Talk:University of South Carolina steroid scandal

message: A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll get to work on that article alongside the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982. Or we can just stop all this silliness right now, delete this obvious attack piece and move forward. Someone let me know which direction we are going to move this thing...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clemson steroid scandal

message: Does anyone agree that a better title for this article might be The Nightmare of Steroids? The so-titled Sports Illustrated article seems to be the central topic, and the current title might could be confused with other such news (if such occurs). Just a thought. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Edgarde I think you should hold on. There is something strange going on here. Please come to my talk page and have a look at the issue of 65.188.38.31 Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible re-title

message: I remembered studying this scandal for a paper, it was one of the first major steroid scandals in the nation, I'm willing to expand later, it does need to be rewritten in a way that isn't violating WP:BLP though. Thanks Secret account 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandal 

message: User:CobraGeek with there is a problem for all parties conserned to understand the inner workings of WP:BLP, why not bring the BLP to WP:ANI instead of arguing your point here in the dark. Let's shed some light on this issue to avoid the repetition of what has transpired the other day. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There does not seem to be any BLP problem now- just a well referenced article on a notable scandal. For future reference, however, the BLP noticeboard would be the best bet, or just the biography section of the requests for comment if the problem is more of a simple content dispute. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation to CobraGeek [[WP:BLP]] 

message: The reference for the Kansas City Star was worded in a rather 'un-encyclopedic' fashion.  To quote the author, the scandal was:
the mother of all steroids exposes, the piece that should have alarmed America and told us where all of this steroid mess was headed long ago. It ran in late October 1988. It caused quite a stir in my college locker room, and I ve never forgotten the story. I m not sure anyone else in America read it. It was hidden in an obscure sports magazine called Sports Illustrated; maybe you ve heard of it. The piece might have been 8,000 words, and it foreshadowed absolutely everything that is going on today. 
--CobraGeek (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the slightly dubious nature of the source wording, I have added 'according to...' in the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: <i>Kansas City Star</i> reference

message: To provide context, the first words of the article should be "The University of South Carolina steroid scandal was..." I have tried adding this in, but when I did it, the new wording was misleading. As such, I agree with its removal, but request that the opening line is changed as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: <sarcasm>Since the 9000 word Sports Illustrated article by a 4 year defensive letterman on the USC football team, 4 indicted coaches, 1 indicted steroid provider, 4 plea bargains, Congressional hearings, an act of Congress, and a partridge in a pear tree were apparently not "substantiation" enough, I found and added a reference to the February 20, 1990 NY Times article "Steroid Use Reported", detailing, in the University of South Carolina's own words, "widespread experimentation."  They are confirming in 1990 what the rest of the world had already known for 18 months.  And no (I know the revert is imminent) we shouldn't change the wording to "experimentation" because that is not what the Sports Illustrated article said.  If a request is made for a rusty needle with [insert former USC player name here]'s DNA on it, that will be a little harder, but we may be able to oblige (that would be WP:SARCASM - sometimes it really does help :)).</sarcasm> --CobraGeek (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice it is not about rubbing it in! Igor Berger (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all about rubbing it in for this jerk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.149.230 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantiation 

message: This edit deletes a sourced statement with the following edit summary:POV. This statement does nothing but imply facts not in evidence. The fact that no indictment was brought against Morrison is evidence enough that he was not involved.In fact, prosecution is seldom persued against deceased persons, so the absence of an indictment against Morrison does not demonstrate lack of involvement. (Famous example: in the case of Kenneth Lay, a conviction of guilt was actually abated only because the defendant died before sentencing.) If anything, the fact that Joe Morrison was a head coach during this period raises the question of the level of his involvement in the distribution of steroids to his players, which he would have to be dodderingly incompetent to not know about. A New York Times writer (and presumably one of their editors) seemed to think it worth mentioning that the prosecutor in this case was refused to comment on coach Morrison's involvement in steroid usage. senile
The deleted (and sourced) statement should be restored. The editor who deleted this has provided no reason on this Discussion page, despite being invited. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorsed. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems like it would be worth adding too. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be acceptable. ViperNerd (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Thör hammer 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a start, but ViperNerd & CobraGeek are the opinions that matter most here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edgarde, I'm not sure what my involvement is in this one (other than being the article creator).  I reviewed the history and, actually it looks like you and ViperNerd were edit warring each other(?) over several individual words and the statement about Morrison's involvement.  Then one of the puppets comes in and joins the fun.  Thör submitted the RPP, so I think among the three of you, if you agree that is okay with me.  My question here is, why does VN want a statement confirming Joe Morrison's knowledge of steroid use by member(s) of the team (all the prosecutor needs is one) in the article, because I got the impression from the Chaikin article in SI that the significance (from a legal point of view) was that this was the smoking gun that would take down Morrison (if he hadn't died about five months later).  That statement essentially removed any claims of denego nocens that Morrison could have used in court(?).  Less discriminating readers will not pick up on that, but that is the significance.  If the article is expanded later, and the "no comment" statement gets added back in, you have essentially added both knowledge and denial by Morrison, which either equates to a coverup (in the press) or pleading the fifth (in court).  Sounds good to me. CobraGeek (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: denego nocens? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Culpable deniability - a claim of no knowledge. CobraGeek (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, it took a little digging, but I managed to locate Jason Whitlock's column, "Steroid users victims of system" and he makes NO SUCH CLAIM as the one attributed to him in the intro to this article. I will be removing that unverifiable statement as soon as protection is lifted on this article. ViperNerd (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement of coach [[Joe Morrison]] 

message: Hmm.
*Restore the deleted edit,
*add the Chaikin quote defending Morrison,
*ignore my "dodderingly incompetent" comment,
*lift the article protection,
*edit friendly.
Are we in agreement? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Thör hammer 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a start, but ViperNerd & CobraGeek are the opinions that matter most here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edgarde, I'm not sure what my involvement is in this one (other than being the article creator).  I reviewed the history and, actually it looks like you and ViperNerd were edit warring each other(?) over several individual words and the statement about Morrison's involvement.  Then one of the puppets comes in and joins the fun.  Thör submitted the RPP, so I think among the three of you, if you agree that is okay with me.  My question here is, why does VN want a statement confirming Joe Morrison's knowledge of steroid use by member(s) of the team (all the prosecutor needs is one) in the article, because I got the impression from the Chaikin article in SI that the significance (from a legal point of view) was that this was the smoking gun that would take down Morrison (if he hadn't died about five months later).  That statement essentially removed any claims of denego nocens that Morrison could have used in court(?).  Less discriminating readers will not pick up on that, but that is the significance.  If the article is expanded later, and the "no comment" statement gets added back in, you have essentially added both knowledge and denial by Morrison, which either equates to a coverup (in the press) or pleading the fifth (in court).  Sounds good to me. CobraGeek (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: denego nocens? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Culpable deniability - a claim of no knowledge. CobraGeek (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, it took a little digging, but I managed to locate Jason Whitlock's column, "Steroid users victims of system" and he makes NO SUCH CLAIM as the one attributed to him in the intro to this article. I will be removing that unverifiable statement as soon as protection is lifted on this article. ViperNerd (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Take it to talk and figure it out. No more edit warring."

message: Regarding the statement about this scandal being one of college football's biggest: I don't really think the referenced article is purely Op-ed, it is a moot point because WP:RS clearly states that the use of opinion is fine under the section titled "Statements of opinion".  Here is the text directly out of the referenced article that you provided:
===Statements of opinion===
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. 
Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.
Clearly, USA Today is a mainstream newspaper, right?  I have added the mentioned "inline qualifier" for the author to University of South Carolina steroid scandal, which was easy and reasonable enough, right?  Hope that helps and satisfies your inquiry.  Cheers!  --PeeCocks (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of opinion pieces per WP:RSOpinion 

message: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. 
Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.
Clearly, USA Today is a mainstream newspaper, right?  I have added the mentioned "inline qualifier" for the author to University of South Carolina steroid scandal, which was easy and reasonable enough, right?  Hope that helps and satisfies your inquiry.  Cheers!  --PeeCocks (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements of opinion

message: Tom Weir is not solely a "blogger".  He is a reporter who has been employed by USA Today since the early-1980's (before "blogging" existed).  He has written over 5000 factual news articles for USA Today since it went online in the mid-1990s.  Like many reporters, he also writes a blog.  The "Game On" blog is written directly for USA Today.  It is inaccurate to label him solely as a blogger.  Several other facts to consider that are easily available on the web:
* Tom Weir's article listing for USA Today is here: .  Note that there are over 5000 and these are not "blogs".
* The "Game On" article referenced in the citation is written directly for USA Today.  That information can be found here: .
* Wikipedia clearly encourages the use of information written in articles that are in the form of blogs at major newspapers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeeCocks (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Weir