Talk:Adrian Griffin

Moving controversy below or within personal life section?
Should the controversy section be at the top of the body of this article before anything else? Or should it be moved below or within the personal life section, as it is in other similar pages? Kinnayrberes (talk) Kinnayrberes (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Personal life section makes more sense to me. As is on the page it seems unusual, there are far more notable controversies that do not lead off sports peoples' wiki pages, From OJ Simpson to Oscar Pistorius. 174.97.128.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kinnayrberes @174.97.128.249
 * ok, switching it now La rodman (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree. OJ Simpson's controversy is mentioned in the first and third paragraphs of his page for example, it's just not titled as such.
 * "Orenthal James Simpson (born July 9, 1947) is an American former football running back, actor, and broadcaster. He played in the National Football League (NFL) for 11 seasons, primarily with the Buffalo Bills, and is regarded as one of the greatest running backs of all time. Once a popular figure with the American public, Simpson's professional success was overshadowed by his trial and controversial acquittal for the murders of his former wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman." 2604:3D08:177E:1CE0:0:0:0:321 (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OJ Simpson is known just as much for the controversy as he is for his sporting achievements, this doesn't appear to be the case here. Regardless, even in OJ Simpson's article the section discussing his legal issues is found below his personal life and professional achievements. I am moving it back down until until a consensus is reached otherwise.  Grey joy talk 07:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In response to La Rodman's latest revert: this section is about how the controversy section should not lead off the article. That's been established that it should not. However, it seems relevant to me to include a sentence or two at the end of the heading about the progress of Griffin's career and a notable event which forestalled his advancement. The expansion on this point is below.

I think it is quite notable that Griffin was initially not hired as a head coach when he otherwise might have been. The explanation as to why seems logical to include. This is not meant to suggest anything negative about him or suggest guilt. I've adjusted phrasing to ensure the statement comes across as neutral.

Re, blog posts: the 5 blog posts cited were not cited for their content, simply to show that Griffin is partially known for these abuse allegations. Using blogs in this manner is an acceptable use of them as far as I am aware.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023
Change "who is an assistant coach for the Toronto Raptors of the National Basketball Association (NBA)" to "who is the head coach for the Milwaukee Bucks of the National Basketball Association (NBA)." SamHenry1 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wait for official announcement from the team or the league. RudolfRed (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Raptors Lack of Investigation into Domestic Abuse Allegations against Adrian Griffin
I would like to follow up on this topic. A source specifically stating "no investigation was conducted" has been cited by another user so this point may be moot. However, even though it was possible in this case generally finding a source saying "no investigation was conducted" may be difficult. In this case the initial source referenced simply summarized all actions that were taken by the Toronto Raptors. It is unlikely a news source, which is generally where sports information comes from, will state "no investigation was conducted". Instead, all actions taken will be summarized.

For example, if I claim "no investigation has been conducted into whether or not Michael Jordan has engaged in tampering while owner of the Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets", will anyone dispute this? And yet, can anyone find me a source stating that no investigation has been conducted? Nevertheless, I don't think anyone would dispute the claim that Michael Jordan has not been investigated for tampering in his role as owner of an NBA team. The best you could do to support that claim would be to summarize all statements made about Michael Jordan's role as owner. 24.244.23.187 (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say the exisiting citations are WP:BLOGgy and not reliable. —Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Debatable, at least one if not both sources could be deemed Newsblogs as well. Regardless, I have added a source that is definitely considered a Newsblog. 2604:3D08:177E:1CE0:0:0:0:AE2A (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the Fan Nation link on SI.com, that's equally as bloggy and amateurish. It's never been on par with the traditional, core SI staff, which itself is devolving into freelancers and bloggers. —Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In contrary, this Toronto Star article on the situation suggests an investigation did take place: "Team officials, who spent Thursday investigating the social media allegations..." CalDoesIt (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Later sources don't seem to question the investigation (or lack thereof). Without more reliable sources, it seems WP:UNDUE, and more of an issue for the team than Griffin. Without any criminal or civil charges against him, seem that all that needs to be said is that his ex-wife accused him, he faced no action, and his lawsuit against her was settled.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems to be that the issue here is centered around one or two people thinking that the absence of mentioning the Raptors doing an “investigation” or not (of allegations that did not receive legal action) somehow alleviates Griffin of the allegations. Or that one or two people really want to emphasize the Toronto Raptors’ role in his actions being or not being investigated La rodman (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if one is to look at La Rodman's edit history throughout this page it is centred around modifying or outright removing information about Adrian Griffin's legal history. Why is this? Seems like a strange focus to have, with basically no other contributions. 24.69.247.99 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond misleading to reference my removal of the phrasing relating to the Raptors conducting an investigation or not and claim that’s anything to do with “legal history”. Be better. La rodman (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, to do with the "controversy" section discussing Adrian Griffin's domestic abuse allegations. That is the only part of this page you've made contributions to with maybe one exception, no? I'm open to being disproven but that's what I've observed 24.69.247.99 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Stick with discussing the merits of the content. People are free to volunteer in whatever areas they choose. —Bagumba (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, my bad. And La Rodman sorry. Upon looking at your edit history it does seem like you're simply trying to make the page better. But I do disagree with you, please see the above. 24.69.247.99 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit history of other pages that is. 24.69.247.99 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the Toronto Star article supports what is currently stated in the paragraph. Team officials spent the day "investigating", which as the article goes on to state consisted of asking Adrian Griffin if he committed said abuse, ie no real investigation was conducted.
 * I think the weight is appropriate since it seems relevant to me to mention whether or not an investigation took place. If an investigation takes place and someone is cleared allegations are viewed in a far different light than if they were not investigated. Allegations not being investigated doesn't mean one is automatically guilty of them: it could simply mean the team did not have enough evidence to see the allegations as having merit. This would suggest innocence, rather than guilt. So I think it could be taken either way. 24.69.247.99 (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)