Talk:Bob Knight

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

This page needs[edit]

A rewrite on his basketball accomplishments, particularly at Indiana. It's disjointed and it's missing a lot of important records (home win streak, consecutive tournament appearances, overall wins etc.). Not to mention that it skims over major accomplishments like the national championships and final four appearances.

It also needs an explanation of how a very young guy can join the Army and then "accept" a position coaching basketball. When I was a private in the Army, I certainly didn't have the option of "accepting" this or that position. A secondary issue worthy of discussion is why American taxpayer dollars are expended for some guy to coach basketball at West Point. I love basketball, but that's a ludicrous waste of public funds.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.154.103 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^Brief response to above post: the military academies have hired professional coaches to coach the major sports for many many years; sometimes they have been given what amounted to 'courtesy' appointments as officers, mainly so they would have formal authority to issue orders in certain circumstances, but this biography is not the place for a profound philosophical debate as to whether the academies should give coaches 'courtesy appointments.' I do not believe this is usually done any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.24.75 (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction of his playing career info: the infobox lists him as a point guard during his playing career at Ohio State, but Knight was 6-foot-5 and about 220 pounds (before putting on a lot of weight in middle age) which would have been monstrous for a college point guard in the early 1960s. I believe Knight was a small forward (in the 1960s teams rarely distinguished between small forwards and power forwards) and essentially was the backup for John Havlicek, who was almost exactly the same size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.24.75 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV[edit]

There are currently (Nov. 2005) some subtle but problematic issues with non-neutral POV in this article; I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed this out. However, I feel quite unqualified to make any changes to this particular article. I hope that other editors will have a chance to remove the NPOV. Telestylo 06:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like, say, "Despite the controversies, Bob Knight has tremendous support among basketball fans — especially those who are aware of his many accomplishments off the court and the positive influence he's had on former and present players. They cite his honesty and exacting ethical standards, the fact that the Indiana University program was never charged with NCAA violations, and that he was intolerant of behavior, on court or off, that would taint his the team or the school in any way."
Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? Intolerant of behavior, on court or off, that would taint his the team (sic) or the school in any way? OK...
Somebody might want to fix this too -- "Two years later, Knight sued Indiana University, claiming that he cholked huoi,m!!w00t!!@"
This is a fairly biased piece, can a non-neutral template be inserted?:

As a humble user who is bored to tears by overtly detailed Wikipedia-entries like this one, I would suggest simply removing most of the offensive material. As I see it, an entry in an encyclopedia should not be concerned with passing judgement and discussing issues that really belong in a fan site. Jinmex, 31.10.2006

In this case you can not have an entry on Bobby Knight without mention of his controversial behavior. How ever I will agree this entry is rather biased aganist Knight, except for the mention of his major accomplishments. over all...not bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.129.227 (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Bombastic, abrasive, and abusive are 3 words that can well be used to describe Bobby Knight. Bobby Knight is my mental picture definition of bombastic. This entire entry seems to very carefully tip toe around who Bobby was/is. I grew up watching Bobby Knight coach. There is a lot of good accurate information, but it is omitting how raw the Bobby Knight experience was. Rufusprime99 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Knight[edit]

According to the Texas Tech succession box Pat Knight will become head coach when his father retires? Is this simply understood, or is there an actual contract in place? --djrobgordon 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain there's a contract in place.UMclassof06 07:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the status of a contract, but the media guide does state, "prior to the 2005-2006 season, Pat was named head coach designate."[1] I'll update the article with the appropriate reference. Lbbzman 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits[edit]

I have reverted 2 edits by 209.198.12.162 because they appear to be quite POV. If the community disagrees, I'll accept their consensus. Lbbzman 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a five year contract. You should look up facts before you just start randomly questioning something. Sportsfan should be editing articles like this because non sportsfans have no clue what's going on.

POV[edit]

This entire article is POV. The writing style comes across as Bobby Knight being set up by so many people out to get him, when in reality, he is probably just a violent person with a bad temper. Several passages cast doubt on nearly everyone who testifies against him that he caused harm to their person. It's just one big mess, and throughout there are no sources. I'm putting the POV tag on this. Mike H. That's hot 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some People just can't accept the alternate side of the story. Everything is under the premonition that Bob Knight is evil and everything he does is an act of violence.

pov tag[edit]

I just read the entire article and found it to be even-handed, keeping a neutral point of view when describing Bob Knight's critics and supporters. So I have removed the POV tag. If anyone disagrees, can you please quote specific examples from the text you feel are POV, so we can discuss the issue without simply saying the whole article or writing style is skewed? 69.142.21.24 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. This entire paragraph has a problem:
An Indiana University secretary also accused Knight of throwing a potted plant at her, and assistant coach Ron Felling claimed Knight threw him off a chair, and punched him in the chest after an eavesdropping Knight overheard him criticizing his program and methods on the telephone. (Felling allegedly said "Knight's ranting and raving ... takes the fun out of winning"). Felling sued Knight for assault and received an out-of-court settlement of $35,000 from IU. Many feel it was Felling who precipitated Knight's 2000 firing by Indiana University president Myles Brand by leaking a video of a private practice session to the media in which Knight appears to strike and hold the throat of player Neil Reed. It is believed that Felling leaked the video in retaliation for being fired by Knight for disloyalty.
Reed was later voted off the team by his own teammates..
Also, this passage has problems.
But, arguably, the most controversial incident involved Knight feigning whipping black player named Calbert Cheaney in 1992, an incident which made national headlines and resulted in howls of protests by civil rights leaders. Although Knight had done the same thing to several white players, only this made the press.
And this, implying that Knight was "set up."
In September, 2000, a freshman student named Kent Harvey reportedly said, "Hey Knight, what's up?" to Bob Knight. According to Harvey, Knight grabbed him by the arm and berated him for not showing him proper respect. Knight later told the media that Harvey was exaggerating the incident; he only placed his hand on his shoulder and quietly lectured him about manners and respect. Knight's assistant coaches backed his version of the story.
Although IU President Miles Brand states that even after a zero tolerance policy was placed on Bob Knight, the Harvey incident was only one of numerous complaints that occurred after its issuance that led to Knight being fired. Harvey was supported by some, but vilified by many Knight supporters who claim Harvey intentionally set Knight up. Knight's supporters contend that he was the victim of a media smear campaign orchestrated by enemies in the Indiana University administration and that the majority of Brand's reasons for firing Knight were not credible.

Mike H. That's hot 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems a little skewed, but not as bad as many familiar only with national media coverage concerning Knight would likely think. The national media only reports the bad things about Knight because it is sensational and Knight makes no effort to publicize his good deeds or even his side of the story. It is for this reason that many in Indiana try to learn more about him.

For example, one of the reasons the wikipedia entry mentions that Knight supporters "claim Harvey intentionally set Knight up" is because Harvey is the step son of sports author, admitted Knight critic, and former Bloomington talk-radio show host Mark Shaw (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/2000/09/10/iu_knight_ap/). But instead of pointing out that obvious connection days after being fired, Coach Knight told a crowd of 6,000 students that were calling for Harvey's head to "Let that kid be a student and let him get on with life. This thing, believe me, had happened to me long before that situation took place. That kid is not responsible for my not coaching at Indiana, and make sure you understand that." (http://espn.go.com/ncb/s/knighttimeline.html)

~Xander McMander (Who's Your Daddy)

I think presenting both sides of Knight's various incidents is the only way to preserve neutrality. He is a complex individual with a complex history. Glossing over the facts of his biography invariably presents a misleading portrait of the man.

I agree. Presenting both sides is not what the article is doing right now, at least not fairly. It's presenting one side, which is clobbered by the "superior" side of Bobby Knight and his supporters. It's heavily skewed and ends up disservicing people who really come here for an encyclopedia article on him, not a fan view. Mike H. That's hot 19:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to everyone to sign in and then use Hoosier 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) before you save so that your ID is recorded. Helps to know who to respond to. Thanks.[reply]

Hoosier 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL guess I need to use, "Hoosier 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)" sign in and use "Hoosier 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)" don't use the quotation marks to record your ID.[reply]

Hoosier 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the software from interpreting wikitext, enclose it in <nowiki></nowiki>

So, for instance, you'd type: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to get ~~~~ Kurt Weber 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the Article[edit]

To me, the article is fair. It all comes down to the fact that Knight has an overall controversial character, being a good teacher and coach, but at the same time falling prey of his outbursts. It is quite clear that he has rage control problems, but one can't and shouldn't downplay the bright side of him. Why should his ex-players still keep contacts with him, and being sympathetic with him if he is such an evil man? Can anyone dispute the fact that he raised 2 million dollars to help Landon Turner? I think that the article offered a complete description of the good and the bad, and left the final judgement to the reader. And I think that the fact that Knight's haters are disputing it shows that they are not as neutral as the article is.


Fabio Anderle

Please point to specific sections that you think are unfair and suggest changes. I have no idea of knowing what sections you think are unfair or inaccurate. If you simply feel that their is only critical material and no evidence that supports a better view of the subject, please try to provide that evidence. Remember 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Was not ment as vandalism but simply as odd things he has done which I presumed might be viewed as trivia. Nothing major if people disagree. Just thought i would toss it out there.

Speaking of trivia - what's Knight's currently record, his record at each school, and his winning percentage?

By the way: When is UK going to realize that Tubby is worthless BK is the obvious choice to replace him. UK has to take Knight in order to actually develop players that come there. Just a thought.

I am huge IU and Knight fan..but i will say this, knight is not any easy coach to play for and conseqeuntly has difficluty recriuting top noch players....just look and the hoosiers record ing the tournament is the mid to late 90's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.129.227 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes by Kasreyn[edit]

I've made some significant changes. Please direct comments here if you are unsatisfied or disagree with the actions I've taken, and we'll discuss. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. I was getting ready to remove the POV tag myself, as I couldn't see any reason for having it. Dubc0724 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work removing some of the unsourced claims. But you also removed the cite needed tags, and some of those paras still had unsourced claims. I generally use cite needed tags on a one-per-paragraph basis, no matter how many unsourced claims are in the paragraph. Otherwise, the resultant text will have more tags than text visible. I've restored some cite needed tags to mark these paragraphs (even though personally, I don't doubt that Knight did a lot of these things). Plenty of the claims of Coach Knight's improper behavior are still unsourced, so this article is still in violation of WP:BLP. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell?[edit]

Hmm, I found this: "* In 2005 Bob Knight, Dick Vitale, and Coach K were involved in a threesome"

and wondered exactly how verifiable it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.21.101 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

where to put info[edit]

Lawrence Frank, Isiah Thomas, Mike Krzyzewski, and Steve Alford all coach currently and either played under knight(coach k, isiah, and steve alfod) were a assistant for knight(coach k) or were a manager for knight(lawrence frank) Where should this info be added? i couldn't find a spot in the article apporiate for this info. Znsga 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding a "Coaching legacy" section? It's definitely relevant. -Dmh 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

I neglected to sign in before putting in a set of changes this morning. They're mine (the ones from 63.86.210.252 and 66.57.45.134 on 9 January).

In general, this article is a good example of why throwing around a bunch of stuff on either side doesn't make an article unbiased. As it stood it was a blatant puff piece with a little bit of "people just don't understand Coach Knight" thrown in.

Some particulars:

  • Side notes that do nothing but name-drop and then puff up other prominent sports figures. I don't care here that Parcells coached a Super Bowl team. I don't care that Kentucky went on to lose to Wooden's last UCLA team. I especially don't care that after not going to IU, Larry Bird went on to face Magic Johnson in the final.
  • Use of "Coach Knight" or "Bob Knight" instead of just "Knight". We already know he's a coach and goes by "Bob". He's not the reader's coach, so just call him by his last name like anyone else.
  • Use of words like "historic" and "achievement". Just say what he did and let that speak for itself.
  • Blatant POV stuff about Knight "revealing his sensitive side" and the bit in Basketball philosophy about how kids just aren't disciplined enough for Knight's system. Titles like "The Fall of Knight" and "Episode IV: A New Start" (OK, so it didn't say Episode IV) don't help either.
  • Some of the other stuff was more subtle, but in general tightening up the prose also made it more neutral (see "The Fall of Knight" vs. "Termination from Indiana". -Dmh 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Picture[edit]

This article needs a picture, somebody messed something up, and what is the deal with changing "*****d up" to "messed up" and all that stuff?

I agree that the article needs a picture. With the hundreds of thousands and more people who have, through the years, been to a game coached by Bob Knight, there has to be at least one good photo for this. For the second part, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Wordbuilder 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the 1991 speech from Bob Knight during practice that does not make any sense which doesn't belong there. I found more claims about Knight elbowing one Texas Tech player in this year, if that either happened. Why is he still violent.

Split[edit]

I suggest we split the section entitled Knight students. The list is important as it illustrates Bob Knight's far reaching influence on the game. However, right now the main article is too long and this section is part of the problem. We should do something along the lines of this article and use the {{main|Name of new article}} tag on the main article page to point to it.

First, for it? Against it? Comments?

Second, if we do split, what should be the name of the new article? I was thinking something along the lines of "People influenced by Bob Knight."

--Wordbuilder 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it, but would prefer to leave one or two highlights on the main page and use a {{Main}} to ref the new article. I'm rather fond of the current title of Knight Students but that's a bit ambiguous for an article title. I like where you're going with the "People influenced..." but it seems pretty open ended. How about something like Coaching Legacy of Bob Knight or Bob Knight coaching disciples? Вasil | talk 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should keep a few highlights on the main page. I like "Coaching legacy of Bob Knight" for the new article. If no one else weighs in with an objection, I'll split it in a week or so. --Wordbuilder 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I split the section into its own article. I didn't know who would be best to highlight in the main article so I didn't leave any. If someone has a few good ones, please re-add them so they'll appear in both places. --Wordbuilder 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico incident[edit]

"Knight was angry that a practice gymnasium was not opened to his team, which went on to a 9-0 record in the tournament."

It's my understanding that the problem was that the gym was opened to the Brazilian women's team while Knight was atttempting to have a closed practice. He got into a dispute with the cop who opened the joint, leading to the incident. The team's record in the tournament appears to be wholly irrelevant and should be deleted, IMHO. 71.142.92.68 00:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the account needs corrected, please correct it, basing your changes on and citing appropriate sources. The record at the Pan American Games isn't irrelevant; but, perhaps, should be moved to a better portion of the article. --Wordbuilder 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Froo deleted the below portion of text. The deletion was reverted by Fuzzy510. I had considered reverting Froo's change myself but am not sure that this portion, while interesting, is really encyclopedic. Coaches yell at their players, nothing new or special about that. I think the other entries under "Controversies" should remain since they're significant (run-in with police, throwing a chair, publicly arguing with a university's chancellor, etc.). This one should be deleted:

In a 1991 practice at Indiana, Knight lashed out at his team with the following tirade: "You don't wanna play, then I'm getting the fuck out of here. I mean, if you're not gonna cover Greg Graham; if you're just gonna let him drive by you; if the rest of you are gonna let him catch the ball outside the three second lane and drive all the way in here without one guy challenging him, then I'm leaving and you fucking guys will run 'til you can't eat supper. Now I'm tired of this shit! I'm sick and fucking tired of an 8-10 record! I'm fucking tired of losing to Purdue! I'm not here to fuck around this week! Now you may be, but I'm not! Now I'm gonna fucking guarantee ya, that if we don't play up there Monday night, you aren't gonna believe the next four fucking days! Now I am not here to get my ass beat on Monday. Now you better fuckin' understand that right now. This is absolute fucking bullshit! Now I'll fucking run your ass right into the ground! I mean I'll fucking run you, you'll think last night was a fucking picnic! I had to sit around for a fucking year with an 8-10 record in this fucking league! And I mean you will not put me in that fucking position again, or you will goddamn pay for it like you can't fucking believe! Now you better get your head out of your ass!" →Wordbuilder 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the prevailing opinion, I have no objections to that. However, with no explanation for why it was done or any sort of discussion, I didn't immediately see any reason why it should've been taken out and reverted the edit. --fuzzy510 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't disagreeing with your decision to revert. That was my first instinct as well, especially since the deletion occurred without explanation or discussion. →Wordbuilder 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. Just wanted to make sure that nobody thought I was prepared to fire up an edit war over the whole thing, haha. --fuzzy510 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there [EXPLETIVE] for the second paragraph with bob knight's words in them, and the profanities actually stated in the first one? i think you should either make it [EXPLETIVE] for all of it or say the word for all of it; don't mix and match.Att159 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources. The source for first has the swear words. The other edits them out, replacing them with (EXPLETIVE). So, you'd have to find a new source for one or the other if you wanted them to follow the same pattern. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Knight on SI.jpg[edit]

Image:Knight on SI.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale updated to specifically document inclusion in this article. →Wordbuilder 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of additions to "Controversies" section[edit]

Where do we draw the line on things added to this section? As it is, the section is threatening to eclipse the rest of the article. I would not consider the latest addition to be notable, "On January 5, 2008, after his 899th career win Knight attended a press conference with his young grandson Will and used coarse language while dealing with media members." What's special about this? It has already been established that Knight has a foul mouth. And, it is not uncommon for a grandpa to cuss in front of the grandkids, so what is notable about this? →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Rivals[edit]

Since when are Michigan and IU rivals? IU's rivalries have historically been with Purdue and Kentucky. Being in the same conference doesn't make you rivals. I'm changing it. Josh (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but being in such close proximity and in the same conference does make you rivals. Both have basketball success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.24.69 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.7[edit]

This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

Unfortunately this article just falls outside the scope of Version 0.7 on importance. If it were an FA, we could probably include it, but not as a B. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nancehall-knight.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Nancehall-knight.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nancehall-knight.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books about Knight[edit]

Regarding John Feinstein's book Season on the Brink, the article states "In 1986 author John Feinstein published A Season on the Brink ... the book quickly became a major best-seller and spawned a new genre, as a legion of imitators wrote works covering a single year of a sports franchise."

Feinstein's book was popular and influential, but it's a stretch to say it "spawned a new genre." In 1981 David Halberstam's seminal "The Breaks of the Game" was published, chronicling the 1979-80 Portland Trailblazers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.203.199 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feinstein's was far more popular and thus had a greater impact.--YHoshua (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bob Knight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bob Knight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Knight?[edit]

I've only known of him as "Bobby" Knight and this article may be the first source where I've seen him exclusively referred to as "Bob" Knight. If I had been looking him up I would have surely used "Bobby", and I am sure he is better known this way. Is there a reason why this is not used? Mal7798 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Isn't this person's most common name Bobby Knight? I saw this linked from another page as "Bob Knight" and had to click on it to see who it was. There seem to be cited news articles with with "Bob" in the title, but I didn't click on any of them to see if "Bob" is used in the text or is just a shortened form to fit the title on newspaper pages. --Closeapple (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little late to the game, but I was working at IU when Knight was there. His official bio was always "Bob." He never called himself "Bobby," but that was the name that was most used in the media. He seemed to prefer Bob, but accepted Bobby. BostonRed (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the books that he has written. He always identifies himself as "Bob" Knight. He picked up the "Bobby" nickname somewhere along the way, but he doesn't use it. BostonRed (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this initial entry... Who is Bob Knight? He was never publicly referred to as "Bob Knight," regardless of how he authored his books. He was only known as Bobby Knight and that should be referenced in the article...Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose editors of this page may have a consensus for "Bob Knight", but as someone who grew up in Indiana during his time at IU, I don't think I ever heard him referred to as anything but "Bobby Knight". I saw of his passing on the WP main page, and it took me a few moments of reading the article to confirm that it was indeed about the person known as Bobby. Surely Bobby is by far the more common name. If nothing else, maybe a line should be in the article's lead clarifying that this is about Bobby Knight. CAVincent (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a WP:RM could be in order here. It was moved from Bobby Knight to the current title back in 2006 without discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mal7798, Closeapple, BostonRed, Stevenmitchell, and CAVincent: any thoughts? I think an RM should be held to settle the matter, especially considering that Bobby Knight was the original title from which Calwatch moved unilaterally. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I would be fine with that, although it should be noted the standards for moving articles 17 years ago were much looser than they are today, but it is pretty clear that Bob Knight was his preferred reference as a living person, as noted in the statement from the family, Associated Press, Washington Post, etc. Some obituaries say "Bobby" but the majority use Bob. Calwatch (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He apologized for some of his transgressions, but his anger and menacing sense of defiance never abated. As his hair grew whiter and he dropped the boyish nickname of “Bobby” in favor of “Bob,” he remained unrepentant. His greatest enemy was always himself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2023/11/01/coach-bob-knight-dead/ And, if you look at articles from 2000 onward, they mostly used "Bob" Knight, which falls in the WP:NICKNAME standard today. I would not support any change. Calwatch (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support any move back to "Bobby Knight". His Indiana, Texas Tech, and Naismith Hall of Fame profiles all refer to him as "Bob". Further, announcements from both schools about his passing [2][3] both refer to him as "Bob" and do not mention "Bobby". To cinch it, his own website refers to him as "Bob" [4] with no mention of "Bobby". Moving it to "Bobby" would absolutely be the wrong decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, these are solid arguments for keeping Bob Knight as the article name, and I'm convinced. However, I do still think there should be a clarification in the lead that he was also frequently known as Bobby. Per my earlier comment and the comments of others, there are still many of us who are accustomed to hearing of him by that name. A significant number of obituaries use Bobby, as indicated by multiple recently added references in the article, so it's still in use as of 2023. I'll take a shot at this. CAVincent (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your edit; I don't want to workshop the wording in production but I'd suggest something tighter and more consistent with other biographies, perhaps "Also known as Bobby Knight and nicknamed..." Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem with "Also known as..." is that as of the article's second sentence, he has only been referred to as Robert Montgomery Knight in the text. (I'm now laughing imagining his mother sternly calling him Robert Montgomery when he misbehaved, but I don't think anyone else ever would have.) That said, I wouldn't object to this proposal, or something similar, if the change were made. CAVincent (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I totally spaced that the bold name wasn't Bob Knight. Then in this case it's time to comb through the many examples at MOS:NICKBOLD. Per that, then maybe somethng like "also known as Bob Knight, Bobby Knight, and nicknamed "The General"... The thing that makes this extra weird is that Bob and Bobby are both diminuitives, but the mobster example given at MOS:NICKBOLD kind of covers that. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Calwatch Obviously you never followed college basketball between the 1970s and the 2000s. He was always referred to as "Bobby" by the press, as an editor, who grew up in his home state of Indiana, points out in this comment thread. It isn't the first time that Wikipedia permanentizes misinformation in its article content, but this is why there is supposed to be consensus, not unilaterality, when making a major article decision, such as refiling its title. Another option is to also include redirects for Bobby or Bob, and as mentioned, note the varieties in the article content. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob Knight. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Knight. 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) 01:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Knight. 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) 13:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Knight. 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) 06:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox could use a better picture of Bob Knight[edit]

The infobox photo of Bob Knight leaves much to be desired. He is an old man with a very somber and dejected look on his face. An article's lead photo should have a pleasing appearance, preferably with the person smiling for the camera.

I know that it can be difficult to locate photos that are not copyrighted, but this article definitely needs a better picture of Bob Knight. Anthony22 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support of Trump[edit]

Norcaes has begun an edit war to insert and retain a 2-sentence paragraph that says that Knight has publicly supported Trump. Without any additional context or explanation, this material doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. "Public figure supports major party nominee and winner of election" doesn't merit even a mention unless there is something extraordinary - supported by sources, not one's own point of view or original research - about this support and how it's expressed. ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo, thank you for beginning this discussion. I've addressed your accusation of edit warring on my talk page (where you duplicated the accusation), and I'd encourage you to continue that discussion (if you wish) on my talk page in order to avoid muddling up the two issues at hand. Had you provided more than 3 characters ('so?') in your edit summary, I believe I could have attempted to address the suggestions you've now stated above without resorting to a revert.
To help me better understand your concerns about the article, it would be helpful if you could substantiate your views on the 'level of inclusion' for an encyclopaedia article and about what merits a mention by providing references to specific guidelines on Wikipedia. Since Mr. Knight features in the list of notable endorsements Mr. Trump has received, it seemed appropriate to mention it in this article as well, due to the fact that Mr. Knight has made his support public, even recently appearing on-stage at rallies. If you take issue with the fact that the edit consists of 2 sentences, please let me know what other details you're looking for, excluding the realm of political gossip (e.g., Mr. Knight's publicised phone call with Mr. Trump). Norcaes (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to establish that this information is so important for readers to know about that it belongs in this article. Without any context or meaning it's just trivia. Was there something especially interesting about Knight's endorsement and subsequent support? Was it different than the support that thousands of other public figures have provided? Does Knight have a long history of public political actions and this is just the most recent example? Why is this information essential for readers to know if they're trying to understand the subject of this article? ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that the importance of the information is dependent on what the reader in question is looking for. If they are looking for information on Mr. Knight as an individual, his political beliefs seem to be relevant to the section on his personal life. If they are solely interested in his career, the entire section on his personal life is irrelevant. Therefore, I'd rather refrain from trying to guess what the reader will find useful. Since his political appearances appear to be a minor aspect of his biography in comparison to his career, I only added two lines on the subject in the section about his personal life.
In addition, I'm having a hard time finding matter relevant to this discussion in the guidelines you've shared. WP:DUE deals with viewpoints. The edit in question has no implication of a viewpoint. WP:TRIVIA provides style guidelines for 'trivia' sections, which this article does not feature. Norcaes (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health Concerns[edit]

I added a section today under heading 'Health concerns' about the news about his declining health. Jhojnack (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Coach Knight" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Coach Knight has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9 § Coach Knight until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article lists age of death as 73[edit]

Typo - article reads Knight's age of death as 73. He was 83. 63.208.139.171 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Knight&oldid=1194744884"