Talk:John Calipari

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RafiqWalker24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching records updated for 2006-2007[edit]

All coaching records have been updated for 2006-2007. Gregchilders 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cal's Memphis stats and win-loss records need to be updated and examined for consistency throughout the article. The stats seem to be as of the end of last year (2004-2005 season).

Stats need to be updated at the end of the season, but not during the season. Constant editing after each game doesn't serve much of a purpose.

Added additional information, including breaking down his coaching record year-by-year

Calipari, Williams, and Self led two schools each to NCAA Tournament #1 seed[edit]

John Calipari led the University of Massachusetts to a #1 seed in 1996, and Memphis in 2006.

Roy Williams led Kansas to a #1 seed in 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2002, and North Carolina in 2005 and 2007.

Bill Self led Illinois to a #1 seed in 2001, and Kansas in 2005. Gregchilders 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Only Pitino has led 3 different schools to a #1 seed. Self and Williams have done this with only 2 different schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.236.51 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


All three coaches led their respective schools to the 2008 NCAA Championship as #1 seeds. Gregchilders 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


FYI, Rick Pitino has now done this as well with Kentucky and Louisville. He too won a championship as a one seed with Kentucky in 1996. 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.6.102 (talk)

Calipari has now led three teams to an #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Has anyone else done this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.157.41 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Roy Williams won more games after 15 seasons[edit]

"And they have Calipari, a coaching animal and Larry Brown disciple, whose track record speaks for itself. Calipari has won more games (374) in his first 15 years than any other coach beside Hall of Famer Roy Williams, who won 418 in that period at storied Kansas before moving on to North Carolina. He is one of only three coaches — along with Williams and Bill Self of Illinois and Kansas — who have coached two different teams to No. 1 seeds."

Source: Calipari using familiar formula for success Gregchilders 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the shady dealings at UMASS?[edit]

Laughable, and deserving of the POV tag. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Calipari was cleared of all wrongdoing at UMass by the NCAA. Wikipedia articles should only contain factual information, and not rumors. The only sanction handed down by the NCAA to UMass during Calipari's tenure resulted from player Marcus Camby accepting money from an agent. UMass had to forfeit their 4-1 record from the 1996 NCAA Tournament, but that was it. Calipari was cleared by the NCAA, and was given no sanctions himself. Even the Wikipedia article about the UMass Minutemen mentions it. Gregchilders 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • If you can back up statements made through reliable sources, then by all means you should add the info Corpx (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crotchety Old Man was the one who made the claims of impropriety with no reliable sources. He was the one to hang the POV tag. So far, he's made accusations but posted no proof. Seems to me the burden of proof is on him. As for my statements, a simple Google search can confirm the whole thing. Gregchilders 03:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregchilders (talk • contribs)

I believe that the POV tag should be removed, as the absence of rumors is not equivalent to a POV violation. CopaceticThought (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the wins being vacated were just a rumor? Interesting. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the trip to the Final Four was officially removed from the records of the NCAA, it should at the very least be included on Calipari's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrapinheel (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the NCAA Tournament records were vacated because Marcus Camby accepted money from an agent. The coach was cleared by the NCAA of any wrongdoing, but the school had to vacate the games because of the actions of the player. Gregchilders 04:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregchilders (talk • contribs)

I went ahead and put a mention of it in the article. Can we remove the tag now? CopaceticThought (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of NPOV, the lead section should also mention the vacated Final Fours at two different schools, since it mentions his guiding 2 different schools to #1 seeds. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky[edit]

Undid the mention of him accepting the job at Kentucky, as this has not been confirmed anywhere.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.161.161 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page inaccurately lists him as Kentucky's Head Coach. This has not been confirmed by anyone and only attributed to unnamed sources. The news articles linked as the source of this information clearly identifies this information as unconfirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.131.136 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article again says he is the head coach, which is speculation, not fact as of now. Someone enjoys compromising Wikipedia's journalistic standards. In addition, as to past problems with the NCAA, Seth Davis writes today, "Calipari's past NCAA transgressions also could be problematic for a program still sensitive of its image following the recruiting scandal left behind by Eddie Sutton in the late-1980s." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/basketball/ncaa/mens-tournament/03/30/calipari/?eref=sircrc 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.6.102 (talk)

While SI hasnt confirmed it, numerous others have confirmed it, which is enough to meet the reliable source requirement of WP Corpx (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is now confirmed, so perhaps someone really likes proping up Wickedpedia's journalistic standards. In fact, removing it is what compromises the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.181.173 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is being "reported" that he has accepted the position, that is different than "confirmed." Until Memphis, Kentucky, or Calipari confirms the story the article should continue to list him as coach of University of Memphis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.131.136 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page declared Calipari the new coach at Kentucky, ESPN and others have repeatedly reported that Calipari was still deciding -- wanted to sleep on it, was thinking it over this afternoon, etc. Therefore, this Calipari page has been wrong since yesterday and as the page is protected a good samaritan is unable to correct it. This statement is wildly misleading: "On March 30, 2009, four days after Memphis' season ending loss to Missouri in the NCAA Tournament, it was reported that Calipari will agree to be the head coach at the University of Kentucky.[1] Calipari rejected a counter offer by Memphis for Kentucky's 6 year, $40 million contract.[2]"

Someone is reporting hopes on Wikipedia, not facts, and that diminishes Wikipedia as a valuable resource for others. My hope is that people stop abusing WP. -- 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.100.244 (talk)

Memphis players have confirmed the move. Contract details are still not public, won't know all that until a press conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.165.68 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official Website[edit]

John Calipari made several announcements this week that his new official website http://www.coachcal.com (example 1, example 2, and example 3) - which can be verified as coming "from the horse's mouth" as the new home for his "Official Website" - I don't want to get into an edit war, but when I looked at the page today and noticed that the site was not correctly linked in the bio, I simply corrected the URL (since www.coachcalipari.com has been a dead link for quite sometime) and this is being constantly edited with attacking comments (WP: is not a crystal ball) because of the current content of the site (a countdown to the official launch time of noon Thursday, July 23, 2009.)

Regardless of the content, there has been a longstanding portion of the bio linking to a dead site with no content other than a 404 page, when the subject of the bio himself states that his official website is found at another location, what is wrong with correcting a bad link. Regardless of the content of the site - it is easy to show it is the "Official Web Site of John Calipari" WP is also not a battleground. However, what is confusing to me is the choice to remove content that is valid and verifiable because one simply doesn't like the content. Bonked (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten involved in the reverting, but I agree that the link to coachcal.com should stay. It has been made abundantly clear that this is his official site and will have content very soon. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"wp:NOT a crystal ball" is not an attacking comment, it is a Wikipedia Guideline.
Any wp:RS that identify this? Twitter is not. There is no copyright.
Recommend against. wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff.
2 removals of new unsourced content is not "constantly".
Thank you for starting a discussion.- sinneed (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's obviously his official site, there's no content there, so it serves no use to readers. Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link suggests excluding it - the 'content' is not accessible, useful, informative etc, and the site is not functional. Until it has some content that is useful, it should be left out. --hippo43 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, with the dubious flag and the "Future" note, no one clicking it should be surprised that there is nothing there. I won't restore this, but I won't kill it again either. If restored, I think it should really say "Future". The Dubious I don't feel as strongly about, no one but me seems to BE dubious (I have no trust of Non-Notable sites on the Internet).- sinneed (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick question - at what point should the WP community begin to trust a person's Twitter feed. If his comments there are good enough to be quoted on other "notable" and "trusted" sites (ESPN, NYT, Courier-Journal, etc.) and that trust can be seen, does it serve the purpose of WP to disregard all comments on that feed simply because it is twitter? I would understand that stance if other reputable sites hadn't confirmed that it is actually John Calipari behind that feed - but once that is established (again, he has given the link out in numerous press confrences) shouldn't that be as reliable, or even moreso that third-party quotes of that source? I just ask because I find it confusing, I mean, if a person had Mark Twain in the flesh handing him manuscripts wouldn't you trust that to be more accurate than the cliff notes version published 100 years later? Bonked (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at what point should the WP community begin to trust a person's Twitter feed." - Today? Not at all. Twitter might make it as wp:SELFPUB if the feed itself were notable. So, for example, if the article had "Coach Cal's Twitter feed is blahblah" with a solid wp:RS, it *might* be good enough to qualify as a self-published source. Right now, I would say it is more like a post on a chat board attributed to the him... not useful in WP at all, unless quoted in a generally Reliable Source.- sinneed (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my very not-useful opinion, this seems to say "yes". But, once the site is up, I think the point will be moot. Personally, I think the twitter thing is worth mention in the article all by itself. But please understand, I am no expert. :) - sinneed (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response, I'm just trying to keep my mind on the right track over this - WP isn't the only place dealing with such questions, all of those wp:RSs are having to ask the same question, I would think that the grandfather of "web 2.0" would have a more solid guideline regarding wp:SELFPUB and blogs/microblogs. It is certainly food for thought. I also agree that in an hour or two the point will be moot. Thanks for the discussion - as I said in the beginning, I was trying to avoid a conflict. I don't edit much on WP specifically because I don't have as much activity here and am more of a consumer. Bonked (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I started discussion because I felt it need to be started. Yes, we can verify that John Calipari's official twitter account is the one linked above, if need be I can give links from ESPN and other third party sources regarding that. Thanks for commenting regarding the Crystal Ball comment - I don't edit much here - I just noticed an invalid link and corrected it. I do however think there is no reason not to retain the site as John Calipari has made several statements recently outside of twitter telling people to follow his twitter feed for more information about his new official site (http://www.wkyt.com/blogs/tvtimeout/51103322.html "Witness... the Internet has become Calipari's playground. Already, he has more than 400,000 followers on Twitter. Soon, the coach will launch his web site, which he says will be unlike any other. Here's a guy who's not afraid to embrace technology and find ways to promote his team.", http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/dawson/2009/07/so-what-did-i-miss.html "John Calipari said in a Twitter message this morning that UK will "launch a brand new project this week," calling it "the result of months of effort and research." Could this be Calipari's much-discussed website? Stay tuned.") He has been constantly asked about this new site since making the boast last month that he would be launching a unique, unprecedented official website that "will be the website to end all websites."
I don't know if it will live up to the hype, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater - regardless of the content of the site - it is obvious that will change sometime tomorrow afternoon at the latest and the link shouldn't be killed because of content - it seems most bios link to "official websites" regardless of content, and I would assume that is why it is in a section of the template. The guy made the announcement yesterday, it is linked above, and there is no valid reason to remove the link because it isn't whiz-bang full of content right now. It is still his "official website."
Seriously, how are we served by hoping that someone comes back in ~19 hours and do another edit? (if need be I'll do it) Bonked (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, how is anyone harmed if no one does. WP is not a directory of links. ELs should only exist that help the article.- sinneed (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikipedia, there's always something with nothing better to do. Although it's clearly his site, at the moment the site is useless to readers, so there's no benefit in linking to it. If that changes in the future, great. Let's wait and see rather than guessing. --hippo43 (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm looking at it differently since I heard about the site and didn't have a link - so I went here thinking someone would have the link in external links and was instead sent to a 404 page - later however, when I had the correct link, I simply wanted to correct the bad link here - no matter, from his public comments, there will be plenty of justification tomorrow and it takes 15 seconds to fix it - I would think there are numerous others that had a similar experience to me on and wanted to help out. Bonked (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site is now live and does provide a lot of content directly from Coach Cal - I added back the official website to EL. Thanks again for the civil discourse and reasoning. Bonked (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site is now so overloaded it is generating "site offline" errors. But I did get to see it and it credibly claims to be his personal site. Nice site, too! :) But it started yacking at me about basketball...- sinneed (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the sheer Internet force of the Big Blue Nation! Gotta love it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopped Photo on Main Page[edit]

The picture located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calipari.jpg was photoshopped to add in the Kentucky logos. The picture was taken while in San Jaun at the Puerto Rico Tip-Off. Notice current Memphis Head Coach, Josh Pastner at the far left. I propose it be removed and replaced with a non-editted photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.174.141 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, removed. It appears to be tagged for deletion anyway. Ryan2845 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Enigmamsg 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Inital paragraph confusing[edit]

This sentence confusingly refers to details that are only explained in later paragraphs, and uses confusing terminology.

He is one of only four coaches to direct two different colleges to a number one seed in the NCAA Tournament, and the only head coach to have a Final Four appearance vacated at more than one school, though Calipari himself was not personally indicted by the NCAA while coaching UMass or Memphis.

What is meant by having a Final Four appearance vacated (I figured this out via context but it is a specific enough term to deserve some kind of definition), and why are the incidents at UMass and Memphis mentioned in passing in this sentence without any prior mention in the paragraph?

165.123.183.240 (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To "vacate" a record in a sense means to erase it from the record. The NCAA uses this term to retroactively forefit the event and change a team's record when they have been found guilty of rules violations. They use the term in their release regarding the Memphis 2007-08 season. The term could probably use a Wikipedia article, as the NCAA uses it throughout their record books. The vacated records in the cases of UMass 1996 and Memphis 2007-08 are explained in more detail later down in the Calipari page. Detail is not needed up front. --MikeUMA (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't his record reflect the current vacated records? The records listed on the page pretend they were not forfeited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elwhajeff (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo removed[edit]

The following was copied and pasted from User:ElKevbo's talk page for further discussion here.

Why was this photo of John Calipari removed from his article? I took this photo during a game last year. Sure, I'd love to have been fortunate enough to get a face-on shot of him cheesing for the camera, but this was what I could get with a 12x zoom from about ten to fifteen rows back on the opposite side of the court. Surely, it's better than no picture at all, and I have no idea how it violates WP:BLP as your edit summary suggests. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think it's a bad photo. It's blurry and unless he is perpetually scowling and frowning (maybe he is; I don't know :) ) it's not very representative of him. I don't agree that it's "better than no picture at all" given its quality and how it portrays the subject. Sorry! Maybe it's worth bringing up in the article's Talk page if you strongly disagree...? ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's much worse than this, this, this, or even this, the last of which is from a current GA. Fact is that an encyclopedia that relies on free license photographs isn't always going to get the best ones, but having some idea what the person looks like seems to me far better than nothing, especially if the article contains no description of the person physically (and most don't and shouldn't). Believe me, the next time I'm at Rupp for a game, I'll be trying to get a better shot to replace this one, but right now, this is the best WP has got. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the mediocre or serviceable. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not convinced. Just because some articles have shitty photos doesn't mean we should allow that in other articles. :)
Please, bring this up in the article's Talk page. I'm not the final arbiter of article content. ElKevbo (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Minor point of clarification: The photo was removed from this article, not deleted entirely. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Didn't mean to imply that. I've changed the heading. Sorry about that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I wasn't wagging my finger at you, just making an important clarification. :) ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Another editor has repeatedly removed the "Controversies" section of this article. I have reverted those removals. I do not object to editing that section, including trimming it or removing parts of it entirely. I do object to the blanket removal of the entire section since parts of it are very well-sourced and almost certainly belong in the article. So instead of deleting a large part of this article supported by reliable sources, how about those who have objections (a) edit the article more carefully instead of deleting everything and (b) discuss those objections here with other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ElKevbo regarding the removal of this section entirely. I do think, however, that this section should be disassembled and incorporated into the narrative of the article. Grouping them together unnecessarily gives the impression that Calipari is a scofflaw, when in point of fact, he has zero NCAA infractions on his record. I also agree that this section is in desperate need of pruning. Some of these "controversies" are either not controversial or only tangetially related to Calipari. Including them is just "piling on" by people who want him portrayed negatively. I'll create a separate subsection for discussion of each one individually. After a week or two, we'll see if some consensus has developed and go from there. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Acdixon's comments here. The essay, Wikipedia:Criticism, suggests that Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product), and I think that's the appropriate approach here. I agree that the issues relating to Camby, Garcia, Rose, and the win total silliness should be kept (which Acdixon's suggested changes), while the issues mentioned relating to Wagner, Evans, Dozier, Laurinburg Institute, Kanter, and Jones should be removed. I'm not sure about Wesley. But any/all kept content from this section should definitely be integrated into the flow of the article, rather than retained as a separate "Controversies" section. cmadler (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket removal of most of the controversial content is a showing of bias. The definition of controversy is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." All of the content posted under this section fits the definition of a controversy. Both sides are of a controversy are given the opportunity to voice the opposing views. For example, someone posted the racist comment Calipari made about a Mexican-American reporter. Later, someone posted Calipari's apology for the comment. In sum, as long as both sides of the controversy are voiced then it should not be deleted. If it is one-sided, then posting the opposing view of the controversy is the appropriate response. Blanket deletion of the section is not the appropriate response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBBfan (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing for blanket removal of controversial content. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "all of the content posted in this section fits the definition of a controversy". It would be most productive if you could comment on each individual section below so that we can talk specifics in each case. The only one you've mentioned specifically is one that everyone who has commented so far agrees should be included. It is not OK to list everything everyone thinks is the least bit controversial as long as an opposing viewpoint is presented (see WP:UNDUE). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Camby[edit]

  • Include and expand to include NCAA exoneration of Calipari Inclusion of this information is necessary because the NCAA's decision to vacate the wins directly affected Calipari. However, it is inappropriate not to include the fact that Calipari was the one who reported the Camby's conduct and was specifically exonerated of wrongdoing in the NCAA's report. The current incarnation of the article omits these facts. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racist insult directed at journalist[edit]

  • Include Because this resulted in a lawsuit and a fine from the NBA, it probably belongs as well. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dajuan Wagner[edit]

  • Remove The practice of hiring someone close to a recruit is not forbidden by the NCAA, and no NCAA investigation resulted from this. It is common practice at other schools, and while some analysts decry the practice, it is not controversial enough to merit mention. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyreke Evans[edit]

  • Remove The practice of hiring someone close to a recruit is not forbidden by the NCAA, and no NCAA investigation resulted from this. It is common practice at other schools, and while some analysts decry the practice, it is not controversial enough to merit mention. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Rose[edit]

  • Include The vacated wins and subsequent lawsuit and settlement make this notable enough for inclusion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dozier[edit]

  • Remove Unless there is more to this story than what we have here, there is nothing that indicates that Calipari was involved in any chicanery viz a viz Dozier's test score, that the score rendered him ineligible or resulted in any penalties for Calipari or Memphis, or that the cancellation of the first score had any effect on much of anything. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurinburg Institute[edit]

  • Remove The academic issues at Laurinburg Institute are not connected at all to Calipari. No sanctions were imposed on Calipari or Memphis for accepting players from the institute. In fact, this article makes it sound as though the institute was an exclusive pipeline utilized by Calipari, which it was not, as you can see by examining the alumni list in its article.

Enes Kanter[edit]

  • Remove or reduce to passing mention at best This concerns Calipari only inasmuch as Kanter had committed to Kentucky. Lots of players get declared ineligible for lots of reasons every year. Again, no sanctions resulted from the incident. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall wins[edit]

  • Reluctant include This seems like a silly issue to me, but since the NCAA got involved and it is about Calipari directly, it should probably be included. In the interest of balance, the article might also mention that, after the NCAA slapped at UK and Calipari, other schools were found to have printed inaccurate win totals for coaches whose wins had been vacated, including Steve Fisher and Urban Meyer. Ultimately, all of this amounted to a tempest in a teapot. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what wins of Urban Meyer have been vacated? To my knowledge, none have been. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Brain-fingers disconnect. Meant Nick Saban. (I'm a basketball guy; don't care much for football.) Thanks for the correction. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Wesley[edit]

  • Integrate into text, if kept at all OK, Calipari has a high-profile relationship with William Wesley, but that in itself shouldn't be a controversy. No NCAA violations have been reliably alleged pursuant to the relationship. It isn't controversial just to be friends with a guy that people suspect might be shady, even though there's no reliable proof of that either. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Jones[edit]

  • Remove with extreme prejudice Seriously? Does anyone think Calipari is the only coach who has ever cursed at a player? Anyone who does has obviously never heard of Bob Knight. So Calipari got caught on camera at an inopportune moment in the age of HD TV. Big flippin' deal. Whoever added this was blatantly piling on. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Mollskman (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias by editors?[edit]

I find it highly suspect that the two main editors arguing against the controversy section both happen to hail from the state of Kentucky, where John Calipari is now head basketball coach. It is possible that their edits may be influenced by their own personal biases. 64.134.178.193 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly suspect that you raise this issue without attempting to comment on the merits of any of the discussions above, choosing instead to lob accusations of bad faith at those of us trying to clean up this article. You'll notice that ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was the one reverting the overzealous removal of the entire controversies section, and that both of us agree that some of the controversies should be kept. I also posted a notice about the discussion at the College Basketball WikiProject specifically to get some outside feedback, although none has yet been forthcoming, unfortunately. Regardless, we are trying to get outside input. If you have comments about any or all of the sections above, please add them. If you are going to hurl baseless accusations of bad faith, feel free to go elsewhere. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is his annual salary featured/prominently featured in the info box?[edit]

Ya know? Should we start doing that for every public figure? I guess I just don't get why Calipari's annual salary is any more relevant than anyone else's. EVERYONE has an annual salary; yet I've never seen it in a place of prominence on anyone else's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's here because {{Infobox college coach}} provides a parameter for it. Every college coach could potentially have this information in his/her infobox, if the information is known. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis[edit]

As the article states, there were two violations, and either one would've caused the season to be vacated. One was the Rose SAT, and the other was Memphis giving Rose's brother free transportation. Thus, the part about it having the university not knowing is inaccurate. Enigmamsg 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching records spreadsheet[edit]

Why are Calipari's records for vacated games in 2007-08 listed as "0-0"? This is highly unusual and is not done for vacated games by Steve Fisher, Kevin O'Neill, Tim Floyd, or Jerry Tarkanian on those coaches' respective wiki pages. Jamesbarlow3 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Calipari. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Calipari. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Calipari. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Calipari. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Changes[edit]

The Wikipedia article that I chose to edit is the Wikipedia page of John Calipari. John Calipari is a hall or fame american college basketball coach. He currently coaches at the University of Kentucky. After reading this article I am confident in saying that everything in this article is relevant. At no point was I distracted while I was reading. The article is also neutral but contains a section about controversies that aren’t extremely bias.

``Rafiq Clark-Walker 

    `Indiana University of Pennsylvania Undergraduate  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafiqWalker24 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I think this article contains a good deal of POV content. I am thinking of things like "Since 2012, the Wildcats head coach John Calipari has been on the top of the high school basketball recruiting mountain." Or this, from the lead: "On February 23rd 2019, in an 80-53 defeat of Auburn at Rupp Arena, John Calipari won his 298th game at Kentucky, officially passing Coach Joe B. Hall to become the 2nd winningest coach in Kentucky basketball history behind only the legendary coach Adolph Rupp." I would be interested to hear any other opinions. I will try to fix as much as this as I can soon, and may add a POV tag if I feel it is still too pervasive. JEN9841 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JEN9841: Yeah without question there's all sorts of Point of View issues and also weasel wording in the article. There's more gems like "John Calipari is also famous for his ability to recruit world class talent for his basketball team every year." and "Due to the dominating success that John Calipari has been able to engineer during his tenure as head coach of the Kentucky Wildcats, it should come as no surprise that his players tend to enter the NBA Draft after their first season." I'll try to go through the article too but I say it's worthwhile to add the POV tag, Weasel tag and maybe the "in use" or "under construction" tag just so people are aware. It's going to take some significant time to go through the whole thing. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and transaction template[edit]

Reports indicating Calipari may soon be hired by the University of Arkansas are intensifying. I added a transaction template, but Calipari's prominence — and the fact that the reported hiring would take him to an in-conference foe — makes me wonder if autoconfirmed protection is enough. Unfortified Castle (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unfortified Castle: From experience, it's usually fine. It prevents the majority of edits. It's fine like this for now, if it gets worse, a higher level of protection can be requested.--Rockchalk717 03:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024[edit]

Cal now coaches at Arkansas 74.131.99.68 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No changes will be made to reflect the hiring until Arkansas confirms it per Wikipedia policy.--Rockchalk717 16:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 (2)[edit]

65.34.41.156 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024[edit]

John Calipari is now the head coach of Arkansas razorbacks 2600:1700:9670:94E0:2A69:F4A2:1827:C670 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:9670:94E0:2A69:F4A2:1827:C670: Despite with that editor said the issue isn't a source. The issue is he has not been officially hired yet. The contract is still being negotiated. When it's signed Arkansas will make an announcement. When that announcement happens is when we will update the article.--Rockchalk717 16:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Calipari&oldid=1218081726"