Talk:Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball

Uniforms

 * I think the Old Gold jerseys (with black numbers) should be added to the information box with the white and black jerseys. Often used as a home jersey, the Old Gold jerseys are often used on the road, as well. --Dilk85

Mythical National Championship
I've been watching Tool2Die4 go back and forth with several anons about the term Mythical National Championship, hoping that a consensus could be reached. Since that hasn't happened I thought I'd take a shot.

Tool is right that by being awarded a championship without a tournament it technically fits the definition of a Mythical Championship. But what I think he's missing is that it's a derogatory term used by critics who feel it's not a "real" championship since there was no tournament process. If you replaced "Mythical" with "Fictional", which still fits the context of the term, I hope you'd agree that it would be inappropriate and POV to say Purdue won a Fictional National Championship in 1932. I propose we remove the link and simply state the facts: Purdue was selected as national champions by the Helms Athletic Foundation in 1932, which is how it's stated on Kansas's page. This seems the most neutral to me, avoiding any glamorous claim to fame as well as any negative jeers. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So long as 'national champions' wikilinks to Mythical National Championship (as it does now), I have no problem with that. I've accepted there are too many people following this page who can't put bias aside, so that's the concession I will make. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So you would not accept removing the wikilink altogether (only wikilinking to Helms Foundation)? Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absoluetly not. It isn't a POV issue, it's a fact issue. Helms Foundation is clearly called out as a MNC, in the MNC article. Wikilinking to it isn't negative; it's fact. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's called out in the MNC article because it's an example of a derisive use. In fact, there seems to be considerable discussion on the MNC talk page about the bias and sourcing of the term in general. Thinking of it in another way, is there a source that states Purdue won a "Mythical National Championship" in 1932? I think the most objective thing to say is they were selected as national champions by the Helms Atheletic Foundation. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the College Basketball section of MNC lists the term's use as 'derisive', and as such, adds nothing to the POV debate. Essentially, at that point, you are adding your opinion that the term is derisive. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we at least agree that it's controversial? Show me one non-blog source that states Purdue won a "Mythical National Championship" in 1932, or even a "National Championship" without mention of the Helms Foundation and I'll shut up. (For the record, I don't like how the article currently reads that they won the National Championship, which glosses over the fact that the selection is a subjective process.) Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do a quick Google search for 'purdue mythical national championship 1932' and you will be surprised. And I wasn't poking fun at your spelling. I added the apostrophe to emphasize the term, not the spelling. Furthermore, in my opinion, most of the controversy with regards to the term MNC comes from college football and the BCS, because of the situation that has created. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that many of those search results are blogs (or user responses to articles), and many are not referring to the 1932 Boilermakers or even basketball - so it's far from overwhelming evidence. However, I will concede there are some bona fide sources here, the most significant being Purdue's own history page. I will be a man of my word and "shut up". :-) Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see this being discussed civilly on the talk page instead of just reverting. Good work. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PurdueBoilermakers.png
The image Image:PurdueBoilermakers.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)