Talk:Maryland Terrapins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Traditions

Some of the "Maryland traditions" included in this article are generic college basketball traditions (free throw wave) and even more generic sports traditions (the wave). I'm deleting them because they have no place here.

[edit] Merge proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Maryland Terrapins. -- Brewcrewer 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Terrapin Times really belongs in its own article as it only relates to this topic and is unlikely to be developed further. So I proposed it is merged into a new section on this page Madmedea 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree because the article seems doomed to stub-hood. RedRollerskate 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Terrapin Times article is written more of a joke than actual useful information so it should not be merged ThorHammerTerp 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge. per nom.--Brewcrewer 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Complaint

- This article is extremely biased plain and simple. There are countless statements that reflect poorly on the school and the athletic department unnecessarily. For example, when citing the "rioting" incidents, why is there no mention of similar incidents in the WVU athletics article or the U of Arizona article? Or how about the countless other schools who have acted similarly following sporting events? How about citing hazing incidents regarding schools? Why is there no mention of the Duke lacrosse rape allegations in its article on athletics? I tried to clean this article up a bit last week by taking a few extremely biased statements out while also adding some additional information regarding many of the incidents and games mentioned. Apparently you chose not only to ignore the changes I made, but you actually rewrote the article in an even more biased manner than it previously was written. The school has had some problems with fan behavior in recent years, but your characterization of the fans and school as a whole is grossly unfair. There is absolutely no reason to characterize Maryland's athletics and fan behavior in the manner you have and I hope to see it cleared up in the near future.

[edit] RE: Complaint

There is no mention of "other" incidents because this is a UMD athletics page, not a WVU or U of Arizona article. UMD athletics have a reputation of troubling action by its students in comparison with 95% of colleges in the US. All pieces of the section in question are sourced by multiple publications to be clearly unbiased. All removals were based on VERY biased editing.


[edit] RE: RE: Complaint

I agree that the text as written was unecessarily biased in its characterization of the incidents reported. However, as this is a Maryland page, the references to incidents at other schools would also be innappropriate. I edited the section to put the focus on the events that occured and not an editorial characterization of those events. Zms676 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: RE: Complaint

I restored most of the edits I previously made after they were undone by an unregistered user who did not post in the discussion page.

First, I restored a short blurb about the 2006-2007 season. Although I would be open to a general consolidation of the the recent history of the Duke-Maryland basketball rivalry, as the page is written, I see no reason why 2006-2007 should not have its own blurb.

Second, I re-edited the incidents section to remove some of the editorial tone of the article. Specific changes: 1. I included the statement "like many other schools" because it puts the described incidents in context and is more consistent with the USA Today article cited, which covers many different schools. 2. The statement that "Maryland's reputation has been tarnished" is entirely subjective. My edit puts the emphasis on the objective facts - the incidents - and not what some writer thinks about them. 3. The sentence "The incidents have caused outrage and negative publicity by university officials and the community." is another characterization of events and is not properly cited. 4. The sentiment that rioting has become part of fandom is also subjective, so I got rid of it. 5. The term vulgarity is misleading. I replaced it with the specific word that is the source of the controversy. 6. I removed the report of the posted phone number, because it is the product of an individual act and inconsistent with the other events listed (which are mass incidents).

Zms676 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RE: RE: Complaint

I needed to re-edit the incidents section which had deleted sections of factual evidence. I did agree that some of the tone was editorial so I fixed a few statements therein. "Like MANY other schools" is not true so it was removed. Also the phone number incident was perpetrated by many individual as the report says so it was restored. The duke section was way too labored, we dont need to have the record of every game leading up to the comeback. The point of the sweep 2 out of the 3 years by previous author is a good summary.

DBrentster 18:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Complaint

I did a couple of grammatical edits to clarify things after all the edits and cross-edits. Also, I agree with a lot of the points by DBrenster, but I still disagree on a couple of issues. (1) I still think the 3-year old quote from a random student that "rioting is such a part of fandom" is too subjective and random to include (2) I replaced the vague term "vulgarity" with the more specific term used because it adds accuracy without taking up more space or reading time (also, the term "suck" is already referenced earlier, so I don't think it's a profanity issue). I left the reference to the phone prank in, but it would be nice if you could point to a cite that wasn't a high school newspaper.

Regarding the 2006-2007 blurb, I agree that the whole Duke section has gotten out of hand, and I might take a crack at consolidating recent seasons into one or two paragraphs.

Zms676 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents section

The fact that the incidents mentioned have been cited in the press does not make them relevant to this article about the Maryland Terrapins. As has been mentioned above, pages for schools with similar "incidents" such as Penn State, West Virginia, and Michigan State do not include a section about fan behavior. 149.79.35.227 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidents section was edited to retain only factual information as discussed above. Certainly relevant to the sports section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TestudoTT (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't that the "incidents" section is not factual, it's that it is not relevant. As mentioned before, similar sections detailing notorious fan behavior do not appear on the pages for other schools' athletic teams. Why is Maryland athletics uniquely deserving of having fan behavior incidents included on a page about the athletic program? 149.79.35.227 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Maryland athletics → Maryland Terrapins — All but 4 of ~100 pages at Category:College athletic programs are of the form: (short college name) (nickname) (for example: Louisville Cardinals or Washington Huskies). The remaining 4 should be moved. Oren0 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support per current naming convention. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support--Jerrypp772000 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support--Nitsansh 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] POV and references concerns

I've recently pasted a large block of text from the main UMCP article that seemed too long-winded to be kept there. However, while there is a lot of information, there also seems to be a considerable amount of POV as well as a lack of proper citations. --Tom (talk - email) 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom, that information really needs to be cleaned up before bringing over to this page. The sections moved over here are mostly redundant and are flagged for neutrality and source problems. DBrentster 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men's sports Update

Can someone please update/fix the original dates in the Men's Sports table, mmm kay? Thanks.

[edit] Testudo meaning

Currently says: Latin for "a shed wheeled up to a wall used by the ancient Romans to protect an attacking force". .... Not sure Latin is that succinct. Testudo is latin for 'tortoise', and the term was used to describe a type of military formation... I'm going to make the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikehold (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)