Talk:Stanford Axe

Stanford University: Athletics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Stanford Athletics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

College football Low‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

University of California Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page is within the scope of the UC Berkeley task force. New members are always welcome!

The Play

User:PKtm, please stop removing legitimate information in this article and inserting redundant words.

First, to be fair and NPOV, we must state which score is official, and in what capacity is it official. This entails stating, "Though the referees ruled that all the laterals were legal and awarded the game to Cal..." (which states which score is official) and "the score on the trophy is changed back to the NCAA score..." (which states the authority making this score official). Why did you delete this?

Second, it is not necessary to state that the "California 25, Stanford 20" score is "disputed" because in a few sentences before in the same paragraph it states "This is part of the continuing dispute..." and "Stanford contends...". We already know that the score is in dispute. This is what the entire paragraph is about. --Jiang 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I find that a disingenuous argument. This is a controversial event, with two sides to the controversy. Taking pains to include in the article all the arguments relating to YOUR position is what gives the article a strong POV. All that my changes attempted to do, SOLELY, was to insert the words "but disputed" into the declaration of "official score." "Official score" alone bolsters your POV. "Official but disputed score" is NPOV, in that it allows for both sides. I'm fine with the article stating that the score is official (that's a fact). You need to get fine with the idea that it's disputed.

By the way, I also find it a personal threat, outside the acceptable tenets of Wikipedia, when you write me that "Please stop reverting the article. You are in danger of getting blocked. " YOU are reverting the article, repeatedly, and even adding items, so that it inserts POV. All I'm doing is removing that POV. -- PKtm 18:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My motives are irrelevant. All that is relevant is the text. I don't see how the text is POV. Please explain. The Stanford position was already explained: "Stanford contends that one of the five laterals on that play was an illegal forward pass." My addition of "Though the referees ruled that all the laterals were legal and awarded the game to Cal..." was to balance that to make it NPOV.

Please address the issues of redundancy. It is not necessary to state that the "California 25, Stanford 20" score is "disputed" because in a few sentences before in the same paragraph it states "This is part of the continuing dispute..." and "Stanford contends...". We already know that the score is in dispute. This is what the entire paragraph is about. I tried to address your objections over the use of "official score" by changing it to "NCAA score". You haven't commented on that. Instead, you've reinserted "official" and beat up the straw man. Yes, I've already acknowledged the dispute. But there's no need to state its disputed twice.--Jiang 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, your motives are relevant in that you appear (fairly transparently) to be pushing a particular POV, and getting it into the text any way you can. Witness your earlier edit of "The Immortal 21" to "The Immor(t)al 21".

It's also fairly transparent to claim, innocently, that you're just putting in facts while actually perpetrating a POV insertion, such as in the sentence beginning "Though the referees ruled..." etc. You know, and any reasonable reader knows, that that sentence exists primarily to bolster the perceived legitimacy of your POV. The "Stanford contends" sentence, on the other hand, outlines just ONE of the tenets behind the dispute; there are others, but that should be left to the article on The Play. It's out of place in this article to put in all the counterarguments, tit-for-tat, to the dispute. Frankly, I find it puzzling that you'd object to an equally factual "official but disputed" characterization of the score. The article is actually made clearer by that phrase. The end score is official but disputed; the rest of the paragraph pertains to what happened in the game that caused the dispute, not to the score itself. The paragraph needs to explain clearly, for uninformed readers, why the recorded score on the trophy changes every time the Axe changes hands. "Official but disputed" is about as clear (and as NPOV) a summary of that as you can get. (Except to those, of course, who mostly want to see a particular POV come out of the article, a la "Immor(t)al 21"). Finally, putting in NCAA doesn't add anything; it just seems to be another attempt to bolster the perceived legitimacy of your POV, and in fact it detracts from conveying the necessary dichotomy here of official vs. disputed version of the score.

Please try to step back from your obvious fandom here and yes, focus on the text: how best to explain this aspect of the Axe, while carefully avoiding coming down on EITHER side of the controversy. And, at the same time, please don't threaten others who have a different perspective.-- PKtm 01:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the content, not my motives. Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Witness my earlier edit of "The Immoral 21" to "The Immortal 21". I don't need to defend myself further because what you say is irrelevant. If it's something personal, leave it on my talk page or email me. It looks like we're both fine with the new wording that avoids the characterization "official but dispute". --Jiang 09:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag to the article, because it's written with a far too casual tone for an encyclopaedia. One example is the use of "Cal" instead of writing "University of California" or "UC" or some such. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if there was a picture of it.

Kevink707 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

Are there any pictures of the Axe out there? klosterdev (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of the Account

How accurate do we know these stories to be? They are excellent, and if true, extraordinary. I'm not saying we need sources, but if someone assoicated from either university can elaborate how these stories are passed on, it would be great... 24.124.122.252 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I changed the picture to highlight the most recent Big Game in 2009 . . . should the axe change hands this Saturday (hopefully it won't), then the picture should be changed to Stanfurd celebration or the Stanfurd Rally committee with the axe. Go Bears! :) --Andyhi18 (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time we had a wikirivalry tradition. Beat Kal! --Esprqii (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this image was taken by a member of the San Francisco Chronicle staff and is a copyvio. Please don't upload images and claim that they are public domain or free use unless you have proof that this is the case. Thanks. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks, too bad...I'll change back to the old pic. --Esprqii (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is why just one image should be used? Finding a different image every year could prove to have a lot of copyrighted images being used. Go Stanford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfolsom122 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section image should really just be whichever one shows the axe itself most clearly. The 2008 photo available on Commons is better for that than the 2010. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your message here before I swapped the images. In any case, the trophy seems equally clear in either image. Until we get a closeup pic, seems like the images could be rotated with no harm to the encyclopedic quality. --Esprqii (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]