Talk:Dean Smith/Archive 1

Untitled

Why list Pat Summit next to Dean Smith since it specifically says that the record he holds is for the Men's DI wins? I don't question the accomplishments of Pat Summit, and I'm not really a Dean Smith Fan, but it unfairly diminishes Mr. Smith.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.217.133 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but given the (lack of) structure in the current article, there's nowhere else to put it. I put a wikify tag on the article in case anyone else has ideas. Otherwise, I'll take a look at cleaning up tomorrow. -Jcbarr 04:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of edits by Duke53

Stop vandalizing

If you have constructive comments to add to the UNC basketball articles please do it in a NPOV way. Thank you. Remember 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way? Not hardly. Duke53 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

The word you are looking for is vandalism. But why do you consider it vandalism? If you want vanity pages, then just say so (though I believe that they aren't allowed here). Is there any lie in what I added? I will be reverting both pages to my edits if you can prove that what I added was not true. Live with it. Duke53 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

p.s. you may be able to boss others around, but don't try it with me.

There is no need to get into an edit war over this. If you want to add criticsim to the Coach Smith article, please do. But the idea that one has to prove a negative (prove that the allegations you state are not true) in order to remove allegations that do not have proof for is not the way that wikipedia works. In addition, the way that you state your criticism indicates a bias against smith. I would recommend that you try a more NPOV way of stating your criticism if you want it to survive. One approach would be to state that while Coach Smith has been created with supporting his players and coaches, some have criticized him for his silence in several scandals involving his players and assistant coaches and then cite to articles that actually critize him for this. Remember 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to accept criticism from someone who can actually spell. I asked you a question above, which you conveniently did not answer: are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way? I can easily see the bias in favor of Ol' Deano a/k/a Coach Smif. Why do you insist that I be able to cite sources? I don't see many sources cited in the article as of now. I will be reverting to my version by tomorrow if I do not receive an explanation of your terms and an answer to the above question. I can play this game as long as you can.Duke53 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

The burden is on the person adding information. You have to prove it's worthy of inclusion. Also, please remember to be civil. Dubc0724 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way?" - I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way. I and merely focusing my argument on your edits. If you want to add information to the Dean Smith article, please do. But when you do it, try to do it in a way that is in a NPOV fashion and has factual evidence to back up your claims. I have seen that you have edited other articles and have done this. I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia and I hope you can make the Dean Smith article more balanced.

"I can easily see the bias in favor of Ol' Deano a/k/a Coach Smif." - It is definately true that most bios, including this one, are probably bias towards those that like the individual (those in favor of a person tend to be more motivated to create a biography for that person). If you would like to counter this with some of your own evidence, please do so. If you want to tone done some praise that you think is NPOV, please do so. I am only suggesting that your edits show an obvious bias and should be revised.

"Why do you insist that I be able to cite sources?" - Because if you are going to claim that Smith did or did not take actions that some would consider controversial it is best to back up those claims with evidence so that your information will remain on the page.

"I can play this game as long as you can." - It is irrelevant whether you can wait me out on your edits. Every wikipedia article evolves over time. The Smith article today will surely be different from the Smith article a year from now. The real question is whether your revisions will last within the article. As long as you write them in such a bias fashion, they will not last. If the article is not edited by me, then it will be edited by all the other people that will visit this page. As for your ability to outlast me, I am sure that you can outlast me. I do not have much patience for edit wars. If that is your sole purpose, then you will surely win. But all you will have won is that your edits will remain on the page for a little while longer. Your edits will not last unless random people that visit the page think that your edits are in a NPOV fashion. Remember 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Remember (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way?"
- "I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not the Dean Smith article is
done in a NPOV way".

There's the rub ... you are insisting that I adhere to some standard that other contributors to the article aren't being held to, because you are a Coach Smif disciple. There's a term for what you are demanding: hypocrisy. Don't expect me to uphold a standard that you don't hold everyone to. Duke53 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

As a neutral party (UK fan) who hates both your schools, and here just to comment on Smith's usage of possession-based statistics, I can say without bias that Duke, you are way out of line.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.65 (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith edits

"Other critics of Smith even contend that he orchestrated 'back room' deals to arrange the coaching situation at UNC-CH to his liking." I took this out because it is vague. What exactly did Smith arrange to his liking and who exactly is accusing him of this. Remember 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more vague than much of the rest of the article. DO NOT HOLD ME TO A STANDARD THAT OTHERS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW Duke53 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

If you have problems with other aspects of the article please feel free to edit them or you can bring them to my attention and we can work together to edit them. Otherwise, I do not know which parts of the article that you are referring to. As for your comments, please clarify your allegations about Dean Smith's actions and provide evidence for your allegations. Remember 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "back-room deals" edit is that it is chock-full of Weasel Words and also violates Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Please remember this is not a fan site; it's an encyclopedia. Dubc0724 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More edits

I took out the following because the first part is unnecssarily pejorative: "Other critics of Smith even contend that he orchestrated 'back room' deals to arrange the coaching situation at UNC-CH to his liking." The second part needs to be cited: "Smith reportedly called Roy Williams repeatedly asking him to leave KU and return to UNC-CH when Bill Guthridge fell into disfavor, and again when Matt Doherty was experiencing an 8 - 20 season." And the third part belongs on the Roy Williams page and which I have added there: "Williams eventually did return, but not until after he stated (on national television): "I could give a shit about Carolina right now"." Remember 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And the third part belongs on the Roy Williams page and which I have added there: "Williams eventually did return, but not until after he stated (on national television): "I could give a shit about Carolina right now"." Not exactly what you posted there, so why use quotation marks? Duke53 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

I used quotation marks because that was the sentence that you added. Remember 21:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, what I wrote is NOT what was added. This is what was added: "The guy in your ear that told you that you had to ask that question ... as a journalist, that's fine ... but as a human being, that's not very nice ... and I've got to think that in tough times that people should be more sensitive. I don’t give a shit about Carolina right now. I've got 13 kids in that locker room that I love." You apparently are attributing something to me that I had never seen before, let alone posted. Duke53 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Understood. I added the quote based upon the reference to the article I found. I thought it would be better to include the whole quote plus a reference to the quote rather than just a portion of the quote, which you had. The reference can be found here: [1]. Remember 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the "(even after his infamous "I could give a shit about Carolina right now" statement)" language because I don't think it really has any point to the Dean Smith article and it is much more fully explained and cited in the Roy Williams article. Remember 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The second part needs to be cited: "Smith reportedly called Roy Williams repeatedly asking him to leave KU and return to UNC-CH when Bill Guthridge fell into disfavor, and again when Matt Doherty was experiencing an 8 - 20 season."" This was widely reported at the time in many newspapers; unfortunately when you do a search you get '404' error messages (items are no longer available). I think it is unfortunate that you expect more from some editors than others ... I would love to see some sources cited for the rest of the article. When time allows I will be reverting my parts of the article, then you can delete them; for someone who has no time for edits wars you sure have been persistent. Duke53 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

I will try to find some articles to support the idea that Smith was invovled in recruiting Roy Williams. I too remember that this was rumored, but I don't want to start reporting rumors on wikipedia as if they were fact. In addition, I too would love to see some sources cited for the rest of the article. Remember 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until articles are cited for other parts of the article why aren't you deleting them in a wholesale fashion? Duke53 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Because I thought most of the other facts were not contested. If there are any facts in the article that you think are not true please mention them. Remember 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a citation to back up the claim that Dean Smith contacted Roy Williams and talked to him about taking the UNC[CH job. I have added it to the article. Remember 13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion in this dispute. I am not a basketball fan, and do not come to this with any prior opinion about Dean Smith. I have not talked to, nor do I know anyone concerned with this article before posting this opinion. On this dispute, I offer my opinion as a neutral party concerned only with improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia, and with no investment in this particular article. Wikipedia:Third opinion is an informal alternative to other forms of mediation, and my opinion is only an opinion, and should not be viewed as binding. Nevertheless, I hope the involved editors will seriously consider what I say here and come to an agreement on how to proceed amicably.

First things first: Everybody chill! :-). It's just Wikipedia, after all. Now I've read the comments here and elsewhere on these contentious issues, and I know there have been a lot of accusations and counter-accusations, but I'm not here to sort out who started what or who was worse, who owes whom an apology, etc. I think we're all concerned about the quality of the article--you two have just disagreed about how best to maximize that quality. I think some well-established Wikipedia standards can help sort things out.

Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view is important here. If there have been notable allegations of impropriety published in a reputable news source, then NPOV requires that such accusations not be suppressed, but reported on in an article. If the allegations were not proven in a court or other official governing body that deals with such allegations, then that too must be mentioned. The language used is important here, and must be constructed such that unproven allegations are not presented as fact. The person or persons making the allegations ought to be identified. It's not good enough to just say "Some people say..." It's also critical that all information concerning such allegations be corroborated by a reputable source. In other words, you can't just write something that you just heard about or read on some online forum. When you write about such allegations, you have to reveal where you got the information, either in the text of the article or in a separate references section. If an allegation cannot be supported by a reliable source, it ought to be deleted.

It is proper to ask for sources of article content which you consider dubious. If such sources are not forthcoming, it is proper to delete such content. However, it is improper to threaten to delete information to which you do not sincerely object simply because someone doubts other content for which no reference has been provided. This would be an example of acting in bad faith. If you would like content to be referenced, use the "citation needed" tag: {{fact}}, and/or try sourcing the content yourself. Rohirok 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly asked for a third party opinion?

It wasn't I.

I found headlines only for my claims, but the actual articles were not archived as far as I know. That fact does not make the statements any less true.

The problem here (as I see it) is that unless Smith is portayed as a saintly person in this article then others will delete the comments, or attribute different quotes to me that I have never seen before; that is bad faith in my opinion. I do not care to be 'quoted' for things that I never said or wrote. Duke53 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

You wrote: "I found headlines only for my claims, but the actual articles were not archived as far as I know. That fact does not make the statements any less true." Wikipedia:Verifiability is relevant here. That policy says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In other words, even if you're right about allegations made against Smith, those allegations must be verified by a reliable source and cited in order to be included in an article. If you found headlines from a reliable source, then you're on the right track. However, headlines alone aren't an adequate source. You or someone else will have to find the articles. Wikipedia:Libel is also relevant here. That policy says that "...all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Unless a reliable source can be found for these allegations, then including that content could be defamatory, and according to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, such content should be aggressively deleted. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence in biographies of living persons. Rohirok 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that since some online editor purges an article (and it can't be cited) that the truthfulness is in doubt?

How Orwellian a concept! Duke53 23:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

p.s. I notice that you avoided commenting on that other guy 'quoting' me and then posting things other than what I actually said or wrote, then attributing the new words to me.

Sure, the truthfulness is in doubt if you can't provide a reliable source to back up the allegations. That's not an Orwellian concept, just an empirical one. Without that support, it's just rumor, conjecture, etc. Unsubstantiated rumors and conjectures hurt the quality of an article. That's why the policy exists. Regarding your post script: Like I said, I'm not here to sort out personal grievances. I'm only concerned with the content of this article and whether it is verifiable. If it's not verifiable, then it's gotta go. Rohirok 01:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the following policy that all information concerning allegations be corroborated by a reputable source, I have deleted the sentence "Critics of Dean say that while he has pronounced committment to this family ideal, he has been notably silent in public when several members of the Carolina family came under harsh criticism (e.g. incidents involving Phil Ford and Matt Doherty)." As Rohirok stated "you can't just write something that you just heard about or read on some online forum. When you write about such allegations, you have to reveal where you got the information, either in the text of the article or in a separate references section. If an allegation cannot be supported by a reliable source, it ought to be deleted." Remember 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Classic

"In 1961, however, the ACC canceled the Dixie Classic (an annual hoilday tournament) because one of Smith's players (Lou Brown) was implicated in a point shaving scheme, along with some N.C. State players."

I removed this language because according to this [2], the Dixie Classic (basketball tournament) was cancelled before Dean Smith became head coach. I am not exactly sure of what the exact chronology of the event but I think we should clear this up before we add it to the page. Here are some other links that talk about the scandal. [3] Interview about the Dixie Classic [4]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 02:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bully for you. Here is a quote from an article you linked: "In addition, while it may have been Camelot in the nation's capital, things weren't quite so serene in Chapel Hill. Following an investigation into recruiting violations, the Tar Heels were hit with limited NCAA sanctions in 1960. To make matters worse, a gambling scandal tainted Carolina and NC State one year later, and the university self-imposed several limitations, including a restricted regular-season schedule and severe recruiting handicaps".

Who was the head man at unc-ch in 1961? Saint Deano. Duke53 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

What I was trying to understand is:(1) when did the scandal break, and (2) was Dean Smith the head coach at the time the scandal broke. Dean Smith was not the head coach of UNC at the beginning of 1961. Instead he was hired after the spring. See [5] ("That explains why when Chancellor Bill Aycock began looking for a new basketball coach to replace the departing Frank McGuire in the spring of 1961, he was looking for more than just a hardwood strategist; he was also searching for someone who would be a qualified caretaker of the program."). Thus, the fact that something happened in 1961 does not mean that Dean Smith was the head coach at the time. If you could find further information regarding the Dixie Classic, I would greatly appreciate it. Remember 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even More on Smith

"North Carolina has produced more NBA players than any other college program". Source?

"Smith was often criticized for not being able to win enough championships". Source?

"Smith was an innovator and is credited with creating or popularizing a number of basketball techniques:

The "tired signal," in which a player would use a hand signal (originally a raised fist) to indicate that he needed to come out for a rest.

The practice of huddling at the free throw line before a foul shot.

Starting all his team's seniors on the last home game of the season ("Senior Day") as a way of honoring the contributions of the subs as well as the stars. In one season when the team included six seniors, he opted to put all six on the floor at the beginning of the game – drawing a technical foul – rather than leave one of them out.

The practice of saving time outs for end-of-game situations.

A number of defensive sets, including the point zone, the run-and-jump, and double-teaming the screen-and-roll.

Running team practices on a strict schedule, with every minute pre-planned. (Example: If a team drill was to end at 3:10 exactly, it would end at 3:10 and the next drill would start.)

Encouraging players who scored a basket to point a finger at the teammate who passed them the ball, in honor of the passer's selflessness".

Sources for any of the above? Duke53 03:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Duke53 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Good point. The whole article should include cites for sources. I have found some. Feel free to help out if you want, but please do not include information that may be considered libel unless you have a source for it. Wikipedia tries to be particularly careful given recent complaints on other biography pages (See John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy). Thanks. Remember 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what would be considered 'libel' ... the fact that Smith is still the only head coach to be ejected from a Final Four game, or that Guthridge physically attacked Pete Pavia (who was a cancer patient for 13 years)? Could you be more specific? Duke53 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53 ( I'm thinking that you are using the spectre of 'libel' for anything that doesn't put Smith in a good light).[reply]

Hmm .... some of the 'sources' which you cite have nothing to do with the paragraph they are footnoted for; others are unattributed quotes. Is that what you intended? Duke53 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Could you be more specific. Remember 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Bogus Quote??? The quote, "Everything I ever learned about basketball, I learned at The University of Kansas." is attributed to The 1997 Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year, however the quote neither appears on that page, nor the online .pdf version of the entire hardcopy issue. I've searched, but the only source for that quote I've found is this Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.97.164 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Discussion from Remember's Discussion page

Dean Smith

I have tried to clean the article up a bit. How does it look now? (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message on my talk page. I did a little bit of work and put a few comments on the article talk page. The Duke user has an axe to grind, and some of his points are true, but he's not properly citing them, and sometimes uses weasel words. I'll continue to work on the article where I can. Thanks Dubc0724 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV from a guy who describes himself on his user page as "This user is Tar Heel born and Tar Heel bred"? I think not. As far as Coach Smif getting ejected intentionally from the Final Four game: what a load of crap! He was trying to play the refs like he was used to doing in the ACC

Name another head coach who has been ejected from a Final Four game, okay? I'm waiting. Smif is the only one.

Weasel words? Try calling it the truth. Duke53 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Yes, I'm a Carolina fan. But I also have enough respect for the encyclopedia we're supposedly working on to produce good faith edits, rather than push my POV. I'm not sure one can say the same for some of your edits. Keep it NPOV and play by Wikipedia's rules and we'll all get along fine.

Yeah, Dean got tossed. Big deal. Nobody's denying it. I don't think anyone took issue with its inclusion; I personally only took issue with the writing style and presentation. It looks better now than it did. And I never said Dean wasn't the only one who got tossed. All I asked (and haven't seen yet) is that you at least refer to the game/opponent/date for those unfamiliar with the event. That's not too much to ask.

Finally, the weasel words. Have you read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding them? I'd suggest you do so. Like it or not, some of your edits had them, and while what you are suggesting may well be true, you need to present verifiable facts while avoiding weasel words. If you can't do that, the edits won't stand. And again, please be civil. PS: You might want to have your spell checker looked at; you keep spelling his name wrong. :-) Dubc0724 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of NPOV is not the same as mine. Facts are facts ... just because you choose to deify someone doesn't change them.

As far as being civil: I never attributed quotes to another editor that the other editor didn't make. Not everybody involve on the Coach Smif article can say that.

Nothing wrong with my spellchecker ... Coach Smif is what he's known by to many people. Duke53 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Facts are facts - what "facts" are we talking about that haven't been addressed, exactly? I've been going through the article trying to get things cited. I've left most of your edits in, although I've had to clean some of them up to make them appear more well-written and take out some of your POV and weasel words. And I was joking about your "misspelling" of Smith. I realize it's just a weak attempt at humor. And for the civility, if you have a problem with another editor, take it up with him/her. You don't have to have a chip on your shoulder with everyone else. Dubc0724 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(still waiting...)

I feel that this discussion would be more appropriate on the Dean Smith discussion page and so I have copied the above text and moved it there. Please include all further replies to this chain of discussion there. Remember 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job of distancing yourself from this ... move it to another page and then don't address it.

Obviously you think it perfectly correct behavior to attribute quotes to somebody who never said or wrote them. Your 'Good Point' remark just doesn't cut it.

Duke53 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you are referring to this (which is above): "And the third part belongs on the Roy Williams page and which I have added there: "Williams eventually did return, but not until after he stated (on national television): "I could give a shit about Carolina right now"." Not exactly what you posted there, so why use quotation marks? Duke53 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53". I already stated (see above discussion)why I changed the quote when I listed it on the Roy Williams page. If you are referring to something else please explain. Remember 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only coach Ejected in Final Four Game

Hopefully, this bit of information will resolve this matter for good: Dean Smith was NOT the first ever ejected from a Final Four game. Marquette's Al McGuire was ejected in his team's national championship game loss to North Carolina State in 1974. Any web search referencing the 1974 title game will show this to be true. Autonic (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Autonic[reply]

Dubc0724, I noticed that you removed the citation needed tag for the following language: "no other head coach has ever been ejected from a Final Four game." I still think it is needed because I haven't seen anything to state that no other coach has been ejected from a Final Four game. I did a little research to see if this was true but I wasn't able to find anything. In addition, I was the one who added the source for the preceding part about Smith getting ejected from a Final Four game, but I did not write the rest of the sentence so cannot attest to its veracity. Remember 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - if you want to put the tag back until it can be proven, go for it. Thanks Dubc0724 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now my sources are being called unreliable? Duke Basketball Report is at least as reliable and unbiased as tarheelblue.cstv.com, IMO ... if one is acceptable then both should be. Duke53 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Well, it may not be quite as reliable as tarheelblue.cstv.com (every school's got one), but I don't think it's worth fighting, especially since it's already been cited. You're beating a dead horse. Let it go. Dubc0724 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me that there are degrees of acceptable reliability here at Wikipedia? Either a source is reliable or it isn't; otherwise we could choose to believe some parts of an article and disregard others, couldn't we?

" ... every school's got one ..." yes they do, but isn't their purpose to make their school look as good as possible, hardly a NPOV. At least my source is independent from any school. Duke53 20:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Duke[reply]

I'm not saying that at all. But I haven't used either of the sites in question as a source, so you'll have to take this up with whomever has. I would say that the CSTV sites are every bit as reliable as some Duke fan site might be. Thanks Dubc0724 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we finally agree ... this particular DUKE fan site is every bit as reliable as a school's official marketing site. Duke53 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Not sure about all that, but the issue has been resolved anyway. Dubc0724 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved in what way? Deleting it is not exactly a 'resolution' Duke53 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

It wasn't deleted; it's still in there. Dubc0724 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubc0724 was referring to a different resolution, that the text had been included. I was the one that deleted the text (see [6]) because I had not found any cite to back up the claim that he was the only coach ever ejected from a Final Four game. If you find a citation to back this up, please put the text back in with the citation. Remember 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this bit of information will resolve this matter for good: Dean Smith was NOT the first ever ejected from a Final Four game. Marquette's Al McGuire was ejected in his team's national championship game loss to North Carolina State in 1974. Any web search referencing the 1974 title game will show this to be true. Autonic (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Autonic[reply]

Sources Requested by Duke53

OK, I've cited everything you tagged. The only sentence awaiting citation is your claim regarding Smith being the only coach tossed in a Final Four game. I think the claim is true, but since you insist on having it in the article, I'm going to let you find it. Thanks Dubc0724 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shouldn't the header for this paragraph be titled 'Sources for Dean Smith article' ? You seem to be making this into a personal thing. Cool.

I take offense at your characterization of it being 'silly' to have to source some statements ... you can't have it both ways -- either sources must be cited or not. You don't get to choose when it is appropriate or not. I also have my doubts as to the reliability of that movie database site being used as a reputable source. I could point out errors in some of their other articles. Duke53 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

p.s. I have contacted NCAA hq asking them about Smif's ejection; the man in charge is on vacation until next Monday.

The header was called that because I wanted to let you know that your tags had been given attention. Nothing personal at all - more like "common courtesy". [If anyone's making things personal it's you; I've been more than willing to deal with your edits and what seems to be some personal ax you have to grind with Dean Smith.]

The only thing I characterized as "silly" was the Vinroot thing. But it's easily proven. I agree about the IMDB site, and I will try to find something a bit more substantial. Personally I don't know why every little thing Smith has done politically even matters to this article, but that's not for me to decide.

Contacted the NCAA HQ huh? I guess that will get us an answer, although it sounds like overkill. I'm sure Googling it would get the job done. But hey, if you've got that much free time, I'm sure the NCAA could answer your question. Dubc0724 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, any message (email, phone, letter) that comes back from NCAA HQ won't be citable under Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Such private correspondence is not citable unless it has also been made publicly available by a reliable secondary source (that is, it has already been published in a magazine, book, etc., not Wikipedia). This might seem counterintuitive, since such information seems to be coming straight from the horse's mouth, but Wikipedia policies bar the use of such sources because other editors (the ones who didn't contact NCAA directly) have no way of confirming that such correspondence actually took place or has not been forged. It's not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes because it is not verifiable except to the person who heard directly from the source. Rohirok 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point; I hadn't considered how it would be proven once confirmed by the NCAA. Dubc0724 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Though it appears that the article is headed in the right direction of verifying its claims, the process by which it is being improved is still being conducted with incivility. When you disagree with someone, please do not respond by impugning their integrity or intelligence, or dredging up old grievances or personal accusations. That kind of sniping doesn't help the article at all, and it makes editing it and reaching consensus a very unpleasant and difficult process. When making comments or edit summaries, please focus on the content and the references, not on the person.

As an aside, I've noticed many edit summaries for the article and this discussion page have been left blank. Please help yourself and your fellow editors keep track of the changes by always writing a brief summary of what you have changed, added or taken away in the edit summary. Rohirok 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more regarding civility. I've mentioned this several times. Dubc0724 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Since, this article is just nominated at WP:GAC and I'm a GA reviewer, it's good to cleanup the citation style first, per WP:CITE. Look at the Notes section, there are many citation without any information, but merely an embedded ext. link. — Indon (reply) — 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues I found, when I'm fixing this citation style:

Link of the first item in the Notes section with the title "NCAA Coaching Stats" is broken. Can somebody fix that?
The second item in the Notes section that links here: [7] has a copyright problem. It says at the bottom of the page: "Republication or redistribution of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame." I'm not sure whether it is allowed to cite their content here, but I'm going to ask this issue to the experts in WP.

— Indon (reply) — 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll try to clean up the references as well. Dubc0724 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link requires subscription: http://origin.miami.com/mld/charlotte/sports/colleges/13978613.htm, so I removed it. — Indon (reply) — 13:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed the template, and good luck for GA! ;-) — Indon (reply) — 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article candidacy

After the clean-up mentioned above, this article looks much better. However, one problem I perceive is that it is very list-heavy. There are four lists, comprising much of the content of this article. Is there a way some of these lists could be converted to prose? I don't think it's necessary to convert all of them, but four lists seems excessive. Also, per the WP:MOS, the lead is very short and should probably be expanded. Even a few extra sentences would help. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note the improvements made to this article. Things are really shaping up! I still would like to see the intro expanded, per WP:LEAD, and another list, such as the "Achievements" section, converted to prose. Don't give up! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now well-sourced, organized, and has a revised and lengthened lead. I feel it meets the requirements for a Good Article. I would still see one of those lists converted to prose, but I have no other objections. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent for better reading) – I still have this page on my watchlist, so was intrigued by the last edits. The lead section is clearly now expanded, but I think it is too long, compared to the length of the article. The first paragraph is orphaned; should be merged with the second paragraph. The last 2 paragraphs can be eliminated; or put in the body if they are not yet described in the body. And one thing is the Accomplishment sub-section is still "listy". Perhaps rewriting it into 1-2 paragraphs would make it better per WP:MOS. Anyway, good job! — Indon (reply) — 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidacy

I believed this article has reached FA criteria and nominated a featured article. A reviewer told there is one problem. Ehe images should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Collaboration

To get things going, i'd like to ask about the several sections which appear to be more like lists that prose. Typically, many sections like this are often more appropriatly rendered as prose rather than lists, but I don't want to just go changing things in case somebody may of had a good reason to format, for example, the Accomplishments section in more or less list format. Anyone know a particular reason why some of the bullet-pointy sections are in list format instead of prose format? Homestarmy 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was done mainly because I am lazy, but I also am not as anti-list as the wikipedia criteria for FA. I thought the material worked well in list form, but feel free to change it. Remember 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about this I see in the FAC is the Coaching style section, but that's already mostly in prose, has it always looked like that? There might be a way to make it look good in prose compleatly if that was what they wanted. Homestarmy 21:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is what they want. Feel free to go ahead and try to make it better. Remember 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for a few days, and while this isn't the collaboration anymore, I still want to help a bit. Looking at the section, most of the references come from reference three, a Sports Illustrated magazine, do most of these accomplishments get cited elsewhere, or are perhaps some of them not necessarily as important as others? It might be easier to turn it all into paragraphs if there are less things....Homestarmy 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishments

This needs to be explained a little better. The way it is written is kind of slamming Rupp.

879 wins in 36 years of coaching, 2nd most in men's college Division I basketball history behind Bob Knight.[31] Adolph Rupp's 876 wins came after 41 years of coaching.

Dean Smith coached 1133 games in 36 years at an average of 31.5 games a year and a 77.6% winning percentage. Rupp coached 1069 games in 41 years at an average of 26.1 games a year and a 82.2% winning percentange. Rupp coached in a period where 30 games a year was unheard of. The tournament and season was not near as long as it is today, in fact the NIT was as prestigious as the NCAA. Rupp chose the NIT over the NCAA in 1946 and won it. This needs to be explained to help people understand the difference in eras that both coached in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MustangSixZero (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't he play ball at Kansas?

if anyone knows something about this, it would be worth adding I think. I thought I read that he was on a KU championship team in the 50's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinser (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article, During his time on the varsity basketball team, Kansas won the national championship in 1952 and finished second in 1953.[8][9] miranda 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dean Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is not bad, I'd probably give it a 7/10. Some sections need looking at however especially "accomplishments" and "coaching tree", which both read like arbitrary lists.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: