Talk:Rick Pitino/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

The page is temporarily protected from persistent vandalism. Fire Star 04:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How could he be a native of NYC, when he lived in Bayville, NY and graduated from St. Dominic High School in Oyster Bay, NY (both on the North Shore of Long Island)??? He may have been born in NYC, but the tern "native" makes it appear that he went to school there, grew up there, etc.. It's a bit misleading. 24.189.35.249 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

More refs needed and the extortion attempt

This article needs more refs, especially in the first few sections. That is the reasoning for the BLP refimprove template. In addition, I have added the extortion attempt section due to the fact that the story has legs. Eyes should be needed on this article for speculation about who made the attempt. IPers could take advantage of the news and name names to create rumors. Willking1979 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Why does it need more refs? Do you think some claims are inaccurate? If so, remove them. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is more inline citations. The first few sections need them. There are good external links, but the big thing is the inline citations. The article appears accurate, though. Willking1979 (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, you didn't answer my main question... why does it need more references? Especially if you already think the article is accurate... --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles, especially articles on living subjects, need to be verified. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

In other words, if the average reader want to verify Pitino's stats, record, etc. it needs inline citations. Willking1979 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
But it's not challenged or likely to be challenged... it's been there for years and no one's challenged it, and you're not challenging it. It's actually the exact opposite of "challenged or likely to be challenged". --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove the tag. Willking1979 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Man, on adding some references, I'm noticing this article is mostly just copied from his official biographies. Not sure if it's a copyright violation since it's all reworded... but it's not good article writing. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the copyvio either. Good job on those refs. Willking1979 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Abortion" stuff

I have removed the content about the supposed leak because it is not published in a reliable source. Per Wikipedia policy (WP:SPS): "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." This is especially true in cases such as this, where the material is potentially damaging. It is inappropriate for us to report this if real sources don't. Oren0 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


And I re-added it because it is in fact part of the controversy. The Courier-Journal is a valid source. The put out a daily newspaper in print and maintain a working webpage for news. One of the sources came directly from the C-J archives on May 14, 2009. The other two sources show the exact same picture as the VALID C-J article. The ONLY difference in that the other two sources show the ENTIRE picture. The C-J originally released the entire picture, but then cropped the picture and re-released it as it now shows up on the C-J website. All 3 sources belong on the page. The abortion issue is a part of the controversy... thus it belong under "Extortion attempts." People have a right to know what the exortion attempt is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkiper (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the policy about reliable sources on Wikipedia and see no problem with posting ANY of the three citations in regards to the extortion case being about a possible abortion. The pictures do exist... and then Courier-Journal did crop them to remove the son and sign. That is a fact. There is nothing to question about credibility. If it were someone spewing an unfounded opinion about whether or not the picture existed would justify removing it from the section. However, it is a fact that the picture exists. As long as the "Extortion..." section is on the Wikipage, the pictures/article belong. 208.47.91.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

As I looked at the reliable source section about self-published sources, it says they are OK to use if there is no question about authenticity. The Courier-Journal is authentic. Also, they do not make claims about the person. The article/pictures do not make claims about Pitino. It is a fact that the C-J did publish these pictures. Jacobkiper (talk)

Is it a fact? Is there a newspaper in print or a link you can provide to the Courier-Journal website showing this picture? Nothing any blog says can be used on this page for a controversial issue, period. Oren0 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One of my sources that I cited is from the actual Courier-Journal webpage. I went to their webpage and searched through the archives and got it directly from there. The C-J article originally showed the entire picture, but shortly thereafter cropped the picture and released the edited version. The other citation I provided shows the ENTIRE/Original picture. Look at that picture... there is no question that it is the same picture, just in it's entirety. The non-Courier-Journal link makes absolutely no statements other than showing the pictures. It makes no reference that Pitino is involved in an abortion scandal... just that the pictures were taken.Jacobkiper (talk)

I removed the article/citation that made accusations that Pitino was involved with an abortion scandal. The non-Courier-Journal article does NOT make that accusation. It simply shows the original picture from the original Courier-Journal website article. There is no way that any website could have gotten the picture except from the original C-J picture posting. This is information is a part of the extoriton attempt/case, thus is deserves to be up there. Jacobkiper (talk) 6/12/09 @ 3:16PM CST.

I've removed much of this stuff in line with WP:UNDUE. As it stood, the Extortion section was bigger than the Kentucky section, which obviously isn't consistent with its coverage in sources. --hippo43 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The information is valid. Right now, this is the biggest news going on with Pitino. Basketball is not even his biggest news at the moment. People have the right to know this information. It stays. Jacobkiper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Hippo43... please don't let your fandom get in the way of validated facts.Jacobkiper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

JK, WP:AGF. I'm not a fan, please don't patronise those who disagree with you. If you can include a short summary of an appropriate length, I would have no problem with it. Although relevant right now, it is an insignificant incident in the context of his whole career. As it stands, the level of detail is not appropriate per WP:UNDUE, as well as being a case of recentism. I agree that people have the right to know, therefore a short summary with links to sources would be appropriate. As far as I can see, there is no consensus here for your view. --hippo43 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I ONLY wrote the section about the Courier-Journal releasing the original picture and then re-releasing the cropped picture. I have no problem with the middle paragraph going away since I didn't write it. I think my paragraph is actually quite concise.Jacobkiper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

If you are not a fan of Pitino, then you should have no problem with the public knowing all of the information around the case. Jacobkiper (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone knowing this stuff, but Wikipedia is not a news service - I have no problem with a very short, accurate summary with links to the sources themselves - one paragraph of 2-3 sentences max. If this was itself a notable event, it would have its own article. Please address the issue of policy, ie Undue Weight. I agree your paragraph is fairly concise, but it still gives undue weight to one incident in a long career. --hippo43 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is a section regarding the extortion, this information needs to stay. The pictures deserve to be seen. I really don't think there is any way to make my paragraph any shorter. It needs to stay as it is.208.47.91.22 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, exactly? Simply repeating something doesn't really help. Can you address the issue of undue weight? --hippo43 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is larger than undue weight. This entire abortion thing fails both WP:OR and WP:BLP. There are no sources that indicate that the Courier originally printed this whole picture and blogs cannot be cited to prove this fact. How are we to know that this picture wasn't photoshopped for example? We can't mention it at all without reliable corroboration. As for the section length, I'm for shortening it but the fact that Sypher was arrested and indicted is important and should not have been removed. Oren0 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit proposal: re-add details of Sypher's arrest

This is crucial to the story and unrelated to the dispute here. Can we gain consensus to re-add the following sentence to the end of the "extortion" section:

On April 24, 2009, Sypher was arraigned and charged in US District Court with extortion and lying to federal agents.[1][2]

Any objections? Oren0 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be included, and suggest this as a way of keeping the section short and factual -
On April 18, 2009, Pitino announced that he was a target of an extortion attempt.[3] On April 24, 2009, Karen Sypher, the wife of Louisville equipment manager Tim Sypher, was arraigned and charged in US District Court with extortion and lying to federal agents.[4][5]
--hippo43 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. Oren0 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Woman charged with trying to extort Pitino". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  2. ^ FBI Affidavit regarding Sypher
  3. ^ Crawford, Eric (2009-04-18). "Pitino says he is target of extortion attempt". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved 2009-04-19.
  4. ^ "Woman charged with trying to extort Pitino". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  5. ^ FBI Affidavit regarding Sypher

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}}

Please change the "extortion attempt" page to read as per Hippo43's proposal above. This change is unrelated to the edit war that caused the page to be protected and has gone unchallenged for 24 hours. I'd to it myself, but I could be considered "involved" in the dispute that caused the page to be protected. Oren0 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Coaching record

The college numbers in the "head coaching record" section of this article add up to a 552-196 record. However, the biography section says he has a 521-191 record (which appears to be a result of omitting the 2008-2009 season record of 31-5) and assigns him a winning percentage of .85 (which is clearly wrong: 521-191 would be a .732 average and 552-196 would be .738). It also says he is seventh among active coaches in winning percentage.

The official University of Louisville Athletics website [1] shows his record entering the 2009-10 season as 552-197, and says his .737 winning percentage is tenth among active coaches.

I don't know where the missing loss belongs, nor do I have a more authoritative source for his ranking among active coaches, so I won't presume to correct the article myself; but something is clearly wrong.

Rickmbari (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

edited for clarity Rickmbari (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

UMASS HOF

Note added by 128.89.77.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[2]

He was an inductee into the UMass Hall of Fame. *** I question the accuracy of the previous sentence. Pitino is NOT on the official UMass Athletic Dept list.

Moved here by--Cube lurker (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I created an account and am getting familiar with the protocol. So how can you cite something that isn't true? I guess I could point you to Pitino's current biography on the University of Louisville Athletic site [3] , he's not claiming to be a member of our Hall of Fame there. User: gibsonflattop —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Certainly true that if it's not true it can't be cited. I added that tag to see if someone else did have a source that explained why it was in there. No one else has commented here so i'm going to remove it as an unsourced statement. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Knicks and Celtics

Any reason why that is missing its own sub-sections? It has PR National Team and just Professional coaching? Talk about accentuating the positive --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Coaching Record

Why the hell isn't there a box for his year-by-year coaching record? Even Kurt Kanaskie has such a thing!! Poor article without that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.161.12 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What a great game! (NCAA 2013 national championship)

Coach Pitino is in the Hall of Fame just before winning this evening, "You know, all through my life I have had the greatest players; players put coaches in the Hall of Fame." From our Article, "Pitino married his wife, the former Joanne Minardi, in 1976." This past week, they celebrated their 37th wedding anniversary, on the same day he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. With this win, he joins John Wooden as the winningest coach in the history of the NCAA championship, says the CBS announcer. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

At the trophy presentation, interviewed before the 70,000+ crowd on CBS: “You know, we won tonight because I have the toughest guys I have ever coached.”

“These guys [players] if they say, ‘hello’, they get a tattoo. They said, ‘If you win the national championship, you gettin' a tattoo—I said, “Hell, YES! I’m gittin a tattoo!” He grins beyond belief, the crowd laughs with him and cheers. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Extortion attempt against Pitino

There is a edit war over the title we need to get a consensus to have it changed.

I agree we need a consensus. For the record the suggested edit was "Admitted affair, alleged abortion, and attempted extortion." I'll address each of those items as I have time.LexBlog (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)LexBlog

Extortion attempt against Pitino, has been the title for years and I think it should stay that way unless there is a consensus to have it changed. Pitino was the victim of a crime. Karen Cunagin Sypher was convicted of extortion and lying to federal agents. Having sex one time sex is not a affair and the abortion is not alleged when both seemed to admit there was an abortion. Theworm777 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Changing the title can add clarity for the reader. Per my addition to talk:TheWorm777 page after my initial edit of the title: Though the title of that section stood for months doesn't mean it accurately depicts the situation. I didn't read the article until last night and immediately wondered why the admission was left out of the title. The paragraph isn't just about the extortion. Why don't you want to include the admitted affair and the alleged abortion as part of the title? Including those things makes it easier for someone to skim the article and get the facts.LexBlog (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)LexBlog

To say Admitted adultery in the title breaks rules at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. He never said he committed adultery. There is no ref for that. Is it adultery if his wife allows him to have sex with other women? I dont think so. Theworm777 (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is actually an affair, even if it were just one time. That is the actual definition of an affair. The title "Extortion Atempt against Pitino", poorly portrays the information in the paragraph, and sounds like it were made by a Pitino fan, as it makes it sound like he was the victim. Clearly it looks like he was, but he also had an affair, and paid for an abortion. The new title "Affair, Abortion, and Extortion attempt against Pitino" is much more fitting, dontchya think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • No its not a affair its a One-night stand Karen Cunagin Sypher was convicted of extortion and lying to federal agents and the section is about the crime Karen Cunagin Sypher committed not about his one-night stand or about a abortion that is what she extorted him for. The abortion might not of ever happend, she might have lied to get cash from Pitino. So that stuff should be removed unless there is a consensus to have it changed and there is not a consensus yet. Theworm777 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Err..You don't want to put what he was extorted for under the extorted section? Should there be a separate Affair and abortion section then? Not that anything in your linked affair says a one-night stand doesn't qualify as an affair, but would your response would be the same even if "Affair" was replaced with "One-night stand" in the title? If so, can we do just that? That is sticking to the (proven/acknowledged) facts. Quite frankly the whole paragraph is a little misleading with a title mentioning only that he was the victim of an extortion attempt. If there is uncertainty as to whether an abortion happened, why not note that in the article? I'm not being sarcastic about this, and truthfully I don't know very much about that part of the situation. If there is doubt, then it is misleading to be presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.167.23 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just dont think the title of the section should be changed from "Extortion attempt against Pitino" which it has been for 3 plus years. It is subject of the section not the one-night stand or the abortion. and shouldn't be in the title of the section in a Biographies of living persons. The crimes Karen Cunagin Sypher committed and was convicted of is the subject of the section and should be the title of the section. Theworm777 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because something has been unchanged for years doesn't mean it shouldn't change. It may have been unnoticed, ignored, or deemed unworthy of the time to change it. I'll review the BLP info and post a response to that later.LexBlog (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)LexBlog

It appears that

John Calipari in header

Is the presence of a reference to John Calipari's tenuous claim to three Final Fours with 3 different schools necessary -- especially in the header? As it stands, Pitino is the only coach credited with three Final Fours with three different schools. While the information is accurate regarding Calipari, it seems misplaced within the article, and isn't in any way necessary to an article about Rick Pitino. L.cash.m (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Strippers?

I came here looking for coverage of stripper scandal, [[4], [5], [6],and [7]. Should it be mentioned at all in the article? Should it instead be left out to avoid embarrassment, since Coach Pitino is such a great and honorable guy? Edison (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: some refs may appear at the bottom of the page as a result of previous threads with improperly formatted references, which were not posted by me.Edison (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not in there probably because previous editors trying to add the material were doing it in an unencyclopedic manner. I'm sure it deserves a mention, although watch WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP, and be careful to make it about Pitino's response unless and until anything shows he is connected to it. As for the refs at the bottom, I have corrected that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rick Pitino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Biography

It won't let me fix it, but they haven't actually officially fired Pitino yet. As of right now he is on administrative leave. I'm sure it will lead to that though. Meganh1015 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Correct, some outlets had it wrong or confused. Hopefully all references are related to "administrative leave" now. Fuzheado | Talk 17:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Scandal

Came here for information on the guy they were talking about him and some sort of scandal and him getting fired. I get to the article I'm like okay nothing in the index. Had to really dig to find anything on this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.201.31 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • ? It's right in the table of contents. "Scandal and ouster" --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Pitino/Archive_1&oldid=1224796472"