Talk:Eric Mangini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: The following two sentences are in the article: "He is also one of three head coaches to have a winning record in his first season with the Jets (Bill Parcells and Al Groh are the others). Mangini finished his rookie season with a 10-6 record, the same as former Jets coach Herman Edwards did in his rookie year.[4]" If these sentences are true wouldn't be be one of four head coaches to have a winning record in his first season? (edit)

	This article is part of WikiProject Connecticut, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Connecticut, United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Needs reworking

This article has serious structural and grammatical errors and needs to be completely rewritten.

Could I also add that this reference to his age is silly "He is also the first and, so far, only NFL head coach to appear on Monday Night Football who was born after the program first aired on September 21, 1970."

I'm sure you could something like this with any relatively old/young person in anything.

I would remove it but I'm not sure how you do things in the wikipedia community.

[edit] Mangini has his own site now

It's http://ericmangini.blogspot.com/ it's a spot for mangini and players news.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timbok (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Looks like a fan blog rather than an official site. Mangini is referred to in the third person several times.—Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbok (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 February 2007

I'm sure you do, however it doesn't comply with the Wikipedia:External links policy. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm it has all mangini though..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbok (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 February 2007

I"m sure it does. If the blog was run by Mangini himself or was in some other way "official" (e.g. run by his publicity agency) it would be appropriate. Fan sites, however, fall outside of the Wikipedia:External links policy. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbok (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 February 2007

[edit] A walk on at Wesleyan?

The article claims that Mangini was a walk on at Wesleyan. I don't think Wesleyan offers scholarships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.177.215 (talk) 10:05, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

Whoever flagged this page should COMMENT on why it isn't neutral enough **for them**, or remove the tag. I will if there isn't some discussion here. You can't just flag it as disputed and then tuck tail and run. 76.26.107.104 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Statements like these:

"A feud began...The basis of the feud is unknown and subject to much speculation"

"Feud" is a very POV word, while the rest is original research.

Nonsense. All of it. "Orig. Research:" You don't even know what that means. Another wiki puppet. *Everything* is well documented and sourced. If you don't come up with a valid reason for your criticism, such as a document showing the other opinion that you feel has been "neglected," I will simply remove the dispute flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.107.104 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you check your attitude out at the door and refrain from violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Secondly, for an IP making its first edits on Wikipedia, you certainly don't seem to be a rookie to editing here. If you have a username you normally edit under, please use it.

As far as your comments, you still have yet to provide a substantiated counter-argument. How can you "prove" that there is a "feud" between Mangini and Belichick? All that anyone can produce in regards to the subject is speculation and commentary. Saying "the basis...is up for speculation" is just an extension of that. Pats1 ^T/C 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"fanned the flames"

Personal opinion.

"could further strain an already tense relationship between these two head coaches."

Original research.

""unwritten rule" in NFL coaching community against airing their laundry in public"

As with some of the above quotes, this contains colloquialisms like "airing their laundry" or "fan the flames" that aren't appropriate for an encylcopedic article (i.e. they aren't formal enough).

"many believe that this retraction is an illustration that just such a coaching fraternity "code" exists; and that Billick had only been interested in making that point, not embarrassing Mangini"

Need multiple sources to backup this claim.

In general, these edits rely too much on the commentary provided by the sources and lack encylcopedic prose. They also contain broad statements that do not provide enough sources to verify the claims. Pats1 ^T/C 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is in major need of editing. It is obvious the writer made biased edits that contained opinion and original research due to fandom of the Patriots and hatred for Mangini. And it is intentionally misleading ... one of the articles used as a source indicate that the reason for the Belichick/Mangini fued is that Belichick did not want Mangini to take the Jets job becuase of Belichick's own hatred of the Jets stemming from his time there with Parcells and his one-day stint as coach. Yet the writer gives another reason that is pure speculation, and doesn't provide any source to back up that speculation.

Therefore, I am submitting the following edits:

"One suspected cause of their dispute is related to Mangini's solicitation of Pats coaches, support staff members and players to join him in New York, even while on a plane returning from a playoff loss to Denver."

This is not attributed and not accurate according to this source: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-thegameface091407&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

This is the same source used to attribute the alleged missing computer in the next sentence. Also, there is no source to indicate WHAT exactly was on the laptop other than confidential files. The speculation that it included scouting reports is removed until there is an attributed source that says WHAT was on those files. "Confidential" COULD mean scouting reports; It could also mean financial data, naked pictures of Belichick in a hot tub, ANYTHING. I am rewriting the section so that it accurately reflects what is discussed in the source article.

I am also removing the bit about Deion Branch because the link is no longer active. Also, since the NFL ruled there was no wrongdoing in that instance, it doesn't need to be mentioned. (Public and sportswriters consensus outside of New England is that the Jets did nothing wrong and Belichick's claim was nothing more than sour grapes over Mangini's departure)

The attribution of sources in the next section was way off, as many of the sources did not state what the author claimed they did, and one link was dead. I have reverted the Mangini/Billick controversey so that it reflects what is stated in the mentioned sources. I also removed the following line:

"Given Mangini's exhibited willingness to steal from an organization and air its dirty laundry, some league insiders have even speculated that Mangini would be unlikely to find another coaching position in the NFL should his tenure with the Jets end."

Again, this is speculation, and is not attributed to a source, and looks like it was intended to defame Mangini rather than to inform the reader. And the last blurb about the Patriots removing a Jets official for taping the 2006 Jets/Patriots playoff game is also misleading. The Jets claim they were given permission, and filming the game from multiple angles is commonplace for both home and away teams. If you want to give mention to this instance, at least give both sides of the story.

Going over the original articles attributed, the original author did a good job of "cherry picking" pieces to defame Mangini, while leaving out critical pieces of information that were critical of anything having to do with the New England Patriots. (FYI, I am a NFC guy and couldn't care less about either team) After the edits I have made, I think both sides are depicted fairly and the neutrality tag can be removed. The only thing that needs to be done is to add a link to the Wikipedia article on "Spygate" within this section. One sentence isn't enough to address this controversial moment in the Belichick vs. Mangini sage, but there's no sense re-writing everything since there is an entire page dedicated to the controversy.

Goosedoggy (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching career -> Assistant coach

The chronology is backwards here, making for some seriously confusing reading. I propose rethreading it. The unfortunate structure also results in multiple "prior to" / "before that", which also makes for poor reading. The language in this section is, in general, subpar for Wikipedia, something that a rewrite should also address. Fyo (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)