Talk:Jim Leavitt

Only head coach
What about George Kiefer? -- &oelig; &trade; 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is still an issue, but Leavitt is in-fact the only football coach in USF history. Kiefer on the other hand is a soccer coach.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Soccer.. Football.. what's the difference ;P -- &oelig; &trade; 08:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Assault Allegation
I added a paragraph describing his assault allegation. 75.111.81.101 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The allegations turned out to be false. As such, per WP:BLP, it doesn't belong in the article. Little Mookie (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The allegations turned out to be false? Can you provide some evidence of this?  My article is current and says nothing about a false allegation.  I request that the content be re-added until this issue is resolved.  Fsu23phd (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, the source you added isn't reliable since it's a blog, and doesn't hold up. Especially for a BLP article. Second, the player came out and said the reports were untrue.  Sounds like your article is anything but "current". Little Mookie (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be crass. The allegations were public and reported in several other sources, which I will include in the update. e.g. . I didn't see his most recent statement that he was only grabbed by the shoulderpads. I will add that too. I think it is relevant to his article.  Fsu23phd (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not relevant. Since it's a false allegation, it's essentially a rumor.  Once again, per BLP, we don't add rumors.  The whole issue stays out, and will be deleted every time you add it, so just move on. Little Mookie (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may make a suggestion, since this was a very notable event, why don't we include all the available information? Leavitt is notable nationally because of the allegations, and if those have been disproven, that should be included. Simply erasing the event from the page doesn't tell the entire story to people who are searching for him, especially with the Leach incident making the news. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, Wikistalking is sad and pathetic. Second, it's a bit embarrassing that someone who wants to be an admin someday doesn't comprehend BLP. Little Mookie (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully it is not a rumor as per the BLP policy. It is a fact that a player alleged that he was assaulted, and it is a fact that the player then stated that the assault did not happen. This is an interesting and important chapter in his story, that he was accused and latter vindicated. Fsu23phd (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Both of you are edit warring at this point, albeit in good faith. Might I suggestion we leave the information out of the article pending this discussion on the talk page? That'll give us time to discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR doesn't apply to BLP-related issues. Not really surprised that you didn't know that.  While I do need to go to bed soon, I can and will delete the information every time it's added.  That's what's great about BLP. Little Mookie (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may ask, what if your issue with my proposal above to include the allegations and the rebuttal, to give the full story of the extremely notable incident. By my way of thinking, BLP would be better served by properly noting the corrections, rather than by just blanking the section. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should discuss it. Little Mookie clearly has a vested interest in keeping the information out of the article, making his/her opinion biased. The other observers thus far have acknowledged that the allegation and the retracted allegation are noteworthy and should be included. I suggest that Little Mookie be prohibited from removing the section.  Fsu23phd (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My "vested interest" is in upholding BLP articles. I could give a rat's ass who the BLP is, but when I see information in an article which violates BLP, it gets removed. Little Mookie (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't add the info to an article, simply to discount it. Before you go any further, you do realize discussions like this, where you make abundantly clear you lack understanding of a basic principle of Wikipedia, will haunt you, come RfA time?  You may wanna re-read BLP before you go any further.  The notion of adding potentially damaging information to a BLP article, information which was already proven untrue, is quite ludicrous.  Wow. Little Mookie (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Nobody's getting banned from editing this article, we should be able to discuss this rationally to get the best article possible. Mookie, I'll ask again, what would be the problem with including the entire story, allegations and rebuttals, to fully indicate what happened? Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll read BLP for you. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" The original report of the allegation cites "anonymous sources" who were afraid to lose their scholarship. Hell look at the title of the article itself.  I wonder if ncaafootball.fanhouse.com passes the test for being a reliable source?
 * I appreciate that I've gotten under your skin enough for you to wikistalk me over to this article, but know when to quit. Seriously. Little Mookie (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't repeat a rumor. It is a fact that the player made an then recanted an accusation. No one is disputing that the player made and recanted the accusation. This was a scandal that he had to endure and is relevant to his BLP. My updated post, if you won't delete it, will say that the player made and recanted the accusation.  With respect, I am not simply adding information then refuting it. I am adding information about two events that are well sourced and not in dispute. The subject has changed from the incident itself to the allegation, so the reliability of unnamed sources are no longer an issue.   How about this: leave my section in, and you add to it explaining how the allegation was refuted? Fsu23phd (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but this story wasn't gossip. It's a highly notable story that made national news, finding out later on it's wasn't true doesn't decrease the notability of the original story. With searches for Leavitt up because of the situation with Mike Leatch, I'd think it would be important to accurately note what did and didn't happen.


 * I'm working on an updated version of the allegations, with the source you quoted above included. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. He shortened it and stated the the player recanted. I would offer a friendly amendment: include the allegation of the coach's statement to the player before he recanted. But, if you choose not to, I am satisfied with this version. Fsu23phd (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd hold off on that for now. If this incident was only alleged, we don't really need to report specifics of the allegation. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Dayewalkers edit, it is not too excessive or dramatic. Off2riorob (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise against adding this potentially libelous information. Mr. Leavitt will be keeping tabs on who reports this false information, and actions will be taken against those parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again with respect, I used the words alleged everytime. Nothing was false, thus nothing was libelous. Such threats are childish. On a separate subject, Impersonating an attorney is illegal in most states, and making treating statements on the Coach's behalf ("Mr. Leavitt will be keeping tabs on who reports this false information, and actions will be taken against those parties.") is also illegal. Can you provide us a link to an image of the retainer indicating that you are representing him? Fsu23phd (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "JL's Attorney" has been blocked for an obvious violation of no legal threats. I seriously doubt they were an actual attorney. If they were, there are instructions on their home page on how to contact wikipedia's legal counsel. Dayewalker (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also found, along with User:Little Mookie, to be a sock of User:Crotchety Old Man, whose sense of humor I'm guessing has not improved recently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good news. Now, would anyone object if I were to add a non-libelous synopsis of the allegation and it's withdraw by the player? Fsu23phd (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes me, it is a worthless accusation denied by all and not worth adding. Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This evening I removed the two sentences "The player in question was well known as a whiner and locker room cancer. Any football player that could not take his coach getting in his face to improve his performance has no place on the team and will be a failure in life. " found just prior to the coaching replacement. This page appears to need a higher level of vigilance than has been provided.

Horrible wording left on page due to protection
I am assuming that this information is the cause of the protection, however the current wording is terrible and needs some reworking. I suggest changing the current, I think the sources are very clear on the fact he was terminated, and he was accused of hitting a player. None of this violates BLP. And since this will be a high traffic page, we should at least write the sentence in proper English. Angryapathy (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "On January 8, 2010, it was reported that according to an on-line report that resulted from accusations that Leavitt had struck a player, the school has terminated his contract and he will not coach the Bulls next season," with
 * "On January 8, 2010, the University of South Florida terminated Leavitt's contract and he will not coach the Bulls for the 2010 season. The termination resulted from accusations that Leavitt had struck a player."
 * I was responsible for partly writing the sentence, a slight rewording perhaps is needed, but I feel that presently the basis of the comment is conservative and fine, the fact that is desired to add is that he has had his contract terminated and is therefore guilty of the assault, earlier the citations were mixed as regards this issue, perhaps he has had his contract terminated but what for, perhaps he is leaving by mutual agreement, it is weak and we should be careful not to infer things as regards this until it is clear, for now reporting conservatively is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, this is a direct quote from ESPN: "South Florida fired football coach Jim Leavitt after a school investigation concluded he grabbed one of his players by the throat, slapped him in the face and then lied about it.". I think that leaves nothing to be inferred. Angryapathy (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, we gain nothing by rushing to include dramatic content, we should comment conservatively, especially as this is breaking news. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The link you gave me is to a video and when the video starts the first comment is... that they let him go and it continues the cause is not going to be the incident but that he had directed people to change their stories, so it is not so much the incident but the cover up Have a listen.Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He was fired, if you want to butter up the term, whatever. They cancelled a multi-million dollar contract with him and he no longer works for the school. Hence, fired, and the term is used in a source. And you are right, they seem to be pointing the cause of the firing to the cover-up. How about we say, "On January 8th, 2009, the University of South Florida terminated its contract with Jim Leavitt. The university concluded that Leavitt directed others in the program to change their stories regarding Leavitt allegedly assaulting one of his players in November. Leavitt has repeatedly denied the charges." Angryapathy (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is no better, if as you say (which I find difficult to believe, that he had a multi million contract.. these things are not done lightly, to terminate somebody's multi million contract you need a strong case, you could unlikely do this for a coach slapping a softmore, to explicitely terminate a million dollar contract you would need a very good reason. Lets not get excited, an encyclopedic comment is in order here and if the college or the subject clarify the exact details we can go with them. You want to add that he assaulted the softmore and for this exact reason he has been fired and found guilty of assault and has had his multi million dollar contract terminated, I want to be a bit conservative in what we report about the coach as he is a living person and what is the value in asserting things that at present are unclear. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was noncontroversial ... but here's my suggestion for expanded wording on Leavitt's firing ...

On January 8, Leavitt was fired for assaulting running back Joel Miller during halftime of USF's game against Louisville on November 21. On December 14, FanHouse reported that Leavitt grabbed Miller by the throat and slapped him across the face two times in the locker room. USF launched an investigation, and found that Leavitt had not only assaulted Miller, but had also lied about his conduct and attempted to interfere with the investigation. The Tampa Tribune reported that school president Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard felt they had no choice but to fire Leavitt after he refused to admit he'd done anything wrong, though a school spokesman said that even that wouldn't have been enough to save his job.

Thought this was noncontroversial, like I said earlier ... but in the interest of appearances ... Blueboy96 02:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you also present the supporting citations. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Inserted above ... also, Carl Franks has been named interim coach, per Blueboy96 02:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to me it seems a bit excessive, the assault was a slap only, your comment really makes him look as bad as possible, if you have a look and listen to the two videos here you get a different story, where the school says how good he was and how sorry they are that this has happened and the other one talks about how it was not the slap but the attempting to cover it up that was the issue, have a listen..when I read your comments I get the feeling that he is to be charged by the police or a civil suit for assault, I prefer to be a bit cautious in my additions. Also is there really a need to mention the name of the player, he isn't notable is he. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed it a bit of the dramatic detail but kept most of the main points, I prefer this.....

On January 8, Leavitt was fired for assaulting a running back during halftime of USF's game against Louisville on November 21. USF launched an investigation[3] and as a result school president Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard felt they had no choice but to fire Leavitt after he refused to admit he'd done anything wrong,[4] Carl Franks has been named interim coach.[5] Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this? On December 14, FanHouse reported that Leavitt grabbed running back Joel Miller by the throat and slapped him across the face two times in the locker room during halftime of USF's November 21 game against Louisville. USF immediately launched an investigation, which found that Leavitt had indeed struck Miller. After finding that Leavitt had also lied about his conduct and interfered with the investigation, USF announced on January 8 that Leavitt was fired. At a news conference announcing the firing, athletic director Doug Woolard said that while Leavitt had done much for USF, the investigation revealed an "unacceptable" situation that couldn't be allowed to continue. The Tampa Tribune reported that Woolard and school president Judy Genshaft felt they had no choice but to fire Leavitt after he refused to admit he'd done anything wrong, though a school spokesman said that even that wouldn't have been enough to save his job. Running backs coach Carl Franks has been named interim coach. 

Figures this eliminates the impression that he's about to be hit with criminal charges. Blueboy96 03:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the need to name the not notable player? Off2riorob (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess because it's been mentioned all over the press ... but then again, since he isn't a starter, maybe we can leave the name out. How about that? Blueboy96 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean it rude but your version to me is like something I would find in a local low grade sports page, I like to write a bit reservedly but that is me, I don't think we need detail all the details of the assault like the grabbing by the kneck, to me it is a bit excessive and not really encyclopedic, I am going to leave you with it as I have to go offline, perhaps you will come to something between your desired edit and my trimmed down version, anyway thanks much for rolling back. Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this, then?

On January 8, Leavitt was fired after an investigation by USF officials found he'd struck a player in the locker room during halftime of USF's game against Louisville on November 21. USF also found also revealed that Leavitt had lied about his actions that day, and had also tried to interfere with the investigation. The Tampa Tribune reported that school president Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard felt they had no choice but to fire Leavitt after he refused to admit he'd done anything wrong. Running backs coach Carl Franks has been named interim coach. 

Short and sweet, I think ... Blueboy96 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Further tweaking: On January 8, Leavitt was fired after an investigation by USF officials found he'd struck a player in the locker room during halftime of USF's game against Louisville on November 21. Leavitt claimed he was merely trying to console the player and never struck him. However, school officials found that Leavitt wasn't being truthful about what happened, and also found that he'd interfered with the investigation. The Tampa Tribune reported that school president Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard felt they had no choice but to fire Leavitt after he refused to admit he'd done anything wrong. Running backs coach Carl Franks has been named interim coach. 

Brings out that Leavitt says he never struck the guy ... makes it more NPOV, I think. Blueboy96 05:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not happy to see this article in its current state. While the protector was so worried about BLP, they seemed to have forgotten NPOV. The details surrounding the firing of Leavitt omit a lot of reported citations in the news and paints him as a 100% guilty man. I call for a change to semi-protection, because the article in it's current state is unacceptable. Vodello (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have disabled the protected edit request for now, because (a) it is not clear from reading the above what is being requested and (b) if there is consensus for it. Please continue to discuss and replace the request when you have consensus. You are free to contact the protecting admin to request a reduction of the protection level. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I say Blueboy's suggestion reflects the sources and sticks to NPOV very well, and support that version being added to the article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to Blueboys tweaked version. I also would support a move to semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please have this added, this is imo no objection to the edit. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 8 2010 Leavitt was fired after an investigation by USF officials found he'd struck a player in the locker room during halftime of USF's game against Louisville on November 21. Leavitt claimed he was merely trying to console the player and never struck him. However, school officials found that Leavitt wasn't being truthful about what happened, and also found that he'd interfered with the investigation. The Tampa Tribune reported that school president Judy Genshaft and athletic director Doug Woolard felt they had no choice but to fire Leavitt after he refused to admit he'd done anything wrong. Running backs coach Carl Franks has been named interim coach. 
 * I've reduced protection to semi. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Leavitt. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118064742/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/08/genshaft-leavitt-refused-admit-wrongdoing-during-m/sports-colleges-bulls/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/08/genshaft-leavitt-refused-admit-wrongdoing-during-m/sports-colleges-bulls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112141829/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/08/franks-takes-over-usf-coach-how-long/sports-colleges-bulls/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/08/franks-takes-over-usf-coach-how-long/sports-colleges-bulls

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)