Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:57, 30 December 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. College football Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Req-photo

Only head coach

What about George Kiefer? -- œ 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Assault Allegation

I added a paragraph describing his assault allegation. 75.111.81.101 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The allegations turned out to be false. As such, per WP:BLP, it doesn't belong in the article. Little Mookie (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The allegations turned out to be false? Can you provide some evidence of this? My article is current and says nothing about a false allegation. I request that the content be re-added until this issue is resolved. Fsu23phd (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, the source you added isn't reliable since it's a blog, and doesn't hold up. Especially for a BLP article. Second, the player came out and said the reports were untrue. Sounds like your article is anything but "current". Little Mookie (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to be crass. The allegations were public and reported in several other sources, which I will include in the update. e.g. . I didn't see his most recent statement that he was only grabbed by the shoulderpads. I will add that too. I think it is relevant to his article. Fsu23phd (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant. Since it's a false allegation, it's essentially a rumor. Once again, per BLP, we don't add rumors. The whole issue stays out, and will be deleted every time you add it, so just move on. Little Mookie (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, since this was a very notable event, why don't we include all the available information? Leavitt is notable nationally because of the allegations, and if those have been disproven, that should be included. Simply erasing the event from the page doesn't tell the entire story to people who are searching for him, especially with the Leach incident making the news. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikistalking is sad and pathetic. Second, it's a bit embarrassing that someone who wants to be an admin someday doesn't comprehend BLP. Little Mookie (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully it is not a rumor as per the BLP policy. It is a fact that a player alleged that he was assaulted, and it is a fact that the player then stated that the assault did not happen. This is an interesting and important chapter in his story, that he was accused and latter vindicated. Fsu23phd (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Both of you are edit warring at this point, albeit in good faith. Might I suggestion we leave the information out of the article pending this discussion on the talk page? That'll give us time to discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to BLP-related issues. Not really surprised that you didn't know that. While I do need to go to bed soon, I can and will delete the information every time it's added. That's what's great about BLP. Little Mookie (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may ask, what if your issue with my proposal above to include the allegations and the rebuttal, to give the full story of the extremely notable incident. By my way of thinking, BLP would be better served by properly noting the corrections, rather than by just blanking the section. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss it. Little Mookie clearly has a vested interest in keeping the information out of the article, making his/her opinion biased. The other observers thus far have acknowledged that the allegation and the retracted allegation are noteworthy and should be included. I suggest that Little Mookie be prohibited from removing the section. Fsu23phd (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My "vested interest" is in upholding BLP articles. I could give a rat's ass who the BLP is, but when I see information in an article which violates BLP, it gets removed. Little Mookie (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't add the info to an article, simply to discount it. Before you go any further, you do realize discussions like this, where you make abundantly clear you lack understanding of a basic principle of Misplaced Pages, will haunt you, come RfA time? You may wanna re-read BLP before you go any further. The notion of adding potentially damaging information to a BLP article, information which was already proven untrue, is quite ludicrous. Wow. Little Mookie (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Nobody's getting banned from editing this article, we should be able to discuss this rationally to get the best article possible. Mookie, I'll ask again, what would be the problem with including the entire story, allegations and rebuttals, to fully indicate what happened? Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll read BLP for you. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" The original report of the allegation cites "anonymous sources" who were afraid to lose their scholarship. Hell look at the title of the article itself. I wonder if ncaafootball.fanhouse.com passes the test for being a reliable source?

I appreciate that I've gotten under your skin enough for you to wikistalk me over to this article, but know when to quit. Seriously. Little Mookie (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't repeat a rumor. It is a fact that the player made an then recanted an accusation. No one is disputing that the player made and recanted the accusation. This was a scandal that he had to endure and is relevant to his BLP. My updated post, if you won't delete it, will say that the player made and recanted the accusation. With respect, I am not simply adding information then refuting it. I am adding information about two events that are well sourced and not in dispute. The subject has changed from the incident itself to the allegation, so the reliability of unnamed sources are no longer an issue. How about this: leave my section in, and you add to it explaining how the allegation was refuted? Fsu23phd (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm working on an updated version of the allegations, with the source you quoted above included. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. He shortened it and stated the the player recanted. I would offer a friendly amendment: include the allegation of the coach's statement to the player before he recanted. But, if you choose not to, I am satisfied with this version. Fsu23phd (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd hold off on that for now. If this incident was only alleged, we don't really need to report specifics of the allegation. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like Dayewalkers edit, it is not too excessive or dramatic. Off2riorob (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise against adding this potentially libelous information. Mr. Leavitt will be keeping tabs on who reports this false information, and actions will be taken against those parties.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of sportspeople
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class college football articles
• Mid-importance college football articles
• WikiProject College football articles