Talk:Beaver Stadium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Penn State, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to the Pennsylvania State University. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	College football Portal Beaver Stadium is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments This article has been rated for quality but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is missing the expansion in 1991 which brought the capacity to somewhere around 92-93,000.

• Now added.

Caption for the picture of the O State game is wrong. Consider adding a Top Ten list of most attended games. I don't have one handy. Start a movement to add 400 seats to Beaver Stadium. OK, just kidding about the last one. Rob 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a program for the O State game. It lists the 110,753 crowd figure as the figure for the 2002 Nebraska game, and so does GOPSUSports and so does this from OSU unfortunately. I sill can't find a handy link for Top 10 Crowds. Rob 00:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Found refs for #1 and #2 crowds though, removed {{fact}} tag. Rob 01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section dealing with the claim of the stadium being the 3rd largest city in PA. The previous statement indicated that the area was the 3rd largest, when in fact Penn Staters consider the stadium its self to be the 3rd largest and ignore the surrounding population. I attend Penn State and can tell you first hand that this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.101.116 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I attend Penn State and I have always heard the claim as State College becoming the 3rd largest city in Pennsylvania. --Mithunc 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the capacity of the stadium or look at record attendances the recent Penn State vs Michigan game had 110,000+ people in the stadium which puts it squarely in 3rd place. Include the surrounding population if you like however the stadium by itself is large enough to quallify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.94.208 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 November 2006 UTC

Contents 1 Redundant photos? 2 Middle Finger 2.1 Adding a tradition Section 3 Beaver Stadium will be the largest during the 2008 and 2009 seasons 4 Another contradiction

[edit] Redundant photos?

I love 'the Beav' just as much as the next PSU fan, but do we really need three photos inside the stadium that basically show the same thing? It seems to make the article a bit cluttered and that room could be better used for things like statistics (home records, attendance numbers, expansion through the years) and photos (like the new limestone wall, the historical markets, the years added to the luxury suites). Does anyone have any objections to removing the in-text photos? PSUMark2006 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good point. I'd say be bold and go ahead and do it, but until we have something to replace those pictures with, I guess they're OK where they are for now. They can be removed as they are replaced with better pictures or better information. That aside, I'm not too hot on the current pictures myself (cloudy day, seats not filled, etc.). --Mithunc 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a white-out photo? anyone? Brett 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced an older picture of inside the stadium with one I took after the Notre Dame game. The stadium is full and it's a Whiteout. Harrier233 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Finger

How is it not relevant to note that 30k + students turn their back to the opposing teams band and show their middle fingers? This seems to be an important attribute of Beaver Stadium to me. Brett 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this happens at lots of other stadiums. Are you going to go in and edit those articles too? I am a Penn State student and most people around me at the game don't do that. Turn their back, maybe, but middle finger, not so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.69 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence to indicate it happens at other stadiums, and if it does it would be notable - if you can find evidence it does happen then that would certainly be a subject of debate. And clearly you are in the minority then, because the evidence indicates that most of the student section flips the bird Brett 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, as a Penn State graduate/student, you seem to take pride in this? And yes, it does happen other places. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/09/10/nd_fans_endure_few_jabs_taunts.aspx Quoted from article: "Though Penn State fans did clap for the Notre Dame band during halftime, they weren't as receptive to the band during the pre-game show, he said. "I'm not a big fan of the turning their backs on the band," Bundy said. "I know some places they think that's a fun thing to do and apparently that's become something that Penn State thinks is fun to do. To me, that doesn't seem like the spirit of college football.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.69 (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I do take pride in that.
2. Even if the Collegian article indicates that students turned their back, its lack of a mention that students gave the middle finger does not indicate that it did not happen. In fact, there are two independent sources listed that can corroborate it for the ND game.
3. Furthermore, there is a picture now listed physically depicting the student section giving the middle finger during the 2005 OSU game.
4. Do you have any evidence indicating it happens other places, and even if it does, it does not necessarily indicate that it is not notable, especially when here a substantial portion of the student section does it Brett 05:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a trivial piece of information that according to you has according to you, happened at two out of the last 17 games played at home. NOT IMPORTANT!

1. Its not trivial when 20,000+ students are involved in it
2. I'm not saying it has happened at only 2, but it would be futile to document each incident because that would not be relevant.
3. WP:NOTABILITY has very clear guidelines on this issue, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This passes the litmus test because it has received coverage in the Collegian, which is not produced by the University. Lets analyze each limtus individually:

   * "Presumed" - it has received coverage
   * "Significant coverage" - the sources specifically reference the middle finger being used and that it was "offensive"
   * "Reliable"  - this is important, but even though it is an editorial, it still passes Wikipedia:Reliable sources because it is featured in a credible newspaper, and there is a primary source (photograph) of the incident backing it up
   * "Sources,"[4] - there are 3 different pieces from 2 different sources, all independent
   * "Independent of the subject" - PSU did not produce the editorial and th Collegian is independent of the University. 

Brett 05:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC). And please sign your comments Brett 05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to use a picture that people can actually access. And if you are so adamant about including this bit of information in the article, you might want to actually word it correctly. Seeing as how I, and many people around me were not giving the finger to the opposing band, your very statement that it is something the student section does, is incorrect, seeing as how I and many others are part of the student section, and we do not engage in that sort of activity.

1. See Wikipedia:No original research, the fact of the matter is that unless you can cooroborate that you were not giving the finger, it does not matter Brett 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

Oh, yeah, that picture is really convincing....Yes, people are turned around, but you can clearly see, that everyone is not giving the finger.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.69 (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 

1. I can clearly see 99% of the students in that photograph giving the middle finger. And sign your comments! Brett 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well than you must have super-human vision.

1. Even then, there are two other independent sources corroborating this. Brett 05:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, your two other sources do not state that the entire student section was engaged in this.

1. The edit does not stipulate the "entire student section," it just explains as to the actions of the student section in general. Its the same difference as when you say "the entire student section wore white" vs "the student section wore white." No, the entire student section did not where white, but most did, so it is fair to say the student section wore white. Again, look up Wikipedia:No original research you cannot make a claim that some students did not give the finger without a tangible source. Furthermore, at best, it warrants a notation in the article indicating that "not every student gave the finger," but not the deletion of the entire entry. AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! Brett 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are not convincing enough, sorry but you already got caught on this by someone else. You need something better than a blurry photo and two letters to the collegian, all three of which do not state anything about all students engaging in this.

1. I never said all students engaged in the matter, see my white out analogy above
2. The sources pass WP:NOTABILITY which is the litmus test created by Wikipedia for documenting things like this.
3. What are you speaking of, that I got caught on this by someone else? I think you are the only person arguing for the removal of this... Even so, its irrelevant.
4. AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS!

Brett 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

YOU CAN'T SAY THE "STUDENT SECTION" WHEN THE ONLY PROOF YOU HAVE IS A BLURRY PHOTOGRAPH WHERE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE PEOPLE ARE NOT DOING IT. YES, PEOPLE ARE TURNED AROUND, BUT NOT EVERYONE IS GIVING THE FINGER TO THE OPPOSING BAND! PLUS, YOU CANNOT EVEN DISTINGUISH THAT THAT IS PENN STATE'S STUDENT SECTION. Yes, I obviously know it is, but how can you use that as evidence when you can't even distinguish who the crowd is? 66.71.41.69

1. Together, the and the collegian article provide 3 independent sources corroborating the facts.
2. Again, apply the white out analogy, not everyone was wearing white, but "the student section wore white." Its just like the "student section gave the finger to the band" when clearly there were parts of teh student section who did not.
3. They are wearing blue and white, and the source on webshots is from PSU. Back teh URL up you will see.
   1. You even say yourself it is, Wikipedia applies the common man standard. Brett 06:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
   2. Ha, and you'll appreciate this, a quote from the 2nd source: "But what appalled us was when the Notre Dame band was playing on the field before the game, and the WHOLE student body turned their backs on them and displayed their middle fingers." I am not the one who capitalized WHOLE. Brett 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if you are going to use a letter to the editor as one of your sources, then why don't you give any credence to this letter to the editor? http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/09/12/fans_letter_exaggerates_psu_st.aspx Just because you find two letters to the editor, that does not make something true. That's why letters to the editor are on the OPINIONS page. And it certainly doesn't help your argument especially when I can find a letter the next day refuting your point. Secondly, just because you find a blurred picture on a PSU webshots site, that does not mean that it is representative of the entire Penn State body. 66.71.41.69

1. There are 3 independent sources corroborating this, and you have one that says "it did not happen near me." You don't at all seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policies, which are very clear in the matter. Again, please see WP:NOTABILITY for the policy on the matter, which states that if something is published in a reliable newspaper it passes the factual burden.
2. Second, at best, it warrants a note that says "not all students do it," but again I will concede that "not all students do it," just like not all students where white. But why do we still call it a white out? You still cannot respond to this argument, which is critically important.
3. A blurred picture, along with two independent sources, should provide more than enough proof. Brett 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How does your argument even make sense? Your are saying that I can't site a letter saying that it did not happen to them, but it is perfectly ok for you to site a letter saying it did. It's called a white out, because it is organized by the university and supported by almost all students. Giving the middle finger is not something that is a tradition and it is not something that all student do. And no, a blurred picture does not provide proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.69 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Sign your comments
2. I am saying that despite 3 independent sources, including a picture which clearly depicts students showing their middle finger, you are still insisting that something did not happen. You could certainly add a note that says, "not all students participated," but I think that would be redundant, because everyone knows that, just like everyone knows that not every student wore white.
3. I think the picture does provide pretty solid proof, but again if you don't believe that there are 2 other independent sources corroborating it.
4. The litmus test for whether or not something is notable is not whether the University supports it. Just because it occurs and it may not bring a positive image to the university does not mean it is not notable. What is the litmus test for tradition? I would argue that if it happens in at least two different games two years apart it certainly is a tradition. Again, not all students do it, but like I said before, not all students wear white, so if we were to adopt your paradigm it should not be called a whiteout
5. You shouldn't deny facts just because they are not appealing to you Brett 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THE STUDENT SECTION ENGAGES IN IT, ONLY PROOF THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE DO, SO YOUR STATEMENT THAT IT IS SOMETHING THE STUDENT SECTION DOES IS FALSE! THAT IS THE FACT! sSORRY BRETT, BUT MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE ADDING THINGS TO WIKIPEDIA JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE APPEALING TO YOU!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.69 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The proof is the graphic of the STUDENT SECTION DOING IT, the two documents indicates the STUDENT SECTION does it. That is the fact. Again, if you cannot explain why it violates WP:NOTABILITY then it is completely legitimate.
2. I am seeking to better Wikipedia in general, my personal motives are not in question here.
3. Why, instead of deleting everything, do you completely ignore my attempts at compromise? WP:COMPROMISE is created to find solutions to problems that are unable to be solved in such a fashion. I have proposed adding an additional note to indicate not everyone does this, but you don't seem to be able to respond, just typing in all caps that not everyone does it. Again, I agree. Not everyone does it. So add a notation saying that. But don't delete the whole thing

Brett 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC) A little bit more:

1. Just because different people have independently deleted something it does not mean that it is encyclopedic.
2. I added another source, this from the Collegian that is not a letter to the editor, but rather an article published in today's collegian about PSU Pride, a group that aims to stop things like giving the middle finger to the other teams band.
   1. This serves as a fourth piece of evidence that it does occur
   2. It also functions as a piece of evidence that increases the notability of the article because if there is a group created to try and stop trends like this it must be a major issue.

Brett 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The group was not created to specifically stop the activity in question.

1. It is one of the reasons why teh group was created, but that is neither here nor there. It attributes to its encyclopedic nature in that a student group was created partially to stop an action that alot of people do. Thats notable.

2. Once again, your article fails to provide proper detail of the activity.

1. Not really, heres a quote: ""Giving the band the middle finger," Elmore said, referring to recent action toward the Notre Dame musicians. "What is that really doing? It's the band."". The statement says the student section gives the band the middle finger. It clearly indicates that someone is giving the band the middle finger, and its pretty much assumed that it means the student section
2. but if you don't buy that there is three other independent sources corroborating it. I don't know what more you need to confirm that it actually happens?

3. Just because you determine that something is encyclopedic doesn't mean that it is, especially when four other people have already expressed disagreement with it.

1. I don't see 4 other people posting here, do you? Wikipedia is not a democracy, its the best idea that counts. Eventually this will be put to a vote for established users only. Thats how Wikipedia works. Welcome to the club!
2. Again, there is a litmus test created by Wikipedia, its called WP:NOTABILITY and its created to determine what is encyclopedic. See above to see how this passes that test.
3. Sign your comments! Brett 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.69 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 

No, four other people have not posted on here, but if you read the history, at least four other people have changed your edits and have made comments about it in the history. And I fail to see how it passes this guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Your newest "source" fails to "address the subject directly in detail." And apparently you don't have the "best idea" if people keep changing it. 66.71.41.69

1. Again, its not a game of how many people have edited x amount of times, its about the most compelling argument. Wikipedia is not a democracy by how many times a page has been changed by different people.
2. No, but there are 2 other sources (articles) that specifically go in depth about the matter specifically. This is an augmenting source, meaning that if you don't buy that a letter to the editor is legitimate, this functions as a "back-up" if you will.

Brett 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So you decided that YOU have the most compelling argument? Well, apparently others didn't and that's why it got changed, sorry, but I could use the same exact argument in this situation. 66.71.41.69 02:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)66.71.41.69

1. Ideally a compromise is the end result, but you don't seem to be willing to do that. Thats how most conflicts on Wikipedia end. You don't seem willing to do that. Brett 02:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a compromise would be fine. I have stated numerous times that, yes it has occurred, but not everybody was involved. That needs to be addressed. It's not fair to those who don't do it to get portrayed as a bunch of jerks. It's not representative of the entire Penn State student body. 66.71.41.69 02:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)66.71.41.69

1. What would you propose? How about a disclaimer at the end that says "Not all Students do it." Or, how about adding "Some Students in the student section..." to the beginning? Do you have another idea? Brett 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some students 66.71.41.69 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)66.71.41.69

[edit] Adding a tradition Section

Brett - The fact of the matter is that if you are going to include this minute detail and try to pass it off as a tradition, let alone a defining descriptor of our students, then you need to fairly report all traditions, which in itself would require an entire section. This includes the singing of "Hey Baby", pumping up students, the Nittany Lion crowd surfing, starting the wave, etc. But does that kind of section really belong under this subject? I would say no, not all information is relevant. You are trying to sensationalize an incident that I'm sure no more than 4,000 students participated in when our student section is certainly known for bigger, more notable things (both good and bad). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.61.77 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think its important to divide your argument into different sections, its best for organization purposes. In the future, it makes for more organized discussion if you organize your arguments like this. Also, please sign your posts using the 4 tildes.

• Whether not not this incident specifically is notable

1. Please see the above discussion for determing whether or not specifically this tradition is notable. If you would like to engage on the specific instances of WP:NOTABILITY you think this violates, please read the above arguments and respond as to the specific instances you think it violates.
2. Also, please keep in mind [WP:JNN] when formulating your response.

• If it is notable, shouldn't there be discussion of other traditions (which are equally as notable under this litmus test)?

1. I tend to agree that there is not enough discussion of the other traditions associated with Beaver Stadium, however I disagree that just because those traditions are not discussed it means this tradition is not worthy of being discussed.
2. Obviously some traditions may not be notable (like some student organizations selling Gatorade to finance their club) but I would also argue that many of the traditions are notable. For example, I think noting Zombie Nation would certainly pass the litmus test for WP:Notability. I recall a Collegian article from last year indicating that they were trying to phase it out because it was damaging the structure of the stadium, perhaps you could dig this up?

• Should it have its own section and not be placed in the heading?

1. I tend to agree with you here, in that it may not belong in the heading.
2. I will create a "Tradition" Supheading where I would argue it could be placed. What are your thoughts?

• Only 4,000 students participate so it is not notable

1. The problem with this argument is two fold. First, theres no real evidence to cooroborate that only 4,000 students participate, and you claiming this violates WP:NOR
2. There is no litmus test for how many people doing something is cause for it to be notable. See WP:BIGNUMBER. If there are reliable sources that corroborate the evidence then the amount of people participating in the event does not matter.

• This is from the edit history page, where you say that the Daily Collegian relies on Trivial Sources

1. I am not sure whether you are saying that the Collegian is a trivial source, or whether the information the Collegian obtained the information from is trivial?
2. The Collegian itself is certainly not a trivial source, its an acredited newspaper. Even if its a student newspaper, WP:NOTABILITY explains that if it is acredited it is more certainly a legitimate source.
3. The Collegian certainly does not rely on trivial sources. There is one article written by a reporter which indicates that the student section does indeed hold the middle finger to the other teams band.
4. I would tend to agree that independantly the two letters-to-the-editor probably would not be legitimate sources, but I think that combined with the others they do provide enough evidence to indicate that this does indeed occur.
5. Furthermore, do you think the Collegian would publish a letter to the editor about something (like the student section holding the middle finger to the band) if it did not occur? I think you have to give journalists some clout

• It gives the student section a bad name

1. Just because something is a bad tradition, it does not mean it should not be discussed. See WP:UGH

Brett 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A few points in reply;

1. It doesn't matter how many cites to Letters to the Editor you have. They are not adequate cites.
2. I'm not about to guess or assume why the newspaper may have publish letters.
3. I'm not saying you are right or wrong about the content of what you are saying. I'm saying you do not have adequate cites for a such controversial addition.
4. The photo from "image bucket" website is definitely not an adequate cite. Even if it was crystal clear instead of blurry, it is unattributed and could be of anything, anywhere.
5. The one cite you do have to a newspaper article says nothing about this being a "tradition". It could just as easily be an "recent aberration", depending on what spin you want to put on it. Wikipedia is not a place for spin.

So, in the absence of better cites, all we have is what amounts to original research on your part. Which isn't good enough. The most you could add to this article is a couple of lines about a controversy, maybe. And you'd still be relying on one article from one newspaper which could easily be considered trivia.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A traditions section could work if verifiable traditions WERE used (NOT the middle finger to the band incident). Traditions such as half of the crowd shouting "WE ARE...." followed by the other half shouting "PENN STATE", a "white out" consisting of the crowd waving a lot of white pom poms, and other such things would work in a traditions section. Of course, we'd need a reliable source, but I think there are enough reliable sources out there that adding REAL traditions could work. We just have to find them first. Let me know what you think. MVillani1985 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beaver Stadium will be the largest during the 2008 and 2009 seasons

Did anyone see that Beaver Stadium will be largest stadium in the country next year? Michigan was forced to settle a ADA lawsuit filed by the PVA and the Justice Department. They must rip out 1,300 seats to make room for 241 new seats for the disabled. (They tried to dodge the 1% wheelchair-accessible requirement by claiming their current construction was a "repair" and not an "renovation.") This will result in The Big House's seating capacity being reduced to 106,201 next season.[1] Beaver Stadium seats 107,282. —xanderer (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a discussion section at the Michigan Stadium talk page. Patken4 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Citations are provided^[1] and there are plenty more out there. —xanderer (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another contradiction

This article now contradicts List of stadiums in North America by capacity. One article says that Beaver stadium is the largest in North America, while the other states it is the second largest. --Quintin3265 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)