idea is that we can quote a RS so long as we attribute it to the source. Making an unencyclopedic characterization and just putting a footnote at the end is not enough. There is a difference between "x beat y in a 40-20 rout" and "The UM website called x's 40-20 win over y a 'rout'". Please discuss them here rather than automatically reverting them. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted. Stop mischaracterizing things as being unsupported when they are, in fact, supported by an abundance of sources, as you did above regarding the "humiliating" nature of the 47-0 loss to FSU, the program's "great success" in producing NFL players, and on and on. Also, despite you merely restating here the same tired, rejected suggestions you made above, nobody's position has changed, and you still lack consensus for your proposed changes.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we have a fundamental difference in views as to what NPOV means. I understand the how people can disagree about what the facts might be, or can disagree about the weight of the evidence, but I don't see how we can differ on the fact vs. opinion distinction. The 47-0 score is a fact. Whether the game was "humiliating" is an opinion. Opinion should be attributed to a third party rather than to Wikipedia. There is also a question of editorial judgment regarding the relevance of such opinions. Who cares if a Wikipedia editor thinks that it was a "humiliating" loss? We should state the facts and let the reader decide. Your blanket approach to reversion are disruptive. Racepacket (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no fundamental difference; there's only you obstinately refusing to accept what NPOV is and what it is not (amongst a host of other Wikipedia policies), and repeatedly trying to inject edits into the article that have been considered and rejected by others on this talk page. Until you reform your troublesome behavior, I'm afraid this is all just an exercise in futility.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess PassionoftheDamon is seeing things on this talk page that I am not. Blanket and continuous reverts without discussion is the problem. NPOV means inter alia that we label and attribute opinions. The article should not leave the reader with the impression that the author believes that UM is the center of the universe, or that the author is trying to convince the reader that UM is the center of the universe. NPOV let the facts speak for themselves. Racepacket (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am pleased to see that your rewrite is leaving a lot of the opinions on the cutting room floor. Again, encyclopedic tone and relevant facts are the best approach. Racepacket (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We need to be very careful when discussing personnel changes. There is a big difference between, "X fired Y." and "Y left to coach at school Z." The sportswriter for the local paper may report that "X fired Y", when in fact the transaction was that X and Y negotiated a voluntary early buyout of Y's contract. Sometimes there can be a big variation between the local press and a contemporaneous University press release. Wikipedia should only name X as in fact being the person who fired Y, if we are certain that X made the decision. Firing a head football coach can be a big decision that at some schools goes up to the Board of Trustees. Racepacket (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

This morning, I deleted the adjective "prestigious" modifying Heisman Trophy. I also deleted the phrase "A hotbed for professional talent". The purpose of the lead paragraph is to summarize the article, rather than serve as a sales brochure or advocacy document. Some people may consider the Heisman Trophy to be presigious and others may have never have heard of it. Either way, they can follow the link to the Heisman Trophy article to make their own judgment. Once we start down the path of describing the Heisman Trophy, where would Wikipedia stop? At "very prestigious"? At "utmost prestigious"? I would be willing to hear an opposing view on this, but PassionoftheDamon reverts it without any edit summary or talk page comment. The "hotbed for professional talent" phrase starts a sentence with a reference at the end of it to a New York Times article. The NYT article does not use the phrase, and discusses how UM's football team is declining. What is the basis for the "hotbed for professional talent" phrase and what time period is it intending to describe? As worded, it appears to be talking about the present and or the recent past, but the two other parts of the sentence discuss records earned in the past. This puffing or judgmental language is not encyclopedic. See WP:SOAP. Please comment here before reverting again. Would a third party mediator be helpful? Racepacket (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Heisman Trophy *is* a prestigious award. How could you possibly claim it isn't? It is the highest individual award presented in college football. To say that isn't prestigious, or that someone reading an article regarding a college football team hasn't heard of it, is rather callous. I would say you are the one making judgment here. As far as the phrase "hotbed for professional talent", here we go again with the same argument. We've been through this before. UM IS a hotbed for professional talent. How many sources do you need? Most players in the NFL, most first round draft picks, most players drafted since I can't even remember, etc, etc. Yet, you continue to try to impose your point of view, and what's worse, NO ONE else agrees with you. I don't know what you have against descriptive writing. What I do know is that you don't have consensus, and your edits are unnecessary. ObiWan353 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If a reader does not know about the Heisman Trophy he can click on the link to learn about it. If a reader knows that the Heisman Trophy is prestigious, he does not need us to tell him. I am not deleting the word "prestigious" because I disagree with it, I am deleting it because it makes the sentence read as though it is POV-pushing, and the purpose of the lead paragraph is to tell the reader about the UM football team, not to argue whether the UM football team is great, prestigious or anything else. At least one source is needed for "hotbed for professional talent" and none have been supplied. If a source used that phrase, then we could reword the sentence to say, "X called the program 'a hotbed of professional talent.'" The goal is to write an article giving reference information about the UM football program, it is not to argue whether the program is good or bad. An encyclopedia tells you facts and lets the reader draw conclusions from them rather than making an argument to try to convince you of those conclusions. So saying that X number of players and coaches went on to the NFL is a stronger way of covering the same point as "hotbed of professional talent."
  • I don't know how we measure "hotbed for professional talent" or "great success in producing players" who go to the NFL. I suppose we could count the number of high school player scouting reports that say recruits have pro potential, then divide the number who actually play in the NFL by that number. If a school has a high ratio, it would be a "great success" or a "hotbed." The "hotbed" claim does not refer to any particular time period. Is it as true today as it was in 2001? Are you trying to say that UM makes the most of its available talent, or that it manages to recruit the best talent? For what time period?
  • The lead paragraph is just a summary of the rest of the article, so why do we need to make the same point twice with "hotbed" followed by "a number of NFL Draft records, including most first round selections in a single draft and most consecutive drafts with at least one first round selection." I can understand the latter, but the "hotbed" just confuses the reader. Racepacket (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Ryulong appears to be starting an edit war over the typography of the first sentence. The question is whether the word 'football' should be bolded if that is a part of the article title. I thought that "Miami Hurricanes" could refer to any UM sports team, not just the football team. But I won't take the edit war bait and try to fix this. Racepacket (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I deleted the phrase "hotbed of professional talent" for the reasons described above, to which there were no objections. Then User:PassionoftheDamon adds it back in without any edit summary. So, I left it in but add a {{fact}} tag because it is not in the New York Times article at the end of the sentence. Now User:Ryulong deletes the tag creating the impression that there is a source for "hotbed of professional talent." I will wait 24 hours and hope to see some comment here explaining the opposite view. It is an opinion or synthesis, or perhaps original research, but it is not in the NYT article. Racepacket (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Given User:Ryulong's 19:02, 18 October 2009 edit, I can live with the lead paragraph, although I would prefer to see the annual budget for the program included because it is a relevant, sourced fact that is NPOV. Racepacket (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

History section

Maybe we should spend some time discussing what is our goal for the history section, now that so much of it has to be rewritten because of copyright problems. There are several books and even a documentary movie already written about the history of the football team, so there is no point in assembling a complete detailed history for Wikipedia. I suggest our mission statement should be "a concise, factual encyclopedia reference containing the noteworthy events in the teams history with the amount of coverage weighed to reflect its significance." So, writing up the last minute touchdown of a bowl game deserves more detail than the fourth game of a losing season. By "factual encyclopedia reference" I mean that everything is verifiable and is factual rather than conjecture. And of course, a good reference is well organized and not colored by nostalgia. I welcome other views. Racepacket (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also disagree here, in part because you are speaking of other sources that some people may not have access to (the books or documentary). This source should stand on its own, not just summarize what the other sources have. There are those that are interested in all the details of this football team's history; therefore, we should leave all of it in. It is not for us to decide what to include and what not to include. Good or bad, it should stay. ObiWan353 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement. I wrote a brief history, and User: PassionoftheDamon blanked it out. He is now starting (but has not finished) writing his own history. This is supposed to be a group effort, so I thought we should all discuss how much detail we want in the new history. I agree that both good and bad, happy or sad items should be included. But we can't write a 272 page book's worth. Just because the book "Cane Mutiny" by Bruce Feldman includes a detail does not mean that we should. We need to come up with something we can agree upon, and then apply the agreement to particular facts in that book or in other sources. So, Obiwan353, what criteria would you use to decide what should go into the history section?
By the way, if you cite to a source as big as a 272 page book, it helps to include specific page numbers. Racepacket (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop claiming "agreements" exist where there are none. He just told you in express terms that he disagrees with your claims. The article length is fine through the Davis era. I would agree, however, that the newer subsections dealing with the Coker and Shannon eras may suffer a bit from currentism and could be condensed. For the time being, though, leave the material there so I can work off it when I get to work on those sections.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Obiwan353 did say "disagree", but then expressed sentiments very close to mine regarding the goal. I think he may not have realized that the history section was blanked when he said "It is not for us to decide what to include and what not to include." But rather than quibble, POTD please share and discuss what your views for the goals of the new history section. Racepacket (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You're truly delusional claiming he "expressed sentiments very close to" yours. He told you he disagreed with you, then proceeded to state that "There are those that are interested in all the details of this football team's history; therefore, we should leave all of it in. It is not for us to decide what to include and what not to include. Good or bad, it should stay" after you unilaterally pulled out of your ass an arbitrary "mission statement" you want this article to aspire to and expressed your view that the History section was overly detailed. Stop mischaracterizing discussions and claiming agreements between you and others exist where they expressly do not.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I in no way expressed any sentiments close to yours Racepacket. You want to trim the team's history section because you feel it is discussed / written elsewhere, and I completely disagree with that. I'm also not saying we should plagiarize Cane Mutiny or any other book / source. Like I said, the section should stand on its own. We treat it like we would any other source, so we should be completionists in that sense. ObiWan353 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you that 1) the history section should stand on its own, and 2) both the good and bad should be covered. I was suggesting that we talk about what the history section should contain, rather than just letting PassionoftheDamon write it alone, which has happened since I posted the proposal. We are now in the process of editing his proposed history section to a consensus. But we still need to communicate about how we want the history section to work out. I want to trim: 1) unencyclopedic boosterisms, 2) personnel details that don't have historic significance, 3) petty accounts of which coach refused to shake hands with which other coach, and 4) when there is a separate Wikipedia article covering a topic (e.g., a particular game or season, or Miami Hurricanes in the NFL) then only briefly summarize that topic rather include all of the details here. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
No, what's happening here is you deliberately mischaracterizing the substance of discussions and trying to stealthily inject the same edits that have ben rejected on this page time and time again by consensus. Move on.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Book and Web Cite Templates

The {{cite book}} has two different parameters. pages= is used if you are citing a page range. page= is used if you are citing one page. It is not the total size of the book. The {{cite web}} has the same thing, which is useful if you are citing to a PDF document for example. Racepacket (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Currently, the article says that 37 different facts can all be found on page 208 of the Media Guide, and 42 different facts can all be found on page 272 of the Caine Mutiny book. I doubt that this is true. I also question whether under WP:SELFPUB, the Media Guide can be used as a reliable source about third parties. Racepacket (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As I explained yesterday, the pages= parameter is to note where in the book the information can be found. It is not the total number of pages in the book. Please correct the page parameters, so readers can evaluate your sources. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If the page numbers are not corrected by Monday, I will delete the references because they appears to be a hoax. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Footnotes:

The ref name need not be placed within quotes unless it contains a space, certain punctuation marks, or non-ASCII characters[3] (the wiki parser converts single word quoteless attribute values into validly quoted XHTML). Note that any quotation marks placed around the ref name must be straight quotes (") rather than curly quotes (“ or ”). Named references are used when there are several cases of repetition of exactly the same reference, including the page number for books; they should not be used to cite different pages in the same book. Named references in wikitext serve a purpose similar to loc. cit. or ibid. in printed media. See also cautions in Style below.

Rather than spending our energy adding unnecessary quotes around ref names, could we please try to add page numbers to the citations to books and PDF files? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personnel matters

I am a bit confused as to why you believe we should report a list of all of the people who were offered the head coach job but turned it down. Some of these staffing changes are ancient history. We don't report the UM Presidential searches in this level of detail, and the article is already way too long. Can't we agree to cut out the personnel details and just say who became the new coach. If there is a good reason to go the other way, I would be interested to learn it. Alternatively, how about moving it to the article that covers the season where the coaching transition occurred. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • If you are going to get into the details of the personnel decisions (many of which are biographies of living people) each aspect must be properly sourced. See WP:BLP Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More POV problems in Rivalry Section

Earlier today, User:PassionoftheDamon added some material to the page which cause concerns. I left the following message for him on his talk page: "It is difficult to understand your intentions when you do hundreds of edits to the article with only a handful of them containing edit summaries. I think we need to discuss several problems with your most recent edits regarding the rivarly section:

  1. A "rivalry" is an overall relationship between two teams/schools. The actual games are better described as a "series," which is the word used in many places in the article. Recent edits are conflating the two different concepts. One can have a multi-year series of games between two school in the same conference without it being a rivalry.
  2. In the Florida subsection, the phrase "where preseason #1 Florida, which starred All-Americans Kerwin Bell and Emmitt Smith in the backfield, lost 31-4 to Miami in the Orange Bowl, scoring their only points on two punt snaps out of the endzone by Miami." can be deleted. "where does not work as well modifying series rather than "first game" as it did yesterday. If this game is so important, it should be spelled out in the article War Canoe Trophy rather than here. Addiing this phrase to a sentence about cancellation implies that Florida cancelled the series because they lost the game. In fact, they cancelled the series due to a change in SEC rules. Please explain why you disagree.
  3. The phrase "Nevertheless, the rivalry remains incredibly intense, with many Hurricane fans still considering Florida a more "hated" rival than Florida State." is an opinion and very POV. It is very difficult to compare the "intensity" of rivalries, and rivalries must be reciprocal. It is very POV to discuss UM's "hatred" of U of F, rather than the feelings between the two schools. This is written from the point of view of the UM campus and not from Wikipedia's neutral vantage point. It is also unsourced and probably not productive to work to reshape into something encyclopedic.
  4. The sentences you added, "The rivalry has been popular not only because of its profound national championship implications and the competitiveness of the games, but also because of the immense talent typically present on the field when the two teams meet: the 1988 meeting starred 57 future NFL pros on the combined rosters. The games have typically been characterized by remarkable team speed, big plays, hard hitting, and missed field goals." are not sourced. Please don't speculate on possible causes of popularity. This level of detail should be left in the Miami – Florida State rivalry article, not the main article.
  5. Your changes resulting in "The rivalry has consistently drawn very high television ratings. The 2006 Miami – Florida State game holds the distinction of being the most-watched college football game—regular-season or postseason—in ESPN history, and the 2009 and 1994 meetings were the second- and fifth-most watched regular season games, respectively, in the network's history." is awkward and wordy. I believe the prior wording is clearer and less redundant.

I hesitate to leave these detailed comments on your user talk page, and would rather that the discussion happen on the article talk page. But when I leave comments there, you don't acknowledge or respond to them. I look forward to hearing your response on the article talk page so all of the discussion can be followed in one place. Thanks." Instead of responding, he deleted the comments with the edit summary, "rmv unproductive missive". I am posting it here so that we can reach a consensus on PassionoftheDamon's additions from this morning. Racepacket (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Another problem is the sentence that begins "From 1986 to 2008, Miami won six straight meetings between the schools..." The problem is that UM and FL do not play every year, so "straight meetings" is confusing. If they played only six times, the sentence would be clearer reading "From 1986 to 2008, Miami won all six games between the schools..."
  • Finally, I repeat, the article should be NPOV, not a fan essay written from a UM perspective. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PassionoftheDamon's changes from 12:46, 17 October 2009 add to the above problems without explaining his position. The concerns remain. The quotation by Bailey should be placed in the context of 1982, the game he was discussing. The article cited specifically says that the intense feeling are in the far past and forgotten. However, the sentences are written in the present tense and "remains." Your changes create a false impression that the series was canceled because of a specific game. You can't fairly combine the fact that the series was cancelled with a description of the game. As the article previously noted, The series was canceled because of a change in the SEC rules. (which is also repeated in the florida_rivalry2 reference.) Racepacket (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Boosterism

I acknowledge that the three editors who are most active on this article have fundamentally different goals for it, and we should talk this out. I start from WP:BOOSTERISM, which I find very helpful in understanding what is expected of this article. Read it over and particularly note "Likewise, an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate venue to play out intercollegiate rivalries over who has more and better: describe information and statistics in absolute terms rather than relative to your rival institution(s) or in abstract ordinal terms (first, second, third)." The POV involved is not whether UM is bad or good, or whether the author is anti-UM or pro-UM. It is a question of perspective. Writing the team history in emotional terms implies that the football team should be a big influence on the emotions of the reader. However, the UM football team is not the center of the universe, and 99% of the people on the Earth do not have emotional ties to the UM football team. Our audience for the article should be that 99% who are looking for a factual, accurate encyclopedia article without opinion, hype or drama. Assume the reader has never heard about UM and start from square one. Insider gossip, abbreviations like PAT and 'Caines, or nicknames like "Quarterback U" or "NFL U" will only confuse the reader, not impress him. What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not trying to impress anyone here. But what I don't understand is why you are trying to eliminate the team's accomplishments over the years. It is no secret that UM is known as Quarterback U, or NFL U, or that the nickname is often abbreviated to Canes. WHY are you trying to get rid of that? Just because UM's has accomplished a great deal over the past 25 years doesn't mean anything written about it is boosterism. The facts are the facts. Let them speak for themselves. Trust me, it won't confuse anyone. ObiWan353 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. The answer is that it must be sourced and attributed to a third party. The factual accomplishment should definitely stay and I want to add more of them, but we need to get this to read like an encyclopedia article. IP User 131.46.41.71 correctly challenged the NFL U section on this talk page and noted that there are more references for Thug U. As an experiment, I Googled Thug U and found many references to UM, including Sports Illustrated. Sportswriter invent literary devices like "NFL U", "Tailback U" and "Thug U" all of the time, and it does not represent any objective standard. Sportswriters (and others) also vote on the Heisman Trophy and the national standings, but that has meaning because it is organized and many voters participate. (Note that the minute I inserted a sourced reference to "Thug U", it was deleted by PassionoftheDamon. I am willing to drop "Thug U" if you drop "NFL U".
  • Section headings should describe each section's contents. "NFL U" does not mean anything to a stranger. Assume that a reader in London got to the article through the "random article" link on the Main Page, would he understand it?
  • The reason why the 10 references to "Canes" should be changed to "Hurricanes" is that it confuses the reader into thinking that we are talking about two separate things. WP:MOS says "Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion."
  • Comparisons must be made carefully and be well documented. For example, if I wrote "UM has the best college football team in Coral Gables," that would be unfair because the fair comparison would be "UM is ranked Nth nationally by the AP poll." That is why comparisions should be reliably sourced. It is also unfair because it does not give a relevant time period. I am not trying to "eliminate the team's accomplishments over the years." I even spent an hour and a half writing a history of the early years only to have PassionoftheDamon delete it because he would rather have nothing there than something written by anyone but him. When I started, before I deleted anything, I left messages asking for references: [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Racepacket (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, STOP trying to force the same tired, previously rejected edits into the article. As for your lame attempt to try and include a "Thug U" mention, the Urban Dictionary is not an acceptable source, nor does a Sports Illustrated article where the writer says expressly — in the title, no less — that it's not "Thug U" support that statement. Move on.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As you can see in three paragraphs above, I said "I am willing to drop 'Thug U' if you drop 'NFL U'" -- they both suffer from the same inadequacies in sportwriter vocabulary. Please read the Sports Illustrated article where the writer reports, "prominent media figures calling for Miami to receive the death penalty, fans writing in to my blog and Mailbag calling the Hurricanes 'a gang of criminals' and 'a penal-league team,' repeated use of the phrase 'Thug U.'" The sentence you question was a part of the discussion of the Miami-FIU incident, which prompted the references cited. We need a balanced, factual, well sourced encyclopedia article here. If you have feelings about the University of Miami or its football team, perhaps you should step back and let uninvolved editors work on it. Racepacket (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what you are willing to do, as you don't have any acceptable sources to support the characterization. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, and a single Sports Illustrated article in which the writer expressly states that Miami is not "Thug U" does not support the statement that it is a notable nickname for Miami. You're failing...miserably.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have lost all perspective on this. How do you propose that we get some resolution on this impasse? I suggest we get a mediator to help with this article, because your reverting every single edit made to your "pet" articles. I suggest that you review WP:BOOSTERISM and try to see my concern. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to WP:BOOSTERISM, I suggest we all review WP:DBF. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Another example of boosterism is the unsupported claim, "Miami has won more national championships over the past three decades than any other program." Three decades is not defined. I have replaced this with a reference to an NCAA publication which ranks all colleges based on the AP poll for all years that the poll was conducted. Wikipedia should not pick and chose the years for comparison arbitrarily. The NCAA, an objective observer, has selected the 1936-2008 period for its analysis, and we should adopt their ranking rather than create our own. Racepacket (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The time period has been specified and the statement has been cited.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You deleted an objective NCAA ranking for your own, citing the UM alumni magazine. The problem is whether the time period was chosen arbitrarily. We know that UM is fourth on the all-time list published by the NCAA, which is certainly a notable achievement. Why should we pick the years 1983-2001 to have UM be 1st? Other schools could pick a different span of years and claim to be #1 as well. I think the UM alumni magazine may have a COI. What do other people think? See WP:BOOSTERISM, "Similarly, do not exclude notable rankings simply because they are inconveniently low or you disagree with their methodology." -- why not use the NCAA? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You deleted the fact that the program has 102 players, which was also in the Dept. of Ed report. Why? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What is your source for the judgment UM is a "hotbed of professional talent -- it is not the NY Times? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The 1946 Orange Bowl did not go into overtime, so it was the last seconds of the game. Why are you changing this? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A 5-5-0 record is not a "losing" record, why are you deleting the statistics for 1968 and 1969? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The failure of two coachs to shake hands in not notable or encyclopedic. Who cares? Why are you inserting this? Do you have a specific citation for this, rather than pointing me to the last page of a book? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why did you reinsert the characterization "recently vacated"? The sentence reads better without it and recently is a vague term. Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • How do you know that Miami did not consider candidates from other colleges for the coaching vacancy? Why is such detail necessary to be added into a simple sentence that was there before your edit? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As I explained in the edit summary, the concern was losing blue chip recruits to other colleges, not to other sports at UM. Why did you change "schools" to "programs"? Would you settle on "colleges"? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are you adding personnel details on the hiring process that lead to hiring Saban? Are you trying to show off that you have details that are usually kept confidential or is there some reason that the details you add would be valuable to a Wikipedia user? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why did you delete the flag noting that page cites are missing without adding the missing cites back in? See talk page above. Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You can not "cut the score" as a game goes on. The numbers go up, not down. That is why I wrote "cut the lead", but User:PassionoftheDamon has changed it. Why? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To comply with WP:MOS we are trying to be consistent is using the name Hurricanes, and not Canes. Why did you change two occurances of Hurricanes to Canes? We should use one or the other but not mix both. Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The article said, "The schools have played every year since 1966." You are trying to change this to "The schools have played uninterrupted since 1966." In fact, play is interrupted each game with time outs, including some TV time outs, and half-times. How is this change improving the article? Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See the Rivarly section discussion above.Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hearing nothing on the above, I've applied them to the article. Racepacket (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
So I see that, despite all our protests, you have still managed to make every single edit you have been trying to push since day one. On this talk page I, along with other editors, have voiced opposition to your claims, but you still have managed to push your point of view on this article. I am going to review the entire article and make the necessary reverts or revisions. You have no consensus and it is unacceptable that you make changes because you may have personal issues with other editors on this site. You have made edits and changes which have been reverted countless times, yet you continue to make them. When does it stop? I suppose I may never know. Just know that I won't stop either.ObiWan353 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • User:ObiWan353 made some edits in response to my edits on 10:19, 18 October 2009. Some like removing the word "ugly" to describe the on-field brawl are helpful. Others cause POV-boosterism problems:
  • Re the AP poll[18], the AP poll has picked a college champion each year since 1932. The NCAA officially tallies and prints all-time ranking of which college have the most championships, and UM is 4th. Any school could pick a time period that would give it a #1 ranking, but that is subjective POV-pushing. We should keep in the NCAA publication as an objective source. User:ObiWan353 replaced it with the UM alumni magazine, which is contrary to WP:SELFPUB - we should not use self-serving statements from UM when we have an objective reliable source on the same issue. The NCAA says UM ranks 4th and we should report that.
  • I tried to verify the source for the statement that UM has the most players in the 2009 NFL season, but when I looked at http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players, it was not evident. Is that statement there, or is this OR?
  • Re four fingers, this is unsourced. However, it is impossible to source a claim that every single UM fan holds up four fingers before the fourth quarter. That is why it said "some fans." It would be inaccurate to remove the word "some."
  • The final edit is POV pushing. There is no reason to hide the annual budget of the football program. It is relevant to the article. The sentence "Miami has produced players who go on to play in the [NFL]." is factual. Your addition "Miami has had great success in producing players who go on to play in the [NFL]." is POV pushing. Most UM students don't aspire to play in the NFL. Since we don't know how many students want to play in the NFL, we don't have an objective measure to judge how "successful UM is in producing NFL players." It could be a failure, but we don't have the data to judge either way. There is no official designation "Quarterback U" and no way to "earn" that designation. The prior wording which says "Some sportswriters [fn] have called Miami 'Quarterback U'" is less of a POV push and more accurate.
As you can see from the above bullets, there are specific reasons for the changes other than removing the word "ugly." This is not a matter of personal preference and is not a matter of "personal issues with other editors." The goal is to make the article so balanced and carefully written that nobody could guess what school the author(s) attended. I am not wedded to my language, but we have to keep moving away from the POV pushing that made it read like a UM fan website. Again, we are not trying to glorify UM or to sell it to a football prospect. We are trying to rewrite the article so that it sticks accurately to the facts. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I think that the Wikipedia article on Lou Saban does a decent job of dealing with the controversy surrounding the three football players who threw the employee at the Jewish center into the lake, and Saban's subsequent comments. That treatment was incorporated into this article. For unstated reasons, User:PassionoftheDamon is now deleting that language. This troubles me because he is proposing that the article discuss the circumstances of the other coaches' departures, but mysteriously wants to delete the corresponding discussion of Saban's departure. While I think that the details of the search process leading up to the hiring of new coaches are not encyclopedic, the publicly stated reasons for departures are generally newsworthy and can be reported if sourced. Either we delete every discussion of every coach's dismissal, or we keep Saban's discussion in. There is no reason for Wikipedia to discuss the antisemitism in the Lou Saban article only to whitewash it in this article. Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Listing random single instances of actions of members of this team are not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It may be useful for the Lou Saban article but it does not seem useful to expand anything about the reason for Saban's resignation as a coach to the full paragraph that exists on his biography.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to try your hand a boiling it down to a sentence, you can. I stuck with the previously vetted text to avoid any crticism from PassionoftheDamon that "resignation in the wake of a long-running dispute with the Jewish community" was too POV. It was an important event in the relationship between UM and the surrounding community. Either something is included for Saban, or we should remove the discussion of why the other coaches left as well. If this happened today, the three would have been thrown off the team immediately, and Saban took the heat for not doing so in 1978. Racepacket (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "vetted text". We do not have anything that says that Saban left because of the Hillel incident. We only have information regarding their proximity in time and space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the Wikipedia article Lou Saban, which has remained substantially the same for some time and attributes it to the "Cane Mutiny" book. I am still trying to get a copy of the Cane Mutiny book to check the references, so I will have to wait on that one. I could accept the idea that the town-gown tensions would have led him to seek a new job. Phrases like "resignation in the wake of" may be appropriate for situations like this one. What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There is still no such thing as "vetted text", regardless of the article it's on. Sure, it can be mentioned on one article, but it does not have to be repeated on all related articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about 'resigned in the wake of"? I still believe it is biased to report reasons on the other coach departures, yet be silent on this one. Racepacket (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
According to Cane Mutiny Saban resigned mid-season from the pressure, but the AD talked him into serving out the season. I have made the "resigned in the wake of" change in the absence of further comments. Racepacket (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miami_Hurricanes_football/Archive_1&oldid=1128055188"