Jump to content

Talk:John Wooden

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

Name?

[edit]

The article frequently refers to John Wooden yet the photo caption states "Johnathan Wooden" (which is spelled wrong; most "Jon"s are really "Jonathan" - one H only, not two). - So which is it? --JohnDBuell 13:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just John. Amerindianarts 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Center at UCLA

[edit]

I think it's significant because of the fact that John Wooden wanted a place where non NCAA athletes could work out and participate in sports, and this center exemplifies that. I'm not too sure on any details, and most of the specifics are irrelevant. Just a thought.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.86.254 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of John Wooden in Legacy Section

[edit]

If you take a close look of the photograph of John Wooden in the Legacy section of this article, you will see that the photograph is of Bill Walton and not John Wooden. Also, Walton's face is superimposed onto the photograph. The picture constitutes vandalism and should be removed. I'm surprised that nobody noticed this shenanigans. Somebody replaced the image of Wooden, Jabbar, and Walton with the goofy image of Walton. Anthony22 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his book, "Wooden on Leadership" on page 181 he said he was present for the retiring of numbers 32 and 33 so it's possible that this picture exists, but unlikely that he showed emotion or glorified the accomplishment the way the picture suggests. As he wrote in his book, "I strongly objected and joined the ceremony at Pauley Pavilion only as a courtesy to my former players. It would have been an insult to them to do otherwise. But, I was against it. They both understood why I felt the way I did, in part because they were consummate team players." Wooden felt no one should own the number, and that giving them the numbers failed to recognize the work of excellent players who wore those numbers before Walton and Alcindor/Jabbar. So seeing the picture was a bit of a surprise. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but Anthony22's suggestion that the picture was altered is definitely plausible. Cputrdoc 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you no john wooden coached 5 diffrent college teams Akron,Miami,Texas a & m, the university of Miami and Purdue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.16.166 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last coaching outing

[edit]

On June 28, 1987, John Wooden and Dean Smith coached against each other in an exhibition basketball game featuring alumni from both schools. [1] Group29 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mike Downey - North Carolina Beats UCLA in Alumni Game, 116-111. Los Angeles Time. June 29, 1987

Head Coaching Record

[edit]

There is mistake in the head coaching record for 1965-1966. In that year, UCLA wasn't ranked in the top 20 in the polls and didn't even get into the NCAA or NIT tournaments. They could not have gone 29-1. Will the person who entered the head coaching record please correct the mistake. Anthony22 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Quote: Attribution?

[edit]
"Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out."

Rather pithy guy. Anyone know of a citation? Where and when was this said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimD (talk • contribs) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page 75 of They Call Me Coach by John Wooden (paperback, 2003): "Things turn out best for those who make the best of the way things turn out." Context was the Minnesota v. UCLA job offers. It's an important quote. Paperback: 272 pages Publisher: McGraw-Hill; 1 edition (September 26, 2003) ISBN-10: 0071424911 ISBN-13: 978-0071424912 WoodenPyramid (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)WoodenPyramid[reply]

Is he still alive? 216.114.210.66 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • oh...don't want this under this section, but not sure how to add without a login. Wikipedia, as you know, is all bullshit but pretends not to be bullshit for the 24 hours before and after a big news story... ...any way, that Rick Reilly line about 35K a year and never asking for a raise: sounds pretty obscure and possibly invented. The citations don't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.61.104 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golfing

[edit]

Date?

[edit]

The article synopsis says "He is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame as both a player (class of 1961)..." Seeing as he was born in 1910, that would make him 51 in 1961.. This doesn't seem right. Could someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.158.20 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is correct, since the Basketball Hall of Fame was born in 1959 with the first class. The official site listed him incorrectly -- "John R. Wooden enshrined as a player in 1960" and "John R. Wooden, Enshrined 1961, Born: October 14, 1910, Martinsville, IN". UCLA use 1961. Ucla90024 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid 99th b-day article in LA Times

[edit]

I see its been used once already, but there's 99 very interesting facts now citeable to this LA Times article from Wednesday. --Bobak (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden in grave condition

[edit]
Extended content
The stories indicate he was admitted to UCLA Medical Center on Sunday (May 30th). It is his "grave condition" that became public yesterday -- i.e., Thursday, June 3rd. The text on his page should be adjusted accordingly. Mohansen11 (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reflective piece. Try watching the L.A. news feeds.----moreno oso (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the headlines, so far. From what I gather, The Seattle Times has already said The Washington Post may have jumped the gun here. –MuZemike 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the Seattle Times report contradicting (in the lede sentence!) the Washington Post headline --Ray Radlein (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear. Our lede is correct. The Washington Post got it wrong. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that his article will get many copyedits when his death does take place. Dennis Hopper is a case in point. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good old Bill Walton just tipped everybody what hospital Wooden is at (as if that was big secret). Still, seeing Walton choke up about Coach, brought a tear. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged death

[edit]
Extended content

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/06/03/GA2010060304369.html reports that John Wooden has died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.188.240 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else has confirmed it (he lives in Los Angeles). According to the above section, they may have been premature on reporting it. He is definitely in critical condition, however. –MuZemike 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. The trucks are parked outside and they're interviewing each other. Hopefully he will live to be a 100. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess the Post retracted the article anyway (http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php/module/Section/section_id/17?module=article&story_id=21516). That's probably why they have the slideshow. I guess they were hoping to be the first by just putting it out there. Terrible day for him to die on if he does die today though. He'd miss out on the finals. Arestyr (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coach says "Be quick, but don't hurry," good advice for those authors of an encyclopedia who are sometimes tempted to convert it to a news feed...Steveozone (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post has now posted a correction saying that their headline was wrong. Wooden is hospitalized, but still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.204.2 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Wooden is now officially dead: *http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/news/story?id=5253601 Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

{{editprotected}} The part in his legacy about other coaches is confusing. It's difficult to tell if it means no other coach has more than one undefeated season or more than one national championship. Perhaps this can be reworded.

{{editprotected}} According to this article, [1], Wooden is "spent a peaceful night at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and is resting comfortably." Perhaps we should remove 'in grave condition", and replace it with something like : "On May 26, 2010, Wooden was hospitalized due to dehydration", or something else, as the Medical Centre has not confirmed that he is in "grave condition". Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN's front page now says "Wooden Dead At 99". [2] and here is the article: [3] is this enough confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. TbhotchTalk C. 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks like this is the real deal. Everyone is reporting it, now. Thank you, –MuZemike 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we un-semi-protect it now that his death has been confirmed? There's no reason to semi unless there's lots of vandalism, which wasn't the case even before protection. Also, RIP... 68.202.230.228 (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should see yesterday, when The Washington Post wrote that he died (yesterday). Vandalism was excessive. TbhotchTalk C. 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it should be kept semi-protected. The vandalism yesterday was terrible. Let's some semi-pros take care of it as it is a GA candidate. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the semi because people will still vandalize the article even after he died.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's a shame but you're probably right. the ESPN comments are surprisingly offensive. I guess we unwashed masses would screw up the WP article too :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even for the most respected people a good part of the world has known (like Wooden I'm sure), there is always people flocking to vandalize and defame the person after death. It has happened so many times that it has become common practice to leave the article protected for a while after his death so all the fervor calms down a bit before we unprotect (unless your name is Michael Jackson, then forget it). –MuZemike 03:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You should see how Dennis Hopper's article was vandalized after he died. Everyone flocks here and wants to put their mark on the article. Best to leave the semi-pros do the editting. They'll get Wooden to GA. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture?

[edit]
Extended content

Can we get a better picture for Coach Wooden? Maybe one of him in his prime coaching days? Leahcim506 (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you get one (that is not copyrighted), yes. TbhotchTalk C. 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passive

[edit]

It currently states that he "was" a member of the hall of fame (I take it someone changed all of the present to past tense). He is still a member of the hall of fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancebaa (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It changed when he died. While Wooden still "is" a member, WP:MOS requires verbs to be passive upon death. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really? I know most verbs would change to passive, but if people hold a record, would it say "John Wooden held the record for..." even if he still holds the record? If that's actually the policy, I disagree with it, but I guess I can't complain about this article in particular. Lancebaa (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wilt Chamberlain's page, there are numerous present tense verbs about records that he holds. How is that any different than being a member of the hall of fame? Lancebaa (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Publications

[edit]

These titles should be added under his name as publications he's authored

Coach Wooden's Pyramid of Success: Building Blocks For a Better Life ISBN: 978-0830737185

Coach Wooden's Pyramid of Success Playbook ISBN: 978-0830737932

Coach Wooden One-on-One ISBN: 978-0830732913 BillyG4 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]
Extended content

Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I am glad that I was able to edit this article RIGHT AFTER HE DIED, because I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT, either because I wasn't at home when I heard that someone died, or I heard the news too late, and other people have edited it. So, this was the first time I've edited an article about a person shortly after he died. I put all the verbs in the paragraph talking about how he mourned his wife since her death, into the past tense. And I also put all the verbs in the paragraph following that one into the past tense also. YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

[edit]

Unfortunately, due to the increased edits to the article after John Wooden's recent death, this article no longer meets Criterion #5 (stability). Therefore, I am removing the article's nomination from the WP:GAN page. I won't mark it in article history as a 'fail', and I hope this can be renominated once the article stabilizes in a month or two. But it's best at this time not to take any chances.

When I look at the article, it looks reasonably good, although I didn't look at the prose in too much detail. The first issue I see is that the lead is far too short and doesn't provide an accurate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. So that needs to be expanded. Secondly, the two sections 'Head coaching record' and 'Wooden championships' are just tables and contain no introductory text. I think almanac-like information isn't necessarily bad, but tables like this should not be in the middle of the article, as they are now. They should preferably be placed near the end, near where the 'publications' section is now.

Also, the name of the article (or in this case, parts of the name) really shouldn't be used in subsection headers, so subsection header names like 'Wooden championships' and 'Following Wooden' should be renamed. Simply, 'Championships' would suffice. 'Following Wooden' might be better merged into the 'Legacy' section?

In the 'Legacy' section, there's no citations on the "John Wooden Day" or "Greatest Coach of All Time" attributions.

Regarding the "Wooden's maxims" list near the end, why are there two citations on the very last bullet item and none on the other two. If they're citing a complete list, they should be placed right after the colon (:) introducing the list, not on the last list item.

Anyway, I hope these comments help in the interim. Look forward to seeing this article at WP:GAN in July or August! WTF? (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Freedom actually presented by President Jimmy Carter

[edit]

The article seems to have an error, saying George W. Bush was the president who presented Wooden with the Medal of Freedom; however, in a photo of the actual certificate that is prominent on the official Coach Wooden website, it is Jimmy Carter's signature on the document. I don't know how to edit the wiki, but perhaps someone knowledgeable can make this small change for accuracy. 67.100.126.18 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) KA[reply]

George W. Bush presented Wooden the Medal of Freedom award. There is a photo of the presentation in Coach Wooden One-on-One. So the article is correct and does not need to be changed. ----steveedits

Sam Gilbert

[edit]

There is a pretty serious issue with this wikipedia article in my opinion. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Sam Gilbert; why is that? That would be like the Bob Knight article not mentioning the chair incident. Is this a honest oversight?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Gilbert_(American_Businessman) http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/08/sports/la-sp-0609-wooden-gilbert-20100609 http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1153 http://www.slate.com/id/2155116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to. What purpose? No comparison with Knight. He threw chair before TV. No such thing with Sam Gilbert! Bband11th (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how it compares with Knight, what is the reason for excluding criticism of Wooden with respect to Gilbert? Unless you're suggesting Wooden is inherently above criticism, I'm not sure I understand the rationale of "it's not needed." Mwelch (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recall that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the information on a subject that is found in reliable secondary sources. Then, try thumbing through the articles turned up in this search: [4]
This, of course, includes only those source that happen to be in the Google News Archive. There are plenty of others that aren't, such as the HBO documentary about the UCLA basketball dynasty, that also cover this subject. Information in books, such as The Wizard of Westwood biography or the 1978 biography of Bill Walton, which has on the record quotes from Walton about it. Coverage of Wooden's death on ESPN.com isn't included in the Google search, but it also goes into Gilbert. Etc., etc.
The bottom line is that there is plenty of reliable, secondary source information on this subject, and again, what secondary sources cover is what Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. The information added to this article properly cites such sources. The information also fairly includes Wooden's defense of himself with regard to criticism of him on the issue. So I'm adding it back (this time, including ten different sources) until there's a better reason than personal opinion that "it's not needed" is offered for excluding it. Mwelch (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think that you've more than made your case and that Bband11th must make a much stronger case for removing well-sourced, interesting, and balanced material. ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2/7 of his UCLA career is on criticism. There were no investigation and NCAA finding of wrong doing. The wrong doing was doing Larry Brown's year and the final four records vacated. That's fair play in the game of life? Bband11th (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree it was just a drop in a big pond! 64.183.42.63 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the 2/7 figure is entirely accurate, given that information about his UCLA career is actually spread across three sections: the section labeled UCLA, along "Head Coaching Record" and "Wooden Championships". But even if looking at only pure prose, the reason that ratio comes about is because there is virtually no real detail provided in the remaining 5/7. It basically sums a 27 year career in 5 paragraphs. Would not a better way to improve the ratio be to expand that part with similarly sourced information? The criticism part is one paragraph to explain what the criticism is and another to present his defense of himself. I don't know how to make it much less than that, short of perhaps just leaving the paragraph stating what the criticism is and then removing the paragraph containing his response. Then the ratio would only be 1/6, would that really be more fair to him? Personally, I wouldn't think so.
Also, if you feel it important to note that there no NCAA investigation was ever conducted during Wooden's tenure (and personally, I'm not sure that that fact is all that helpful to him, since Gilbert's "generosity" was so widely known, it raises the question of why the NCAA never investigated; and there are plenty of people who would argue that it was because UCLA and Wooden reaped the benefits of preferential treatment by the NCAA not wanting to tarnish its celebrated jewel), I don't think I or anyone else would object to your editing things to include that fact. Editing the information for better balance, clarity, etc. is always fine. It's especially fine with something that I wrote, since I am by no means a professional writer, and I'm sure there are plenty of talented writers who can produce from that same information a finished product of superior quality to what I have authored. But you haven't sought to edit it to improve it; you sought to delete it altogether, with no justification provided for deleting it. It is that to which I offer objection. Mwelch (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the issue of the length of the UCLA career section, I've now expanded it a bit using information from a column written by Alex Wolff of Sports Illustrated. The section could still certainly use more though, particularly on the early 50's years. Mwelch (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Los Angeles Times, For the record: "John Wooden obituary: The obituary on John Wooden that ran in Section A on June 5 and in a commemorative section June 13 included information attributed to former UCLA basketball player Andy Hill regarding controversial booster Sam Gilbert. The article reported that Hill had told The Times that former team trainer Elvin "Ducky" Drake was something of a watchdog for the team, and that Drake had apparently missed what was going on with Gilbert. Hill says that he did not discuss that with the reporter and that Drake would not have been in a position to do anything to detect Gilbert's involvement or stop Gilbert from any inappropriate action." Dated July 2, 2010. Bband11th (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an online link to that news report? ----moreno oso (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing (the original article and the follow-up report about Hill's later statement) is here: [5]
So a summary of the whole thing would be that in the original obit, the Times reported that former player Andy Hill said that he believed that Wooden was relying on Drake to be on the lookout for things like the Gilbert situation. Hill reportedly also said that Wooden was "good at knowing what he didn't want to know". Then, in the follow-up "On the Record" piece, Hill responds to that original report by denying that he ever even said the part about Drake being the one who was supposed to be on the lookout. Hill goes on to state flatly that Drake was never in a position that he could have done anything about Gilbert. Mwelch (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hill's Letter to Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times: "Chris: I am a former UCLA basketball player and a lifetime subscriber to the L.A. Times. Your column this morning made me sick to my stomach. While our city grieves the loss of the greatest coach of all time, you dust off this rumor-filled piece of innuendo-filled garbage and call it journalism. Do you call relying on 29-year-old articles reporting? Why didn't you reach out and do some original research? ... If you want to actually know what happened, why don't you try finding out for yourself? It is truly astounding to me that the man in charge of UCLA athletics, J.D. Morgan, who told Coach that he would "handle" Sam Gilbert, is never mentioned in any story anywhere...not once. If you had contacted me, or lots of others who could have led you to me, we would have had that discussion, maybe even leading to some original information and some ultimate truths, which, after all, is what journalism is really about. What a concept! If I wanted a rehash of old columns from your own paper, I can just use Google. Which, by the way, might be a good tool for you to use in helping to locate information and key sources for an original story about Sam Gilbert. Andy Hill" Bband11th (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is your argument that if a former UCLA basketball player and self-appointed arbiter of journalism, doesn't approve of what an investigative article says about the coach he loves dearly, but doesn't offer any information which refutes the investigation's findings, then that is sufficient to disqualify the article as a WP:RS? And even if that argument were acceptable, which it obviously is not, the fact is that the Gilbert part is supported by nine other sources besides just that one L.A. Times investigation.
And if the fact that the Gilbert thing happened 35 years ago is grounds to delete it from the article (as you suggested in your most recent deletion of it), then that would be grounds to delete darned near the entire article. There is little in the article that is not at least a 35-year old story. And that's because this is Wikipedia, not Wikinews.
The fact that the otherwise-revered George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were a slave-owners is a 200-year old story. Shall we censor their articles as well, to ensure no mention is made of that unfortunate fact? Mwelch (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief reminder to my fellow editors that this article is not a hagiography. It's ok to include well-sourced criticism. Although I'm sure that Wooden was a wonderful man he was not a saint and that's ok, too. ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

all the references are leading to the official website, but it might just be a Firefox problem, can anyone check it? Botend (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that all the refrences are linked to the official website's main page, not to the citation it supposed to Botend (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mamim

[edit]

John Wooden always gets credit for the maxim "failing to prepare is preparing to fail". I hear all his old players say it. Benjamin Franklin said it 200 years before him. Hugh M. Masterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.157.30 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC) References 89-92 are not displaying in correct position Tomm007007 (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation Year

[edit]

Playing career is listed as 1929–33, but the text says he graduated from Purdue in 1932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowRise (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Crum material

[edit]

Undid revision 461056363 by ElKevbo (talk)Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required Policy shortcuts: WP:IMPERFECT WP:PERFECTION Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons. While such articles are also allowed and expected to be imperfect, any contentious unsubstantiated or patently biased information in such articles should be removed until verified or rewritten in a neutral manner.

John Wooden Mentored Denny Crum starting in 1956-57 if it wasnt for Wooden he wouldnt of went to Louisville coached there 30 years and won 675 games and 2 NCAA Championships. You need to follow edit rule and not delete stuff rewrite it. There needs to be something about Denny Crum on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.252.159 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion here! My objection to the material is that it simply doesn't belong in this particular article. If Crum does not already have an article then it sounds like one should be created because this material belongs there.
Incidentally and as mentioned on my Talk page, WP:BRD is the community norm most applicable here. You made an edit, someone objected, and now we discuss it. That is how we work best in this sprawling collaborative project. ElKevbo (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you dont know much about Wooden ,Crum or NCAA basketball if you dont think it belongs there. There needs to be stuff about coaches and former players he mentored that went on to be good head coaches it fit right in with the time line it was on. Denny Crum was a player for him in 1956-58, he was freshman coach for Wooden from 1958 to 1963 also the head recruiter for Wooden From 1968 to 71. Players he rucruited beat him in the 1972 and 1975 Final Fours on there way the Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.252.159 (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD says you need to edit it Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. NOT TO REVERT IT JUST CAUSE (awkward digression; doesn't really fit within the narrative flow)FIX IT like WP:BRD says to we shouldn't have to come straight to TALK like you 2 made me.72.2.252.159 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert it "just cause." The material doesn't belong in this article, particularly as it was written when you added it. It's already in the Crum article and that is where it belongs. A brief mention in this article is appropriate but nothing more as this article is about Wooden and not about Crum.
I get that you disagree and that's okay. But we don't resolve disagreements by continuing to revert one another, we do so with discussion. And expecting others to edit your proposed addition when they oppose the inclusion of the content completely. ElKevbo (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with a brief mention about Crum, but most of the material you're trying to add is not directly relevant to Wooden, and makes the article difficult to read. I don't think there's anything salvageable from the exact text you added (which you seem to have copied from another Wikipedia article). We would need to come up with something from scratch, so that it actually fits into the text we have. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, you didn't say "doesn't belong in this article" at 1st. You said you agreed with the other guy which said "awkward digression; doesn't really fit within the narrative flow". After he said that. I did change it some. It did and does belong there and was just a "brief mention in this article." It belongs because its insane not to mention Denny Crum in John Wooden's Time at UCLA at all. After he coached and mentored him. Helping him become the head coach he was. He lead the Louisville Cardinals to 6 final fours (1972,1975, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1986) and 2 NCAA Championships (1980 and 1986) using the high-post offense, one similar to that of John Wooden he learn in his years at UCLA. 72.2.252.159 (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zagalejo. A brief mention of Crum (and any other head coaches in Wooden's "coaching tree") belong in the article. The level of detail specifically about Crum doesn't belong in the Wooden article. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw in my support for Zagalejo and Elkevbo's comments too. A brief mention (but no more) of Crum is acceptable in this article, and probably belongs in the John_Wooden#Legacy section if it is added. — Myasuda (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion: Was a very strong christan and beleiver of jesus christ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.160.17 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it might be silly to compare a men's coach with a women's coach

[edit]

The opening paragraph of the article compares John Wooden with Geno Auriemma, who coaches the UConn Women's basketball team. I positively do not understand the logic of comparing a men's coach with a women's coach. A men's record has absolutely nothing to do with a women's record. I personally feel that the comparison with Auriemma should be deleted from the article, because it positively has nothing to do with Wooden. I will not delete the information on Auriemma on my own, because I don't want to be accused of vandalism.

Men and women are different; a men's basketball team should in no way be compared with a women's team. Also, men have coached a woman's team, but a woman has never coached a men's team.

Also, Wooden's time period is far removed from Auriemma's time period. To use an analogy, it is unfair to compare Babe Ruth's baseball records with the records of the scandal plagued steroid stars of today

You cannot compare a tiger with a mouse.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Be quick, but don't hurry."

[edit]

The cited reference makes no mention of John Wooden making this statement.

I believe this actually comes from Earl Monroe, as "Just be patient. Let the game come to you. Don't rush. Be quick, but don't hurry." ref: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/earlmonroe202360.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.57.140 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a variant of the Latin proverb "Festina Lente", that roughly means "Hurry (but) Slowly". [1]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_lente
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Wooden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section needs major editing

[edit]

The Legacy Section compares John Wooden's achievements at UCLA with the records of lady coaches in college basketball. This comparison is silly and ridiculous. You positively cannot compare the coaching achievements in men's and women's basketball. In sports, men can be compared with men, but men cannot and should not be compared with women. If you insist on comparing Wooden's accomplishments with the distaff side, then it is imperative that you compare UCLA's basketball records with the ladies who play college basketball. Comparing men's college basketball with women's college basketball is like comparing little league baseball with the major leagues.

To use an analogy, nobody ever compared Jesse Owens with Wilma Rudolph. You cannot compare dissimilar entities.

The Legacy Section should not make any references or comparisons to women's college basketball.

Anthony22 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Wooden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on John Wooden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Wooden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy between John Wooden and Bob Knight

[edit]

It's no secret that John Wooden and Bob Knight didn't like each other. Knight was highly critical of UCLA's recruiting tactics.

Less than an hour ago, I posted a source from a website in which John Wooden says that he dislikes Bob Knight. Fifteen minutes later, the article was deleted from the website. Somebody doesn't want this information about John Wooden to go viral.Anthony22 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wooden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Wooden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wooden&oldid=1252197700"