Talk:Tommy Tuberville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Negative Material

A reminder of the Wikipedia policy related to information on living persons:

All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

[edit] IP user: 72.147.101.254

It is quite obvious that IP user: 72.147.101.254 intention here is to spread negative rumors and hearsay about the Auburn football program and not to improve the biographical information related to Tommy Tuberville. I have removed the poorly sourced negative material, personal opinions and hearsay contributed by 72.147.101.254 --STS01 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire off the field section. The information in this section was highly controversial contested and doesn't belong in this article. --STS01 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User STS01

It is quite obvious that user STS01 is attempting to remove all negative information about Tommy Tubberville as possible. Facts are not 'poorly sourced negative material, personal opinions and hearsay'. These items have all been proven true and even acknowledged by the administration of Auburn University as true and the persons responsible have been reprimanded and/or lost their jobs due to this. If user STS01 does not feel that truth, whether positive or negative belongs in an encyclopedic article, then he/she should not be editing them. The attempt by this obvious Auburn supporter to delete truthful material undermines the purpose of Wikipedia. An obvious attempt to add demafoatory information from a rival fan that is hiding behind an anonymous IP address. The info is true and verifiable STS01 -- don't get your panties in a wad because you can't hide the truth. --the previous 3 unsigned edits were by 65.4.46.203

I do not want to take sides as I do not know what edits in fact you are referring to. However, I have seen unsourced rumors being removed before - I have even removed them in the past. My comment is that if these rumors are indeed factual, then you should have no problem citing several sources. Any unsourced info is removed per wikipedia's own policy. Please abide by the rules. And btw, sign your posts. Also, you should should consider registering an account instead of editing anonymously, as people will be less apt to revert you immediately.
But again, the only requirement is to cite your sources if you indeed have them! otduff (talk/contribs) 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on edit history, IP User 65.4.46.203 is only concerned with adding negative commentary to Wikipedia. If valid sources are found for the information this user is trying to introduce, I suggest that it be posted in a more appropriate article and not in this persons biography. STS01 15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on edit history, STS01 deleted the sourced material and links to the valid sources that were cited and is surely not one to pass judgement on intent based on some of his contributions. 65.4.46.203


[edit] SEC Divisional Championships

There are no mentions of this shared championship on the SEC webpage. In looking at Wikipedia's own webpage on the SEC chanpionship, on divisional ties it states:

Divisional Ties Since the SEC expanded, several times a tie between two or more teams occurred, requiring a tie-break. Below is list of all years and schools involved in which a tie existed. Only years and divisions that resulted in a tie are listed. If no year or division is posted, there was no tie. Schools listed in alphabetical order, * denotes tie-break winner and subsequent division champion.

I think you will find this to be true, but if you can post the source from SECsports.com, I will defer to you. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.200.19 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See this page on secsports.com and then look at the years in question. Notice that several teams have a star by them denoting they are "Western Division Co-Champions". I am going to revert you again. If you disagree again, please post here as to why as even by your own words, you should defer based on the source (SEC themselves and not some wikipedia entry). --otduff t/c 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


In addition to what OTDuff pointed you to, see this article with the following quote (emphasis mine):

Florida has clinched a share of the Eastern Division championship and the berth in the SEC Championship Game.

However, I guess the clearest description is from the SEC Spring Preview on page 12 of the PDF (page 10 of the printed piece) where you'll find the heading All-Time SEC Divisional Championships. Hope that helps. AUTiger » talk 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salary

His salary is not notable as a football coach. It immaterial to his biography and encyclopedic content. Salary information is trivial if anything. The only other football coaches I have found with documented salaries in info boxes on Wikipedia are 5 Big 12-South coaches. I say it is just as immaterial to the context of the article in their bios as well. The fact that it is noted in a newspaper story about a potential (yet highly unlikely IMHO) job move does not make it noteworthy. Maybe it would be better integrated into a section about the potential move, but I doubt that would be a good idea either because at this point their is no documented factual information about the move only conjecture from idiotic sportswriters attempting to sell papers and/or gain notoriety. Jasgrider 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

His salary is not relevant to the potential job move. I just cited that article because it reports his most up-to-date salary, as well as incentives. The salary is not just mentioned in that article, but mentioned in these as well: [1] , [2], [3], [4], and a few of these. I believe readers would be interested in a coach’s salary as it gives an idea as to how the coach is rewarded. If the salary stays, then I believe it should be integrated into the article as well, wherever his Auburn career is mentioned. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think salary info in the coach box would be a good idea, but it would be hard to give the same comparison. We may not be able to get "base salary" information for a coach and what would "base salary" information mean? Including the information in the text, perhaps when they start the position, would be good. Maybe in the intro? "Tuberville became the head coach at Alabama on January 15, 2999 signing a contract worth $987 billion including $923 in incentives.{cite}" It's important, relevant and informative and should be included as long as it is verifiable. MECU≈talk 19:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think salary can definitely be a relevant issue, since its a business transaction that explains the value placed on an individual's talents (particularly in this field); at the same time I couldn't see it as being necessary for an infobox, especially since private schools aren't required to release that information. --Bobak 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Salary is definitely notable these days as it is a key part of the college athletics financial arms race. Coaches' salaries have been rising at a meteoric rate ever since the $1M barrier was broken by Bobby Bowden in 1995[5] and not the least after Alabama desperately threw $32M at Saban[6] to get him to Tuscaloosa. As the vast majority of these individuals are employees of public institutions, there is definitely an interest (and right) to know how much money is spent on them; USAToday even did a huge feature on coaches salaries last year.[7] There is no denying that college sports, particularly football, is big business and the financial details of that business are of interest, to the general public[8] as well as Congress regarding their non-profit status.[9] There's no reason why sourced salary info, if available, shouldn't be a part of every coach's article. AUTiger » talk 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well that makes sense. I undid my edit from this morning and put the salary info back into the profile. I might work on putting the rest of the salary info into at least the SEC coaches' bios later. Thanks for the input everybody! Jasgrider 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas A&M Rumors

This is a bit preemptive, but should we go ahead and request that anonymous editors not be able to edit this article until after either he signs an extension with Auburn or makes some other move? I seems that leaving it open to anonymous editing leaves open the invitation to post a lot of unsubstantiated rumors and general misinformation that get reported as fact if someone is not on the ball about verifying or reverting. This is probably way out in left field for wikipedia, but it was just a thought. Jasgrider 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not out in left field at all. I made a semi-protection request to a specific admin a little while ago, but it doesn't look like he's gotten it yet. There is a general noticeboard to request protection, but depending on the admin who reviews the request, there's a good chance they wouldn't see the level of IP vandalism as worthy of protection yet. For the moment, those of us watching the article should deal with the rumormongers and vandals. AUTiger » talk 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There have only been 5-6 vandals (including those adding rumors) on the Dennis Franchione page. I added a note in the edit space of that article, so maybe we can add a similar note on this article to ease up the vandalism a bit. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The commented note is not a bad idea, although I disagree with the "any link will do" part; we do prefer reliable sources. AUTiger » talk 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely need reliable sources. I was actually referring to how the contributor can just add the link to the source and not worry about the citation format, so experienced editors can take the pain of properly citing the source by using the reference format. I just fixed the comment. How about we add the following comment to the article: <!----DO NOT ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT CITING A RELIABLE SOURCE. ADDITIONS WITHOUT CITATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL.----> BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good; I added it at the top of the article and the top of the Bio section.AUTiger » talk 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are published in newspapers every day. That does not make this fact. It's a rumor about a rumored coaching posistion. Hardly worthy of inclusion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STS01 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There is nothing wrong with including these rumors, just as long as they are verifiable. Wikipedia's purpose is to report what third-party sources are saying. In this case, we're not reporting what the tabloids such as The National Enquirer are saying, but what several newspapers/sports websites are. We should have the reader form their own opinions by presenting information in accordance with WP:NPOV. We should say that Texas A&M is looking at hiring Tuberville, but also state that it's a rumor, citing the sources that say so. Besides, no where in WP:NOT or WP:V does it state that verifiable rumors are not allowed in articles. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be kind of a moot point now: | Tommy Tuberville declared Monday that he will remain Auburn's football coach "as long as they want us here.". I seriously doubt that Auburn would be so stupid as to run the man off. :) Jasgrider (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't think he would leave Auburn for A&M; if he were to make a move, I think he would go to Arkansas (his home state) to replace Houston Nutt, if the position becomes available. That's just my opinion. You seriously doubting whether Auburn would actually let Tuberville go is also an opinion. We should not let our opinions interfere with how we write these articles, as it would violate WP:NPOV. We should present all information fairly so readers can get a clear picture. Since Tuberville stated yesterday that he's going to remain at Auburn until they fire him, I think it would be best to add to the article something along the lines of "Although rumors surfaced about Tuberville being a possible candidate for the coaching position at Texas A&M, Tuberville stated that he will stay at Auburn until dismissed". Hopefully, adding this will end the edit war that was going on for the past few days. I'd also like to add that some coaches don't keep a firm word about staying at a certain school. Dennis Franchione easily comes to mind — in 2003, even after agreeing to a contract extension at Bama, he suddenly left for the coaching position at A&M. However, I'm not sure if Tuberville would betray Auburn like that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully the jerkbag esteemed anonymous editor from the AT&T DSL network in Birmingham will stop adding the same information in to the article. :) Jasgrider (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updating Article

How do you get the protection to update the articles? I simply want to change the "@" to a "W" in his bowl outcome data box. This is a simple error, but I'd like to get past the protection problems to fix simple things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsrice (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)