Talk:Military Classic of the South

Edit warring

I don't necessarily agree with Strgzr1's version (mainly because the lede section was removed and there just isn't enough to be broken up into different sections), but I don't necessarily agree with the prior version either. "Similarities/differences" could use more references to back it up instead of just the one. If more references are added, then I'll support it being re-added. I think we could do-away with the "Historical use" section altogether. That's just my opinion. Strgzr1: I suggest you stop reverting (and edit warring with others who don't agree with you) and use the talk page to gain a consensus. Also, don't ask for another opinion if you don't like it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I made an edit and asked for input--so far looks to be acceptable regarding the citadel's use of all students (military cadets+day/night undergrad/grad civilian students), while VMI remains 100% military cadets. This "Military Classic" seems fairly one-sided and there is talk of discontinuing the "rivalry".Strgzr1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a fundamental issue with the edit in the article. I dispute the second sentence of what you wrote above, as we've discussed ad nauseum in the past. I would like to see reliable sources supporting talk of discontinuation before anything along those lines is introduced into the article. I have heard no one discuss it as a one-sided rivalry or its demise from anyone but you. Billcasey905 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree, Bill--That's precisely why just the published facts of different enrollments and student composition of teams (with no mention of discontinuing the rivalry) is in the article as it currently stands. Completely dissolving the game or rivalry will be difficult now that VMI is once again in the Southern Conference and they must play the Citadel, but VMI alumni are expressing interest in discontinuing the play for the "Silver Shako" trophy which is awarded. You're right, it's something being discussed at the school and among alumnus but something that does not have publications to support adding to Wiki. It's a tough spot to be forced to play for something that is emblematic of military schools when just one of the teams on the field is a military school while the other is more of a hybrid. Same thing happened with Virginia Tech and the original Military Classic of the South.Strgzr1 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How much longer are the editors going to put up with this guys vandalism, lies and unreferenced disinformation???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

strgzr says he is 'interested in accuracy' yet he repeatedly makes edits that are misleading or downright false and aren't backed up by references. He claims to 'not care a whit about The Citadel or VMI' but his inappropriate posts, snide remarks and insults tell a different story. His bias clearly violates the wiki rule on conflict of interest, he is being submitted for permanent ban.Bob80q (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Article in current form seems accurate and data is referenced; no issue. Name-calling, uncivil tones, bashing, etc. aside, article seems good to go. Bob, let's try to be constructive here: deleting referenced and factual info is not in the best interests of accurate Wiki articles. Respectfully request more fact checking before you post or delete posts. Cheers!Strgzr1 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

statement on makeup of the team is not only misleading its irrelevant; article is about a football game not the schools. But hey, any opportunity to keep advancing your agenda that "The Citadel isn't a real military school because they have civilian students".Bob80q (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you look above at the comments from Billcasey, you'll see this was a collaborative effort. It was determined that the make-up of the teams is relevant to the article as it highlights the differences between the schools. One of the school's teams is cadets while the other's is a mixture of cadets, graduate students, night students, and day students. The article looks accurate at this point.Strgzr1 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Corky, at this point he has been telling lies and carrying on the vendetta so long he cant back down now and look foolish. If you cant beat em just denigrate em.Bob80q (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm only using YOUR words. I have nor further comment. Please quit commenting on my talk page. You are no longer welcomed (which apparently you never got the hint after I've reverted you several different times). Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Article in present form looks good.Strgzr1 (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

team makeup

"Mix of cadets and civilian students" is grossly inaccurate and misleading; aside from SOME fifth year seniors (former cadets) there have been only occasional graduate transfers, the current team has NONE. Strgzr claim that Citadel teams include 'night students' and 'day students' is false, if he can provide proof and a reference do so. But of course why bother trying to reason with the guy at this point.Ruffnready (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ruffnready, regarding the football team, MANY current players are 5th years who live off campus and are currently civilian students (no longer cadets). Furthermore, any civilian students are eligible to play (if they have eligibility left) on any of the citadel's sports teams -- not just football. The citadel's basketball team recently had two players (with beards) who were graduate students... same thing with other sports. So no, to say the occasional graduate student is misleading... For the purposes of Wikipedia, we are not talking about one year or the next, we are talking about the program and school on the whole. Team composition may vary from year to year, but for wiki, we are talking about the whole picture...Strgzr1 (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

sockpuppet comment removed Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F429:9C82:2979:70B3:CFFA:796C (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see source info from Post and Courier and article by Jeff Hartsell. Clearly illustrates point that the teams are in fact made up of both cadets and non-cadets. Not just "some occasional 5th years," as previously edited. Please stop deleting accurate and useful source info.117.82.228.51 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This claim very much misstates what the article actually says. The article names a total of 3 players that are graduate students at the Citadel. It's not even the main focus of the article. I'm not saying the information doesn't deserve a one-line mention somewhere in the body, but it has to be worded the same way as the source material, and not the WP:SYNTHESIS that is currently there, and certainly not in the lede. I'm changing it back to the way it was; please discuss further before an edit was is started. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

I've been thinking of how to reorganize and expand this article a bit, but was deterred by the edit war here and on other, related pages. With the two users now blocked, this seems like a good time to share my thoughts. As of right now, it's really just in terms of some sections, and we'd organize and expand as sources are available.

1. Intro
2. History of the matchup
3. Silver Shako
4. Notable games
5. All-time results
6. Other varsity sports

As to the topic from the edit war on this page, I think if sufficient sources arise to add a section on similarities and differences between the schools, this would be a useful addition. Today, though, there's really only the Post and Courier article from November 2015.

I welcome any additional thoughts or other proposals. Billcasey905 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is fine as is, except for the misleading and irrelevant statement left by the vandal-in-chief; don't fix what isn't broken. Simpler is better and with the attention span of people these days articles that are short and to the point make more sense, so just leave well enough alone.

Bill you are thinking way too much and you have already messed up years of work by others, not sure why you have suddenly appointed yourself the expert on this subject and you have allowed quite a bit of slander and disinformation to be spread, your conduct has been brought to the attention of those in high places. "The Ten"

Inclusion of other references

Wanted to include recent references regarding composition of cadets only on VMI’s teams and both non-cadets/cadets on Citadel teams. Anyone have issue with including these references?Slaphappy19 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The subject matter you're attempting to edit, your actual edits, your user and talk page elements, and even your manner of writing on other editors' talk pages are identical to Strgzr1 and 117.82.228.51; both blocked editors. Your claim that you are not the same person stretches credulity, to say the least. If you're truly interested in improving Wikipedia, a good start would be to come clean about your multiple accounts first. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Charleston’s Post and Courier source and "non-cadet" players claim

This is the one source that Strgzr1 and his sockpuppets (Slaphappy19 is the most recent) put forth as the rationale for including content stating that the Citadel's "ability to retain non-cadet civilian athletes on their athletic teams has given the Citadel a distinct advantage over VMI’s teams, which remain all-cadets". I'd like to put this to bed right here. The article does not say what Slaphappy19 is saying. It merely states that there have been 3 players that were "grad-student transfers who still have a season of eligibility left" brought in from other schools - since 2002. Three players, from 2002 to 2015. It also states that Citadel cadets "are able to sit out a redshirt year as freshmen with the knowledge that they can graduate with their class and live off campus and work toward a graduate degree during their fifth year". However, the article points out that VMI cadets can also redshirt: "VMI is able to redshirt players. Only four freshmen are in the Keydets’ current two-deep, and the roster includes more than 50 players listed as redshirts. A 2012 internal report said that 80 percent of players eligible for a ninth-semester choose to return for that fifth season."

In short, the attempted edits are WP:SYNTHESIS, as those edits attempt to frame the two schools' football teams as radically different and give the Citadel an unfair advantage, while the source does not even remotely make the same claims. I am putting this on the talk page for future reference, as I feel it is inevitable that Strgzr1 will register another sock and try these same edits again at some point. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas conveniently forgot to mention that any redshirts from VMI are cadets and wear a uniform and live in barracks. Unlike the citadel which recruits college grads, enrolls them in the night programs and allows them to play on citadel sports teams whether they attend class or not... The citadel recently recruited a VMI graduate who could play on the citadel football team while attending night school... VMI is a military college, citadel... not so much anymore. Comparing them is like comparing Apples and Oranges, dude.

Disagree. Note: User:Ewen Douglas has been blocked for disruptive edits and for being a sock puppet.

Looking at the history here, this user (and other citadel supporters) have continually reverted anything (supported with references or not) that implied differences between these programs, and there are many differences. I read the article and must disagree with the biased and unsupported points made above by Ewen Douglas. The Post and Courier author, Jeff Hartsell, writes that the two programs are indeed different and says in the opening, "when it comes to football, there are some very real differences that have helped The Citadel own an edge over VMI that have only grown more distinct in recent years." The author points to non-cadet Citadel football players being one of those big differences. The author also points out that all VMI cadets who are redshirted must take at least 12 credit hours and must live as cadets in barracks 24/7. Not true with Citadel, where redshirted players have no minimum and live as typical college students downtown. The author also cites the fact that Citadel can draw players into its night programs and retain non-cadets in this manner. Indeed, what I took out of the article (and what the author intended) is that these differences are distinct and are providing an advantage to Citadel. other editors, please read the article, decide for yourself and weigh in here. https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/vmi-and-the-citadel-the-same-but-different/article_b08c393c-18b0-5333-9ac4-82a6b58575ee.html I'm not changing or adding to the article at this point, but would like other's input on this... Eventually, would like to add the non-cadet player info in the intro and add the fact that the "Military Classic of the South" actually originated as a game between Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and Virginia Tech (VPI). Adding this historical background is relevant because it may show where this rivalry has been and where it is headed in the future.Bogrum (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical info regarding VPI and VMI is relevant and should be included. Also, the citadel does have cadets and traditional students playing on its sports teams, unlike VMI which is cadet only.