Talk:Carolina-Duke rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carolina-Duke rivalry article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Basketball Portal Carolina-Duke rivalry is part of WikiProject College Basketball, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college basketball 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. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject ACC, an effort to expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Atlantic Coast Conference. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard. North Carolina Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

About archives • Edit this box

Contents 1 Cleanup recentism 2 Game of February 6th, 2008 3 unc-ch's 'fifth championship' 4 Title of article revisited 5 Hansbrough's "retired" jersey 6 Requested move 6.1 Survey 6.2 Discussion 7 Results etc.

[edit] Cleanup recentism

I tried to shorten two of the recaps, remove some redundant facts, and reorganize the facts in the appropriate categories (especially Series Facts vs. body of article) and will continue to do so in the near future. In my opinion, the "Memorable Games & Incidents" section reek of recentism (WP:RECENTISM). There are recaps that I think contribute little to the overall historical scope of the rivalry's intensity. The recaps of both 2008 games, for example, contain too much statistical info that can be easily accessed via external links from the "Scores of games" section and should not be included in a Wikipedia article.

I did a Google search on great Duke-UNC moments/matchups and all of the games before 2007 that were mentioned in this article also appeared on various lists compiled by national news sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated. Here are some examples:

• http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0803/duke.unc/content.1.html
• http://espn.go.com/classic/s/013101_great_duke/unc_games.html
• http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=2038

I keep asking myself: are the 2008 matchups worthy of being mentioned in a Wikipedia article alongside these other, more memorable matchups? I think not. What do you guys think? Usharimau (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough to say. In both of the 2008 games they were both ranked in the top 5 in the country and the games had big implications. But I can see how this list tilts towards the recent. I would leave it for a season and then revisit it at the beginning of 2009 or continue to discuss on this talk page and see how consensus goes. Remember (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Game of February 6th, 2008

The fact that certain players from each team were not able to play in this game has no place in the article. The Blue Devils started five players, unc-ch started five players, and it was 5-on-5 for the whole game. The players who actually played in this game are the story of the game. Period. Adding info about players who didn't play in the game could be considered editorializing or vandalism, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the story surrounding the game in the national media was the availability of PG Ty Lawson, as well as the lack of Bobby Frasor (not as important in the media coverage, but still notable as Carolina was relegated to its 3rd string PG). Considering there are outcomes where Duke prevailed while missing a prominent player mentioned in previous game summaries - see Mar 2, 1968 - this seems to be a precedent in the article. Mentioning a prominent player being missing from the lineup is not editorializing, it is fact. Shall I add links to support my reference? I think I will, then the other editors can decide whether it is "editorializing" or even more laughable, "vandalism." Your 3RR warning is completely out of line, as I have not attempted an edit war, or even approached 3RR. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I can see where you are confused ... this is NOT an article about the media attention surrounding the game, it is an article about the game itself. Five (5) DUKE players went up against five (5) unc-ch players for the duration of the game. Zoubek, Frasor and Lawson did not play, so they are not part of the game, only part of the hype concerning the game, and, in Lawson's case, an excuse used by fans for carolina losing this game. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't war with you, I'll put it up to other editors and admins to decide its relevance. Just remember, the 3RR applies to you, too. Cheers. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an important part of the narrative that UNC went into the game without Lawson and Frasier. There doesn't need to be much discussion of it, just the simple mention of the fact that UNC was without them due to injury. I don't understand the argument that this information is not relevant to the summary of the game, especially considering that almost all major news outlets also thought it was relevant enough to include prominently in articles describing the game. Remember (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is an important part of the narrative that unc went into the game without Lawson and Frasier". Interesting that you don't consider the fact that DUKE was without the services of their biggest player, Brian Zoubek, an "important part of the narrative". Hmm. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no assertion whether or not the appearance of Zoubek was important in my previous comment. Based on your comment, I did some research and found that Zoubek's absence was also mentioned in some articles and so should be mentioned. [1] I would think that all notable players absences should be mentioned in the game's description and that this would not be contentious. Remember (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unc-ch's 'fifth championship'

This championship [sic] is only claimed by those with a strict pro-unc-ch bias; IIRC a meat packing company chose the 'winners' ... who are the experts and what criteria was used? I believe that unc-ch even played some high school teams during 'That Championship Season'. How can any 'experts choose a champion without having seen the teams play? Calling this anything but a theoretical or mythical championship is strictly POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's not theoretical or mythical since it was actually awarded by the organization to the team in question. Saying it's theoretical or mythical implies that it wasn't actually awarded. While one can argue that the award is meaningless or stupid or non-notable (and therefore shouldn't be mentioned), one cannot deny that the award was actually given to the team in question. Remember (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More technically it is an actual award for a mythical championship ... no matter how you slice it, unc-ch has not earned a 'fifth championship'. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in part, with the first part, but disagree with the second part (that unc-ch has not earned a fifth championship). Again, factually they have been given a fifth national championship. You may think that the championship is not based on anything of value and that is fair. But then the focus of the criticism needs to be on how the organization giving the championship uses flawed unfair methods and not on the idea that it wasn't actually awarded a championship. Remember (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to resolve this is to have more information on the Helms Athletic Foundation article so that anyone who wants to know more about this award can easily find accurate criticism. Remember (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now revised the sentence to link to the mythical national championship article and criticism of the basketball championships given by the Helms Foundation. I think this may be the best approach. Remember (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The best approach would be to keep referring to it as a mythical championship, since it is based in myth, not fact. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Duke53, while I agree with you that's it's not a legit championship, give it a rest. Remember has been completely reasonable and his (or her) solution seems fine to me. By the way, Butler also claims the 1924 championship and no other school I can think of actually has a banner in their arena from the Helms awarded championships. The problem with the championship (besides the fact that it was awarded 30 years later by a very small committee of non-basketball historians) is that UNC got SMOKED by Northeast ball clubs in 1925, where the best b-ball was being played in that era. In 1924, UNC only played teams from the Southeast, and thus didn't lose. Anyways, what is factually stated that the Helms foundation awarded UNC a national championship is completely true and not up for debate. People can decide for themselves if they think that the Helms foundation awarded it appropriately. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all the schools awarded Helms Foundation championships, but I know that Purdue has a banner in Mackey Arena for its 1932 award. Ncjon (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article revisited

I know I could have added this to the previous section, but I figured nobody would notice it, so I created a new section. I think this should be revisited and have a consensus reached since it doesn't seem like that was the case above. Honestly, I have never heard anybody refer to this rivalry as the "UNC-Duke rivalry" - that is probably the least commonly used combination possible. I frequently hear it as "Duke-Carolina," but don't really care which comes first. I also understand 1995hoo's point that "Carolina" could be seen as "South Carolina," so perhaps North Carolina is better. Also in 1995hoo's point is that after establishing the title, that usage should be used throughout. As it is now, North Carolina is typically used except in the Game Capsules and Series Facts section where UNC is used. In the Achievement by Season, complete scores of games, retired jersey numbers, coaching history, and players section, however, North Carolina is used. With all this in mind, renaming the article "Duke-North Carolina rivalry" or "North Carolina-Duke rivalry" would be a vast improvement. To back me up, the two books cited (and the only two full page books about the rivalry) use the term "Duke-North Carolina" and "Duke-Carolina" in the titles. Thoughts? -Bluedog423^Talk 05:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with any of these; I just don't want to have a constant debate about what the name should be and which university should come first. I would suggest that if you are going to make a change, that you propose the specific name change and then wait about a month for comments so that we have a good amount of discourse on the subject. Otherwise people will just move it right back or propose another name change and move it again. Remember (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A month? The only ways I have ever heard it referred to were 'Duke-UNC' or 'Duke-Carolina'. Maybe if we waited until July or August to change, it wouldn't be brought up again until sometime next Fall ... November maybe. Just add a tag on the page telling users to not change the title, exactly like many other articles are tagged here at Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I said a month because I want several people who pay attention to this page to comment on the proposal and not just us three. Again, we have already changed the name of the page before. I want a definitive resolution to this problem and the only way to do that, I believe, is a slow and deliberate process with as many editors as possible. Remember (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

UNC-Duke is a poor choice. I don't particularly care what order the title is, but the most commonly referred to ones are Carolina-Duke or Duke-Carolina. Carolina-Duke is the logical alphabetical choice, but if it were to be Duke-North Carolina I would be absolutely fine with that. The contention with "Carolina" comes from the South Carolina folks. Yet, I believe their heated football rivalry with Clemson is listed on wikipedia as the "Carolina-Clemson" rivalry. I don't have any opinion on how to handle their article, but the familiarity of this rivalry would lead me to conclude that it would be okay to use Carolina as long as there were plenty of redirects. Ultimately, I would vote for Carolina-Duke or Duke-North Carolina. First one obviously done alphabetically, and the second avoids contention with the South Carolina folks, even though it isn't quite as colloquial. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Everyone... I'm dropping in as an outside observer to try and help out. My awesome credentials: I'm not a basketball fan and I from the Left Coast. <grin>. First, let me say that given how big this rivalry is my hat goes off to you guys for keeping pretty darn civil and trying to work things out in a fair manner. Second, my main mission dropping in here is that the article stay true to Wikipedia's spirit. To that end the most important thing I can say at this moment is: you can't change the article's title every month, year, century... you need to pick one way and go with it. An encyclopedia needs to be reliable and consistent, changing the name on a regular basis is confusing to the readers. My own personal opinion is that you go with logical choices that are devoid of controversy: 1) use official names for the schools (not nicknames) and 2) use alphabetical order. Just my two cents... keep up the good work. —Noah 06:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name of the article should be changed to The Battle for Tobacco Road (The UNC-Duke Rivalry). This is what some people refer to it as. Just a thought. Hansbroughfan100 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco Road includes NC State and Wake Forest too. I've heard ESPN (or was it WRAL/Raycom?) mention Battle for Tobacco Road, but not otherwise. The recent move to Carolina-Duke rivalry seems to match current consensus. As an aside, I've proposed a move for the NC State-UNC rivalry page to Carolina-NC State rivalry to match this scheme. Feel free to comment on it on that talk page. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hansbrough's "retired" jersey

It seems to me that Hansbrough's number shouldn't appear in the retired jersey list as it hasn't actually been retired yet. His winning of the Sporting News Player of the Year Award means he's eligible to have his jersey retired. But it won't actually happen until the season after he leaves the university. Ncjon (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results etc.

The article is already very long, and the obvious parts to remove or split are the facts and results sections. Other parts of the article also duplicate information on the schools' individual pages, so it would seem sensible to rework/summarize those to focus on the direct rivalry instead of a comparison between the two. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the results should be removed. First, the results over the past several decades are facts that help educate the reader on the specifics of the rivalry. Second, having the results is in line with other rivalry pages (see Michigan-Ohio_State_rivalry, Iron Bowl, UConn-Tennessee rivalry, etc) Third, this is not a readability issue. If people want to read the results, they can. If they don't they can skip it (that is why it is in a collapsible box). If you are arguing that the page is too big in terms of files size then we can have that discussion. But in terms of deleting this information because it makes the page to long to read, I think that argument is not very persuasive. On a side note, people have put a lot of work into creating those tables and it was probably not the best move to remove these facts without discussing this issue on the talk page first. Remember (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The file size one motivation, and the collapsible box doesn't work well with smartphones. I think a summary of perhaps record scores, over head-to-head record, and/or maybe a decade-by-decade summary would better serve the article from a readability point of view. I understand that people have put a lot of effort into such, but WP:EFFORT addresses that argument in some sense. You're always welcome to revert, rewrite, or just delete anything I write.Yellowspacehopper (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the results box. I'd had been thinking for several weeks that there should be a reduction of the "notable games" list. There are too many games on the list, in my opinion. For example: I don't think both '08 games belong, I don't think the '06 game or '04 games are particularly noteworthy, and I'm not sure if both, or even either, of the '05 games are worth noting. If not for the Henderson-Hansbrough situation, I would argue that the '07 game doesn't belong either. Ncjon (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we create a game summary article or use an expandable section? The game descriptions are a great addition, but I agree they create a bit of clutter. "Notable" also proves to be too subjective, so simply titling it "game summaries" or something along those lines seems appropriate Fletch81 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the notable games. I think you're right about this year's games especially. I wonder if there way to reformat the results section to be a bit more compact. If sections are in the article, I think they should be visible, but should we summarize or split the article?Yellowspacehopper (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think summarizing the notable games section as a teaser to another article may be a sensible way to handle it. Perhaps mention there have been many famous games, like the 8 pts in 17 seconds and a few others with less detail, then have a separate article where all the games can have their summaries. It would likely make the article a lot easier to digest. Fletch81 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. It would remove a lot of the heavy text from the main article. Ncjon (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I, too, like the results sections and they don't cause readability concerns due to the reasons already expressed by Remember. The boxes begin as collapsed and the user has a choice to skip over the sections or look at them in detail. If it was that much text, then, yes, that would be a concern. I also agree that perhaps the notable games section could be cut down. It seems that from now on, every single game is going to have a write up whether notable or not. Having just a few of the truly notable games mentioned and a new article seems to be a fine solution to me. -Bluedog423^Talk 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• The collapsable box begins as collapsed on most browsers, but not more specialized ones, such as many mobile ones. Maybe we could move it to the bottom of the page so you never have to skip over it. Alternatively, should the results move to the proposed game summary page, or another page entirely, and set up one of those as a basketball-only rivalry page? Clearly, the rivalry tends to be most visible on the basketball court, but other elements are quite understated on this page. I'd actually merge Carlyle Cup into this page as on its own it's not that significant.Yellowspacehopper (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I especially like the Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate page about the rivalry between GT and UGA.Yellowspacehopper (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating sub-subsections (====) but using {{TOClimit}} to hide them in the contents. PeterSymonds | talk 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)