Talk:Clemson University

I read under 'two dollar bill' that people from this university, when going to away sports matches, pay for everything using two dollar bills. however, why is there no mention of it here? Saccerzd 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This was common practice last decade; the practice is no longer as pervasive as it once was. BailesB 14 August 2006

Why is there a picture of the library catalogue in the History section? I'm going to remove it (and maybe find a picture that's actually related). Objections? Jayc 04:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I edited the football traditions section pretty heavily. Unfortunately, it also happens to be lifted from the University's athletic website. I don't know if by editing it that changes any legality issues, but I went ahead and made adjustments EvilPhoenix May 08, 2005.

Hmm. this was one of the first comments I ever posted to a Talk page, on my very first day of editing. Good times. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

segregation

I cut the following sentence from the article, I didn't feel it was really needed:

"Clemson had remained a "white only" institution, though nowhere in the will of Thomas Green Clemson did it call for the practice of segregating races. "

EvilPhoenix July 1, 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Clemson Bias

Why do Wikipedia editors allow (or even support in the case of Evilphoenix) the Clemson bias that continues to appear in the Athletics section for the University of South Carolina? When the same type of comments are placed on the Clemson University article, they are deleted. This practice does not seem fair. Since Evilphoenix attended Clemson, perhaps he should be stripped of his editor/admin duties as far as the articles on these two schools are concerned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.164.62.134 (talk • contribs) 00:45, November 28, 2005.

Please see my response on Talk:University of South Carolina. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

It appears from comments above from Evilphoenix that lifting copyrighted material is okay for the Clemson article. However, Evilphoenix deleted copyrighted material from the article for the University of South Carolina despite the fact that the source for the copyrighted material was cited. That seems to be a double standard, especially since the source for the Clemson material does not appear to be cited. Apparently his Clemson bias continues, and I renew my petition for Evilphoenix to be removed from his editorial responsibilities for the USC and Clemson articles.

Let's keep the conversation on the USC Talk page as much as we can, shall we? As for the Clemson material, I didn't add that material, I only copyedited it and later realized it had originally been a copyvio. At the time I was still a newbie editor and didn't really know what to do about it, hence posting about it on the Talk page, which you will note, no one bothered to reply to. I assert however, that by editing and re-wording the section, as I did, that it's no longer a copyright issue, though I've still been thinking of deleting the section anyway since it's kind of borderline. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Football traditions

Unfortunately, this section was copied from the University athletics site, so I went ahead and removed it. [1]. Cheers. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Tiger football best in the land!!!!! #12

Uncited Material

There's a fair bit of uncited material in this article, and it is my intention to work to improve that. Soon, I will be working on removing uncited material and searching for citations for said material. By Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please contribute by working to provide citations for material in this article. I will also be working on University of South Carolina and Furman University soon as well. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing Uncited material

Per my comment, above, I am removing Uncited material from this page. It is my intention to work on adding this material back in with citation, but I feel that for now the material should be removed from the page. Any material removed will be archived to Clemson University/Uncited. As material is replaced in the article with citation, it should be removed from the Uncited page. Please contribute by helping me to provide sources for the uncited material. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Clemson is classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a Doctoral/Research University-Extensive, a category comprising less than 4 percent of all universities in America.

As far as I can tell, the above statement was invalidated in 2005.

Segregation

I feel that the sentence concerning Clemson's segregation is valid. The founders and initial graduates of Clemson were adherents to the political/racial philosophy of "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman. Therefor, Clemson has historically been a center for segregationalist and rascist activity in SC, and, according to many, it still is. I'm not passing judgement, I'm just relating the facts. However, I will not edit this page. As a Carolina alumnus I don't think I could be an objective editor.

What sentence are you talking about? I attended grad school at Clemson, and I'd hardly call it a center for segregation and racism. Is it perfect? No, it's the South, and it is what it is, but as far as I've experienced there, it's a campus full of people there to learn and become better people, not spread hatred and maliciousness. Your Carolina affiliation notwithstanding, your comments alone make me question whether you could edit the article objectively. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn!21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the sentence that is discussed under the heading "segregation" on this page that was deleted by you. The historical involvement of Clemson with the rascist and segregationist policies of Gov. Tillman is undeniable and is an important part of the history of the state. As such, it is important to note this in some way. Furthermore, if you live in SC then you should know that it is a widely held opinion, whether valid or not, that Clemson is an extremely conservative, and old fashioned campus regarding issues such as race, homosexuality, etc. If you attended the school and did not experience any such things, then that is wonderful. I am simply relaying the feelings of many people I have talked to, some being Clemson alums and students. However, as I have previously stated, I will not edit the page, as I have been a loyal Gamecock for years. Perhaps you, as a graduate of this institution, should reconsider your ability to edit objectively

I took out a lot of content from the article due to citation issues, not because of any content issues. The content you refer to may be over at Clemson University/Uncited, I'll take a look there. Basically what I'm looking for is verifiable, factual information. You bring up an interesting point of discussion about Governer Tillman's politics, but that's a topic I'm not terribly familiar with. I'd have to do some fair research on it before I could personally add content discussing that perspective to the article. Further, anything added to the article I'd be looking for verification and citation. Like I said before, I took out a lot of material previously. A lot of it has been restored, but I don't have the time or energy right now to focus on that, so I'm letting the restoration slide for now before I get started trying to better the verification of content. Regardless of what I personally experienced at Clemson, or what opinions I should or should not be aware of, the issue for appropriate content in the article is with factual, verified assertions. It's one thing to say, for example "Ben Tillman was a racist". It's something different to say "Ben Tillman was an advocate of segregation", citing a source for that assertion. If you want to say that someone else asserts that Tillman was racist, that's ok too. It ties in with Wikipedia's No Original Research policy...what we should be adding the the encyclopedia is a summary of facts and information as gathered and presented by others, not information we ourselves have determined to be true. Does that make sense? As far as my ability to edit neutrally, well, I like to work towards maintaining a Neutral Point of View, and encouraging factual citations that discuss topics neutrally. I've actually been involved in a heavy discussion over at University of South Carolina, where I feel the athletics section should discuss the rivalry, and that the discussion of the rivalry should include mention of the overall record between the schools in major sports. Curiously, some anonymous editors don't seem to want the overall record mentioned. I asked several uninvolved, neutral Administrators to consider the page and give their opinion. Some of them advocated removing some content which I had favored including, but all of them favored mentioning the overall record. Yet the anonymous users continue to remove it. I lived and grew up in Columbia, with plenty of friends and neighbors of both the Gamecock and Tiger variety. Personally, I want both schools articles, and all articles about South Carolina, to be well represented. I care more about a quality representation of my home state in Wikipedia than I do the individual merits of one school or another. Also, it would help if you would sign your posts to Talk pages. You can do so by typing four tildes after your comment, like so: ~~~~. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ranking

This article said that Clemson ranked 34th among US Universities, but the page linked gave 78th?

Playing with the numbers, 34th amoung PUBLIC Universities, 78th overall.--Thunder 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Under Notable Alumni

Under Notable Alumni, then under other, there is a mistake concerning the supposed 3 time all americna rugby player from Clemson University, I currently play and there have only been two all Americans associated with the team the first was Jim Gaine who was the USA Rugby's 2004 Collegiate All-American Team coach (http://clemsonews.clemson.edu/WWW_releases/2004/August/News_Briefs.html) and the first player was 2005 All American Rugby player Dutch Jones who plays scrumhalf (also known as half-back) as shown at (http://www.gainline.us/gainline/2006/03/clemsontennesse.html and http://www.usarugby.org/cgi-bin/02/press/displayFullAnnouncement.pl?announcementId=209)

You are also forgetting SPEED TV anchor Connie LeGrand, and 1989 graduate. LeGrand was also in the same sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma as Nancy O'Dell.Miller17CU94 20:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also folk singer David Dondero attended Clemson

School colors

I'm having trouble finding anything from Clemson that actually states its official colors are "Burnt Orange & Northwestern Purple". It is listed on the ACC site, but keep in mind that even a politician once took information from Wikipedia, so that could've been the source of this. Someone please see if they can find the official school colors. http://i7.tinypic.com/210dcli.jpg There is a picture made from samples: the top is "burnt orange" (from UT), second is "clemson orange", then "clemson purple" (both from clemson's site), then "northwestern purple" (from northwestern's site).

I have found a republication of an old Clemson Athletic Press release verifying that the colors are Northwestern Purple and Burnt Orange[2] reluctant to insert the citation without further confirmation. Offically the colors are PMS 165 and PMS 268[3].

Okay, Burnt Orange is PMS 159 and Clemson official color is PMS 165. Officially, the colors are "orange" and "purple". Zchris87v 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There is no 'p' in Clemson! It is improperly pronounced constantly, even by the university's president. Also there is no z in Clemson. It ticks me off when the sportscaster call them "Clemzon".

Please cite why /ˈklɪmp.sn̩/ is an "improper" pronuciation. You are citing the spelling of the word but, as most speakers of English know, spelling is often a poor guide to pronunciation. It is typical for medial nasals to add a /p/ or /t/ before an unvoiced consonant in both South and South Midland American English (as well as other dialects). Many spellings even reflect this and names such as Clemson, Mumford, and Simkins[4] are sometimes spelt as Clempson[5], Mumpford[6], and Simpkins[7] to reflect this. I doubt that the President of the university, himself a graduate of the school, is mispronouncing the name of the school. —  AjaxSmack  23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The supposed citation doesn't cite anything except for the way a few people prounce the name. To the contrary of the intended citation, most of the people in the video are pronouncing Clemson "properly", without a P and without a Z. Having no real direct citation for either pronounciation, it is better to remove the IPA guide until we can track down a source of the official way to say the name of this University. Mescad 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is an official way. I don't think Americans regulate those types of things. —  AjaxSmack  01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for the pronunciation with "p" in it, though not official, is to correct the sportscaster's pronunciation of it as "clemzon". This is definitely incorrect, and it should perhaps be included just what I said - Sometimes pronounced "clempson" in order to correct "clemzon". Zchris87v 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there is no evidence of any official or unofficial pronuciation. There is merely the way people pronounce it in the local dialect. As I noted above, it doesn't only occur with this name because of sportscasters. It's common in English for other words as well. Do not confuse spelling with pronunciation as they are sometimes quite different. —  AjaxSmack  08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that there is evidence of an official pronunciation, and we just need to be diligent and find it. Here is one candidate for citation[8]. The edit to add a 'p' would be like editing the article for nuclear because George W. Bush is the president of the United States and an owner of several companies with nuclear energy interests, and he pronounces it like nucular. At most, I'd think this article needs a footnote mentioning the various ways people (mis)pronounce the name of the University. See also: Louisville and nuclear --Mescad 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You can only have a mispronunciation if there is a correct pronunciation. An opinion column from North Carolina is hardly authoritative. I've never encountered any English-speaking place having an official pronuciation and since there is no guiding authority in English à la Académie française, it would be hard to establish one.

As you note, the Louisville article mentions several possible pronounciations but does not denigrate the local one. The fact that the Clemson president uses the /ˈklɪmp.sn̩/ version shows there at least is not much stigma associated with the local pronunciation. Of course others may say /ˈklɛ:m.zn̩/, /ˈklɛ:m.zən/, /ˈklɪ:m.zn̩/, or /ˈklɪ:m.zən/ ("sportscaster"); /ˈklɛmp.sn̩/, /ˈklɛmp.sən/, /ˈklɛmʔ.sn̩/, or /ˈklɛmʔ.sən/ (non-Southern/South Midland); or even /ˈklɪmʔ.sn̩/ (Southern/South Midland avoiding the "p"). The point is that these are non-local pronunciations much as the England English pronounciation Maryland (/ˈmærɪˌlænd/) differs from local variants (/ˈmɛrələn/, etc.) but does not invalidate them. —  AjaxSmack  23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Added until after Saturday, November 25, 2006 due to football rivalry weekend and recent (likely related) vandalism.