Jump to content

Talk:Mike Gundy

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

What about "immunity" for sportswriters

[edit]
Archived discussion

The article makes the point about how the media controversy raised questions about whether it is consistent for adulation from the media to be accepted, but not criticism. But another question this raises is if a sportswriter calls out a player and questions their manhood, then what's wrong with a player or coach calling out a sportswriter and questioning their credibility? John ISEM 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we cover that, don't we? We explain that he Gundy alleges 3/4 of the article was false, and we also explain that he refused on multiple occasions to back up his allegations. I don't think anyone has denied that it is fair to challenge a reporters story if you can point out problems with the piece. Johntex\talk 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the article doesn't cover, at all, is whats actually at the heart of the entire issue, namely that people from across the country have expressed overwhelming support for Mike Gundy while those in the print media have been almost completely alone in defending the journalist and criticizing the coach. The way it currently reads is heavily favorable towards Jenni Carlson and paints the entire issue around what happened on Monday, when he refused to discuss it further. Additionally, Gundy did point out two specific things in the article that he said were untrue. 1) That Bobby Reid was benched because he was scared, and 2)that the decision to start him in the first place was made because he threatened to transfer. Carlson's article made those assertions based on "rumors and rumblings" and "back stories told on the sly", and Gundy, the one person who actually made those decisions, pretty emphatically said that it wasn't true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.207.91 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2007 September 26

  • Hello, thanks for your comment. Here are a few thoughts on that:
  1. It is an interesting opinion about most people agreeing with Gundy, but unless you provide a source it is only your opinion and it can't be included in the article. If you can find some sort of verifiable reliable source (i.e. not a blog or a fan site) that says they have done a survey and x% of people surveyed agreed with Gundy, then that could be included.
  2. Gundy is dead-wrong if he claims that Carlon said "That Bobby Reid was benched because he was scared". He needs to read the article more closely. The word "scared" appears only one time, and it is in a quote from Reid, saying, ' "I get sweaty palms. I get the butterflies in my stomach. I sweat lot,” he said then. "I've been playing this game for 15 years. And I can honestly say every game I've played in, I've been nervous. It's not so much me being scared; I just get to a point where I start worrying about a lot of things I can't control." '[1] So, we can certainly include that Gundy said she was wrong to say he was scared, but we'd have to include the actual quote from the article that proves she never said that in the first place.
  3. Here is what she says about Gundy possibly investigating transferring: "Word is that Reid has considered transferring a couple different times, the first as early as 2005. Reid, then a redshirt freshman, was facing competition from returner Donovan Woods, and apparently, Reid considered leaving OSU just because he had to compete for the spot."[2] She never says that he was benched because he considered transferring. She doesn't say the coaches even knew about it. She may have gotten that from family members.
  4. So, there is really no proof that either of these things are incorrect. If they were, they still would not be "3/4 of the article".
  5. The fact is that Gundy never gave his version of why Reid got benched. Therefore, a reporter went out and did some investigative reporting to try to find out. Her sources may or may not be correct. Gundy may or may not be lying to protect his own interest, such as trying to look good to other "kids" he is recruiting. But surely Gundy can't think that a major Division I football team in a BCS conference can swap QBs with no explanation and expect that no reporter is going to dig into it. And once they do dig into it, they are going to print what they learn.
  6. You talk about "whats actually at the heart of the entire issue". There is no single thing at the heart of the issue. There are several issues here. One of them is a question of a proper way to express discontent with an article. Another is about what is proper to write in the first place. Another is why the QB really got benched in the first place, which Gundy is still not adressing. Another issue is the alleged sexism inherent in his comments.
  7. Yet another issue, and where Gundy really gets off lightly as this Wikipedia article is currently written, is in how a coach can take so much attention away from the accomplishments of his team, who had just won a major victory.
  8. Gundy also gets off lightly here in terms of some of the truly bizarre things he said, such as "I'm 40 years old. I'm a man." Calling the editor "garbage", etc. Plenty could be made of all the stories laughing at how childish his behavior was for someone claiming to be "a man".
In conclusion, I think the article is pretty balanced as it is. I'm sure we could find other sources standing up for Gundy, but we could find lots more being critical of him as well. I'm not sure there is a point to quoting 10 more people who are saying largely the same things. If you do find something unique though, like a citable survey, then we should look at working that in. Johntex\talk 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a man compared to Reid, who is 21. He is basically saying, "Come after me, I've been around longer." And as to sexism, Gundy never called Carlson out for not being a "mother." he called her out for not being a parent and then contrasted that with himself (Gundy is a parent.)209.187.72.3 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but many people believe that someone who is 21 or even 18 is a man. Legally, Reid is certainly a man. The sexism issue is a matter of opinion. Some observers claim that Reid would never have said the same things to a male sportswriter. Some observers say it is completely off-base for him to even mention whether the reporter has children or not. Johntex\talk 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gundy stated Carlson was not a parent like himself. This is a genderless assertion, and therefore, an editorial that reads into his comments as being sexist should be thrown out as a source. This goes on to further question the credibility of the other editorial sources, which were most likely written subjectively due to obvious emotional nature of the situation. Michaelkulov 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, but it is not the opinion of the sources cited. Your opinion and my opinion do not count. What counts is what has been said by reliable sources. If you want to find such a source that says they think it was not sexist, then we can add that source into the article. Johntex\talk 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the "primary source" being the video itself, a sexist term (term refering to a specific sex) was not used. That's pretty much a fact. Michaelkulov 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not up to us to say what is a fact and what is not. It obviously is not a clear-cut "fact" or there would not be multiple publications claiming it was or may have been sexist. Johntex\talk 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heart of the issue, as I see it, is that something is going on with Reid's personal life. Possibly something pretty heavy and Carlson took a shot at him. Gundy got mad because unlike some of his other players, Reid is a good kid. This is an emotional issue and honestly it deserves a paragraph in an encyclopedia entry, not 70% of the entry.
One more thing, the majority of the sources for this entry appear to be editorial/opinion pieces. I don't believe this is common practice for encyclopedia. 209.187.72.3 15:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial pieces are commonly used as sources. The main requirement for a source is that it was published by some sort of reputable publisher. Things published in a newspaper or ESPN.com are attributed to an author under (typically) their real name, and they have to comply with the editorial guidelines of that publication. What is not allowed are things like anonymous postings (E.g. fansites) and places where there is no editorial oversight (E.g. a personal blog). As to length, it is a complex story and it is difficult to cover all the angles. Gundy's article should certainly be expanded with respect to his career though. The coverage is miniscule compared to articles like Mack Brown and [{Bob Stoops]]. The referencing also needs to be improved. Until this controversy came up, there was only one reference in the entire article. Johntex\talk 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember about objectively reporting information, as in an encyclopedia, Editorial pieces maybe used but not as the majority of one's sources. Michaelkulov 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can believe that is taught somewhere - journalism class perhaps? But it is not the case on Wikipedia. You can read our policies on the matter at the links I have been providing: cite your sources with verifiable information from reliable sources. Johntex\talk 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe discretion (In this case the use of sources to provide an objective entry as opposed to one that insinuates opinion) is implied in that policy, especially since wikipedia is an EncyclopediaMichaelkulov 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read or re-read our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source. It states, "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." An editorial published in a reputable source complies with this guideline completely. Johntex\talk 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." When you have a "source or sources" inferring that the person in question is sexist when he never used a sexist term to support the allegation that he is, that can be constituted as libel and should be thrown out. Michaelkulov 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true at all. We report negative things about people all the time. Go read Michael Vick or O.J. Simpson. Go read 2007 Texas Longhorn football team where we talk about players arrested for drug and gun charges. We report what reliable sources say. Sometimes those reliable sources say things that are not complimentary. That is a fact. Wikipedia does not white wash facts just because they are not complimentary. Johntex\talk 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying. If its true, even questionably true like in the cases you mentioned, report it. In this case, we have the primary source to compare to the Editorial on his "sexist remarks." There weren't any. The case can be made that he discriminated on the basis of not being a parent, but that's as far as I see it going. Michaelkulov 16:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just sweep away those reputable sources because you happen to think that they are wrong. That's not our call to make. If you find a different reputable source that says there was no sexism involved, we could certainly include that as a rebuttal. You raise a good point though about the parenting; we don't currently include anyone who accuses him of discriminating against non-parents. If a reputable source has said that then it should probably be included also. Johntex\talk 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its our call as to what to include as sources. We as editors must use discretion. My point is that there is no sexual discrimination, regardless of what a certain source may say. The primary source shows NO discrimination based on sex. The parent discrimination was an example to show that one could infer that type of discrimination because it can be shown in the primary source, but sexual discrimination cannot. 209.187.72.3 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true then it should be easy to find a reputable source that disputes the allegations of sexism. Let's look for a source like that and put it in the article. Johntex\talk 17:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is easy, its in the primary source videotape where he compares his parent status to her non-parent status. He's comparing her with himself, not with other mothers. I'm just going to have to disagree on this. I've read those secondary sources that are cited on this claim, and based on the primary source I have to go ahead and disagree with them. I won't edit this wiki entry to express that but I will note my disagreement with the questionable "libel" here. Michaelkulov 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to excuse me I'm a little new to this wikipedia thing, just got a screenname, so if this comes up in some weird format or something ... my apologies. Now, to the issue:

  1. I'm not sure what the wikipedia rules are concerning citation, and I don't know that a scientific poll has been conducted yet on this, so online polls may be out of bounds. However, the article does make note of the number of YouTube views, so certainly some online citation must be allowable. ESPN has a poll on their website in which over 60% of respondents are in total agreement with Gundy and less than 10% in agreement with Carlson. Like I said, Im not clear on whats allowable so we may have to wait to see if there is a more scientific poll conducted.
  2. I also think it would be worth mentioning that Bobby Reid's mother has appeared on TV in Houston http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/front and refuted several of Carlson's claims. Especially significant is that she denies the infamous "chicken eating" scene ever took place, and according to the OSU Media Department, Carlson was not even at the game in question, which was in Troy, AL.
  3. The sloppy quality of Carlson's journalism has also been brought up by a number of professional journalists, most notably Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/290829.html
  4. During the rant I thought Gundy made it pretty clear why Reid was benched from the starting QB spot. At one point he refers to Reid as "a kid who does everything right, but may not play as well on Saturday, and you let us make that decision"
  5. The article did not imply that Reid had been benched because he threatened to transfer, it implied that he had been originally given the starting job becuase he threatened to transfer.
  6. Finally, and mostly because I'm tired and its late, I think its obvious we probably have a different perspective of this entire issue, but I think its important that the wikipedia entry be as objective as possible, and reading it the way I read it, I thought it was overly negative towards Gundy. If I were reading this article without any prior knowledge of the issue, I would have a much different take on it than I would say most people in the country have had. Again, I don't know whats required for a poll, but all wikipedia-ing aside, it doesnt take much research to find where the sides have come down on this. And reading this as it stands now, it comes across as slanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trip349 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you have decided to sign up for a screen name. It makes it easier to have discussion since we can tell who has said what. Here are some thoughts based on your post.
  1. In terms of citations, the basic idea is that (1) we cite our sources (2) the sources have to be verifiable (E.g. published books, magazines, newspaper articles, but not a personal phone call with Mike Gundy that no one else can verify) and (3) the citations must come from reliable sources. Judging what is a reliable source is sometimes difficult. In general, anything published by a mainstream third-party source is OK. Self-published sources may or may not be OK, depending on what they are trying to say. For instance, if Mike Vick says on his personal web page that he was born on a certain date, and no one disputes that, then his web page could be used as a source for his birth date. If the same web site claims he never abused animals, and we have his court conviction to the contrary, then we would not treat that in the same way.
  2. Online citations are definitely allowable, as long as they are mainstream sources that have some sort of editorial guidelines. Linking to an article published on espn.com or si.com or wsj.com is definitely allowable. Linking to a letter to the editor on any of those is generally not allowable. People writing letters to the editor are (a) not guaranteed to be using their own names, so they are not truly accountable for what they have said. No one knows what their vested interests or conflicts of interest may or may not be. Linking to your blog or my blog is generally not allowed for the same reasons.
  3. The citation of the number of Youtube.com views is not coming from Youtube.com. We cite a newspaper article that makes the claim. It is an important distinction because it is relying on the journalist to make the claim. If I went to youtube.com and checked the number of views and then the video gets pulled off youtube.com tomorrow for some reason (I.e. copyright infringement) there would be no way to verify my claim. This way, it is on the journalist who made the claim. As a matter of policy, we strive for verifiability, not fact.
  4. Likewise, if a paper (or even an online source like ESPN.com) ran a story where they says something like, "We interviewed 300 people and 200 said x and 100 said y", then we can cite that story. It wouldl not have to be a perfectly scientific survey. What matters there is that the source thought it was credible enough to write a story on it. This is far different from a click-to-vote web-poll where there is no guarantee about who is voting. It could by 3 people with time on their hands. It could be paid members of the OSU coaching staff or of The Oklahoman, we don't know. Therefore, I took out the fan polls and put in a reference to an actual media story which says fan opinions are split on the issue.
  5. I agree with you about reporting the rebuttal from Reed's mother. Thank you for bringing that story to light. It is important and I have now included it in the article. Johntex\talk 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Concerning your point 4, I'm not sure were you are going with this. The Wikipedia article is saying that Gundy benched Reed without explanation, so Carlson did investigative reporting to try to find out a reason. Anything that Gundy said in his "rant" as you call it could not possibly have affected what she wrote in her story which appeared first. Besides, that one sentence is hardly an explanation, especially when the new quarterback did not play well against Troy. So, even after the Carlson article appeared, Gundy has said very little about why Reed was benched.
  7. I'm not sure where you are going with your point 5 either, the bit about the transferring. Carlson does not say in the article that it was a reason OSU started Reed. Personally, I find it hard to believe that OSU would respond to that sort of implied blackmail. I think what Carlson was saying is that Reed has an attitude problem. She mentions this in the title of the piece. I think she is trying to show that the alleged mumblings about transferring are more proof that he has an attitude problem. I guess we could try to go deeper into this, but what would be the point? It is just a he-said, she-said situation. It might better fit in the article about Reed. Johntex\talk 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Carlson

[edit]

Someone should write an article about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.206.209 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be interested in seeing if there is enough about her to have an article. However, we have a policy called Biographies on living persons. It basically says not to write an article for someone if they are famous for just one event. Was she known for anything prior to this event? Has she ever won any awards, etc? If so then she should probably have an article. If not, then she may not be a good candidate. Johntex\talk 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is a local sports beat writer, and not a very good one at that (personal opinion). I do not think she qualifies for her own article. And I would nominate an article created about her for deletion if all it talked about was the Gundy event.↔NMajdan•talk 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced info

[edit]

I removed this from the article because it is not supported by the sources:

Gundy had already provided during the original confrontation in which he stated that her reporting that reid was 'scared' was "not true" and that her claim that reid had threatened to transfer in 2005 if he wasn't made the starter was also "not true".[3]

That source simply says no such thing. Besides, Carlson never said that Reed was "scared". She also never made any connection between him talking about transferring and being named a starter. She discusses his "nerves" and his looking to transfer as part of what she calls his "attitude", which she believes is the reason he was benched.[4] Johntex\talk 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Poll

[edit]

Someone would like to add a link to a web fan-poll as a source for the article. The link they want to add is here. On that page, there is only one sentence, "Whose side are you on?" and an opportunity to choose between Jenni Carlson and Mike Gundy. I have removed this because it violates WP:RS. A fan poll such as this is not a reliable source because:

  1. It has not been subject to any editorial oversight.
  2. It is anonymous.
  3. It is subject to voter tampering.
  4. There is no way to know what sort of pages are pointed at the poll page in question, what may be said on those pages, what sort of campaign may be occuring, etc.

If FoxSports or any other media agency comments on the poll, then that would probably be citable. Until then, the poll is not a reputable source and must be removed. Johntex\talk 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link of the original article

[edit]

Hello, I'm new here. I looked for a link of the original article that starts the controversy but couldn't find one. Just wonder if it should be provided. Because everyone may have different opinions about it; but purely reading this section, it did give me an impression that Coach didn't get his fair share. I think some of his comments are picked up out of context, and some can only be understood with the original article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.208.186 (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original article is already listed as a footnote. It is currently number 12. "The title is Reid is still the most talented signal-caller, but attitude is reason for change". If you watch the YouTube video of Gundy and then compare his speech to the article, you can see that several things he attacked about the article are not even contained in the article.
As the article exists right now, I do not believe there are any statements that are taken out of context. Johntex\talk 06:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rant section

[edit]

The section about the 2007 media controversy is entirely too long and detailed. The article is about Mike Gundy, not about one press conference. Most of it should be deleted. It is enough to briefly describe what the rant was about; a complete blow-by-blow recap of the entire story is not necessary. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll edit that section heavily.... next time I feel like editing. I agree it's too long.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note for anyone editing this, the following statement from the official policy on reliable sources - Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. That may not have been clear from Johntex's claims above. 65.96.186.210 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a crack at it but there are an abundance of named references that I would need to fix, I had to undo what I started. I may try again when I have more time. The section is obviously far too detailed and is an obvious WP:WEIGHT problem. It was a viral video, not much more. --WGFinley (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section just really annoyed me so I plowed through it, I think I've done a fair edit to bring the section under control while covering the incident. --WGFinley (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should have a more complete Quote of what he said and not take out of context the "Come after me. I'm a Man I'm 40" part of it. If its going to be here like it should it should be complete not out of context. 216.221.193.217 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Gundy. 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) 10:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

[edit]

In the box that lists Gundy's career as a coach, it has him listed as HC of Tennessee from 2005-present. It should read OSU from 2005-2017, Tennessee 2017-present. 96.86.48.226 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Mike Gundy is the coach of the Oklahoma State Sooners. CityOfSilver 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Gundy&oldid=1207484311"