Talk:Michael Jordan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Images

This is beyond rediculous, the greatest athlete of all time gets a wax photo for display? they're like what, 5 million pictures of this man lol. I've also notice that the more successful a black person is, the more wikipedia seems to go out of there way to find the lightest possible colored picture of them.I guess Michael Jordan was just too black to find a light picture of him so they use a wax photo (wth?) instead.

Once again, This is not a race issue, but instead an issue pertaining to Copy Rights. Almost all of the images on the internet of MJ are owned by another company, Getty or the Associated Press, and protected under a strict copyright. If you feel that this is truly "rediculous", consider taking the time to write an email to Getty, AP, the NBA, or SI and request an image for Wikipedia. Sorry Mr. "Issac Newton", not all Wikipedia articles need photos to boost their quality standards; I'm also convinced most people who are able to find this page know how to use Google, or follow the links at the end of the page. Until then, the article's main concern should not be over a silly image but rather its overall content. --ShadowJester07 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you mostly ShadowJester, however to relegate the picture's importance is "rediculous". It needs relevant photos (and many other things), to attain GA status, that's one of the criteria. Quadzilla99 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a new image for Michael Jordan. This is a statue!!! We can find something better than that. Im hoping for something like A real photo of Michael Jordan with his red bulls jersey.

Good luck finding a better Fair-Use image. ;-) --ShadowJester07 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that the Michael Jordan page, of all basketball players, is missing a photograph. Granted this is better than a copyright-vio, but there has to be a fair use image of him *somewhere*. Cacophony 07:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Micheal Jordan really really needs a picture...Can Someone please fix up kadour as welll

Seconded Zerak-Tul 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what's so hard about typing "Michael Jordan" into Google and going to the image results. I don't see any copyright info anywhere except for the pictures which are hosted by ESPN or similar sites. Jackpocalypse 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All images of NBA players are likely protected by some sort of copyright. If you want to use a picture from Google images, you have to get proper consent from it's actual publisher. Otherwise, you better call Corboy. --ShadowJester07 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The greatest basketball player of all time and all he gets for a picture is a wax model? surely there is a better picture somewhere ... Mrmaroon25 02:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a screenshot from Space Jam? Uthanc 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots cannot be used as profile pics. However, you can add them to a part of the article which talks about MJ's involvement in the movie. --ShadowJester07 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? What the hell ...

Who edits these articles? Seriously, these edits are getting entirely pointless. So, why the vandalism? What is it about the man that's so bad that you feel the need to demean his article? Leopard Gecko 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Michael Jordan's Mistress

Do NOT edit me out - I am NOT a porn star. I dated Michael Jordan longer than Karla Knafel. Michael Jordan just did not sue me for the relationship so I did not get as much press (negative press). I was on the cover of the National Enquirer when Juanita Jordan announced that she was divorcing MJ. I was dating him at the time. Lisa Miceli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.66.53 (talk • contribs)

A Gsearch for "Lisa Miceli" + "Michael Jordan" has no relevant results, so unless you can document this your contribution will be edited out. InTheFlesh? 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Ever hear of primary source??
2. Jan 2002 and May 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.66.53 (talk • contribs)

There's no Proof that you truly are "Lisa Miceli", however the fact that Lisa had a 16 year relationship with Lisa checks out [1]. --ShadowJester07 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that comment can be construed as derogatory Shadowjester. Yes, it is noteworthy that he dated Lisa Miceli as it was the reason that Michael and Juanita Jordan were divorcing. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/19720 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.66.53 (talk • contribs)

1. First-person account is not acceptable as source. (WP:V, WP:OR)
2. The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. Ytny 03:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

College completion

Although Jordan left college for the draft, he eventually returned and completed his undergraduate degree. I do not have a citation, but am certain that I recall a news story on his academic achievement. I believe that his reason for finishing the degree sounded something like "my mother wanted me to." --Ezratrumpet 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he earned a degree in cultural geography in 1986. [2] (It's not necessarily the best source, but I'm sure this can be verified elsewhere if someone does a little searching.) Zagalejo 07:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Done sourced with a reliable source. Quadzilla99 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

While this article is host to some well-written useful information, it’s also full of a great deal of unnecessary cruft. Yes, Jordan was a great player with a very interesting life, but the article is full of too much information! I suggest trimming it down by deleting vestigial sections or facts that go nowhere. See Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Summary style. Note this refers to a previous version, before Career achievements of Michael Jordan was made into a separate article. Quadzilla99 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Also, one should take note that the article is well over 50kb, it may abruptly cut off whist one is editing the article --ShadowJester07 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I see you go to Loyola Academy. The article claims that the Jordan boys are "both impressive [...] scholars." Is there some way of verifying this (eg Honor Roll lists, awards ceremony programs, etc)? I just haven't heard much about the boys' academic accomplishments in the media. (I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it's true, since pappa Jordan is a pretty smart fellow, but I think it's important to back up these kinds of claims.)

BTW, I went to Loyola myself. I graduated the year before Jeff enrolled. Zagalejo 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm don't have any "electronic" evidence of the claim, but both Jeffery and Marcus' names appear on Honor Roll Tapestry located in the school's lobby. While I admit I may of overexagerated the claim, both Children have earned a reputation around Loyola for both Brains and Brawns. Jeff was in my Chemistry and Algebra 2 classes, and managed to maintain an average over 90% in both classes (Yes, Mr. Dahm and Brabeck are easy teachers, but an accomplishment is still an accomplishment ;-)). I'll try to see if I can find Loyola's regular .pdf file, which usually lists honor roll students every now and then ;) --ShadowJester07 08:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Telling the Whole Story

First off, this article is very well written and I disagree that it's too long. If any article should flirt with the maximum amount of space, it should be one written about possibly the greatest American athlete of all time. My only gripe with it is that it doesn't tell the whole the story of Michael Jordan. It's way way too flowery. It reads almost like a bio ripped off of the Chicago Bulls' media relations Web site. Missing is all the information about the less-desirable aspects of Jordan's personality. Such as, his gambling problems. It's widely known among sports media and fans alike that Jordan retired for the first time because David Stern and the rest of the NBA front office were catching wind of rumors that MJ was betting on NBA games. Granted, there is a small chance that this wasn't the case at all. But I still think it merits mentioning, because if you ask any Midwest sportswriter about Jordan's first retirement, they'll attribute it to his gambling on basketball. Regardless, his gambling problems still need to be at least mentioned. Also missing is any information about the way he conducted himself as a player with the Washington Wizards. He was, by all accounts, very tough to be on the same team with. Rumors clouded that franchise, about how MJ used his executive power to coerce his teammates - Rip Hamilton particularly - into passing him the ball. He also alledgedly had a habit of abusing Kwame Brown during practice, once telling the 280-pound Jahidi White to sit on the 18-year-old's face. His competitive spirit, at times, went way too far. The portions about the Kwame Brown drafting are inaccurate as well. His drafting Kwame is more of a media/sportswriter issue. Many GM's have conceded over the years that they would have drafted him as well. Please consider/read up on some of this.

• Do you have any legitimate sources for any of the claims? ;-) Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Summary style. As for the possible copyright Violation, which webppage are you claiming the article was ripped off from? --ShadowJester07 09:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't have any specific sources, but just do a Google search for "Michael Jordan" and "gambling problems". Plenty of articles come up to support my claims. It's my feeling that, if you're going to put in something about how MJ's father's death could have influenced his retirement, you need to also put in a blurb about his reported gambling endeavors. There's absolutely no evidence that his dad's death had anything to do with his first departure - only speculation. He never said his father's passing had anything to do with his leaving the game, rather he only would go as far as to say that he had simply done all he could do with basketball. His overly-competitive nature in Washington and his gambling addictions need to be mentioned, even if you sprinkle words like "alledged" and "reported" around them.

I found some material on Google, however all the links claimed that Jordon's gambling habits were just speculation. Unless or until it can be confirmed, the rumour doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --ShadowJester07 09:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also widely known that JFK Jr. was killed so he wouldn't investigate his father's death and that the Moon landings were faked. Why aren't those in the JFK Jr. and Apollo 11 articles?...Give me a break. Quadzilla99 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While the JFK Jr. article doesn't do more than comment that his death drew the attention of conspiracy theorists, the 'see also' section of the Apollo 11 article includes a link to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, which is an article nearly 3 times as long as the article about the mission itself. --Onorem 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to start a Michael Jordan's conspiracies page and since when is length of a Wikipedia article proof of the truth of anything?Quadzilla99 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this page needs any additional "conspiracy" information, and I don't think a separate page is necessary either. You seemed to be saying that theories of that sort weren't worthy of space on Wikipedia because they couldn't be proven. I was just pointing out that they don't need to be proven, just verifiable. Where did I ever say that the length of an article is proof of anything? (By the way. Great job on the article. It's 100x better now than it was this morning.) --Onorem 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First off thanks. It needs to be proven that it was well known not something that one writer mentioned once, and when something is this libelous it probably needs proof. The insipid Richard Gere gerbilling rumors and Rod Stewart stomach pumping rumors are more rampant and much more well known than this unfound rumor, Would you include them in their articles? Why not they have as much proof? They're well known. (if you feel so go add them to their articles and see what response you get) Do you really want Wikipedia to be the place where people say "Hmmm where can I go to find out about completely unfound and libelous rumors about living people? Ah, Wikipedia." Lastly JFK Jr. is dead and the ediors there still don't think the rumors are worthy of addition, why should equally unfound specuation be here when Jordan is still alive and his article is subject to even higher standards. Quadzilla99 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[previous comment removed] I'm willing to chalk this up to a misunderstanding. I'm removing my comment in an attempt to end this now. --Onorem 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gambling Allegations

The Gambling Allegations absolutely belong in this article. Let's review some facts:

• Yes, its true the conspiracy theory never was proven. However, its also true that this was a widespread conspiracy theory - and it created a major buzz in the headlines. If you state the conspiracy theory as fact, then I agree it doesn't belong. Keep in mind - nowhwere in the paragraph is this stated as fact. A biography of Jordan would be remiss if this wasn't mentioned.
• There are legitimate references to this theory. The Sporting News published an article on this.

The precedent has already been set in wikipedia. One example is the "Paul is Dead" theory - referencing that Paul McCartney is dead. This was an unproven theory, yet it is still something that something that belongs as a part of McCartney's story. This is something that is in wikipedia. Another similar example, "Elvis is Alive", etc.

Based on these precdents, Wikipedia has allowed this in the past and I feel it belongs back in there. I certainly welcome an appeal to the "powers to be" and would respect any decision that was made. --Wac01

• I completely agree with you. I'm the writer of the previous gambling section (I was new on Wikipedia and didn't know how to sign yet). To me, the underlying fact is that there was wide speculation of extensive gambling and it was one of the theories about his retirement - just as much so as his father's death. But MJ himself nor anyone from his estate ever made mention of his dad's passing having anything to do with his retirement. So my question is, why is that kind of a statement allowed on Wikipedia if the gambling allegations aren't? The kid who responded didn't even address that - he just said that it didn't belong on Wikipedia. I think that, without making mention of gambling, this article is highly inaccurate and it paints an incorrect picture.BallingOutFull 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, you two obviously aren't familiar with Wikipedia policy in the slightest. The theories are so minor and have absolutely no credible evidence to back them up. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more info on this. If this is your best chance of getting slander in there then you're outta luck.Quadzilla99 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Shot Over Russell

I wonder why putting in the fact that many believe Jordan pushed off of Russel in game six is a point needing iron clad citable evidence. This assumes the fact that Russel slipped is not as subjective a claim. This play has in fact been highly dicussed by many and in interviews with Jordan himself he has admitted that he may have "given him a nudge." Yet, pointing out the dispute is for some reason unreasonable? Please explain. 216.165.3.196 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)magic man

Try finding a reliable resource to back up your claim.

I understand that any editing must be backed by sources. I am simply asking what is the source on Russell slipping? The point is that when the nature of what is written is a subjective interpretation as to what happened at a certain event, there is not going to be an objective (which I am assuming is what you mean by reliable) source on the matter. By supplying sportswriter opinions in columns and blogs I was hoping to show that there is reasonable dispute on this fact, particularly by those who are paid to provide subjective analysis on sporting events. I assure you that I am not trying to be obtuse, rather I am simply trying to relate the facts of the event in the most truthful way. So, if I must find a "reliable" source, I ask in earnest: 1) what is a realiable source for a question such as this? and 2) what is the current source for relating that Russell slipped? Thank you for your time.

Also See Bryon_Russell [3]

It really depends how you state it. If you say, "MJ pushed Russell", then your hitting the hornet's nest with a baseball bat. However, if you say "Many respectable commentators claim that MJ pushed Russel, then you may be able to pull of your claim. As for the sources, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I agree, that is why I thought adding a parenthetical stating that many argue/believe that Russell was pushed, was an accurate compromise. Thanks.

Seeing as how MJ had many "controversial" incidents in his life, perhaps we should make a controversy section, similar to the [[Terrel] Owens]] article. --ShadowJester07 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The visual evidence being used in both instances is the same. Where does the visual evidence give one person the opportunity to claim a "slip" where the same evidence can claim a shove to another viewer? Speculation is the problem with bias eyes and leaves us where we stand today. The problem is the call on the court was "no foul" but the visual evidence speaks otherwise. So the real problem really is the integrity of the officials and the entire NBA for that fact. If the officials overlooked the "shove/slip" in favor of a historical legend then the integrity of the league is in jeopardy. Not to mention the track record for the Jazz since the event. The depleated spirits of the players involved could have been too overwhelming to endure and deep depression could have resulted in the post lackluster performance with those involved. Many fans lives could have been ruined or destroyed because of the extreme favoritism that was perceived. Makes you wonder where our great country would be today if the ref had only made the "correct" call.

ESPN Not sure how reliable that is, but at the bottom it mentions this, cementing, at least in my mind, that this is a fairly popular theory. Also, the entire section on this play reads more like a novel than a piece of information. 67.84.82.147 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am among those that believe that MJ pushed Russell, but regardless of whether Russell slipped or MJ pushed him, I just think that a mention of either should be left out. Just simply say that MJ made a shot over Russell, which is still objectively accurate, minus the argument back and forth. Because to be honest, it kind of upsets me to see that this article claims that Russell slipped because that is NOT how I recall it happening. But either way, I think it should be changed to not include either the slip or the push. Including a sentence either way is subjective, which I agree, should be taken out of a wikipedia article.

Buckethead song in Trivia

Hi. Is there any reason why you removed the Buckethead trivia on Jordan's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Astral Connection (talk • contribs) -Moved from PRRfan's user page.

Yes. It has nothing to do with Jordan; it belongs on the Buckethead article, if anywhere. BTW, these kinds of conversations are held on the article's talk page, or on a user's talk page, not the user's "own" page. PRRfan 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the song has everything to do with Micheal Jordan. Bucketehad is a big MJ fan and wrote this as a tribute to him. --Tbboy16 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Videogames

Why was Jordan's likeness excluded from many videogames during his playing career?

If I remember correctly, it's because he never joined the players union. The game companies negotiated with the union for likeness rights, but felt that Jordan was asking too much for just 1 name. On that note, would his attempt to break the Union in the mid 90's be something worth putting in the Article? I'm going to see if I can find any reliable sources for it... --Onorem 10:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Michael Jordan

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here as an alternative to the current trivia section. Regards, Durova 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The greatest basketball player of all time

Why is there no mention of Jordan being widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time? This should be in the opening paragraph of the article which currently only says that he was effectively marketed. Articles on other athletes make similar claims within their sports (see Ronaldo) and if you want external backing then you don't need to look any further than the NBA's own biography on Jordan which states at the very beginning: By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. Although, a summary of his basketball career and influence on the game inevitably fails to do it justice, as a phenomenal athlete with a unique combination of fundamental soundness, grace, speed, power, artistry, improvisational ability and an unquenchable competitive desire, Jordan single-handedly redefined the NBA superstar. -Unknown

It pushes the POV, since there are a handful of people out there with dissenting opinions. --ShadowJester07 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. It is a fact. He is considered by acclaimation the greatest of all time. He is widely considered the greatest. It should be stated. -Unknown

The Irony... --ShadowJester07 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not push the POV in any way. See below. Jmpstrtr 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that we need a qualification when calling Michael Jordan one of the greatest basketball players of all time. "Widely considered"? I guess we should say Shakespeare is "widely considered" to be a good playwright. If we're going to use "widely" or "often considered" we might as well just come out and say, "greatest basketball player ever" since that's what he truly is "widely considered" or "often considered". As for being "one of" the greatest, I'd say that's "universally considered." Or is there someone here who thinks he was just average?

We could do what they did to the Wayne Gretzky page which is clutter the lead up with sources saying he is considered the greatest of all time by so and so (see the Gretzky article). But I prefer it this way it keeps the flow, doesn't incite edit wars with non-fans, and almost everybody knows how good he is. I mean c'mon he's Michael Jordan, I remember reading that at one point more people in the world had heard of Michael Jordan than of the country Jordan. Quadzilla99 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But that makes no sense. You're saying we all know how great he is so we shouldn't argue about whether the article says how great he is. Jmpstrtr 14:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The POV argument is being perverted here

• It is simply a fact that MJ is widely considered 'the greatest basketball player of all time. There is nothing biased about that statement. The vast majority of critics, athletes, and fans along with the NBA itself consider MJ to be the greatest. This is well documented and backed up by the NBA biography.
• The current intro that states he is "widely considered one of the greatest" is simply inaccurate. You couldn't find a single respectable source anywhere that argues that he is not 'one of the greatest'.
• If the NBA has no apprehension in stating that Jordan is 'by acclamation the greatest basketball player of all time' why should we?
• Why is there no mention in the intro of any of the unique traits that defined MJ and made him such a phenomenal athlete? (his speed, competitiveness, improvisational ability etc.) These are traits that he was renowned for and are well documented (also in the [NBA biography). Why is the focus only on his marketability (which was due in a great part to these traits)?

A proposal for a new intro

This is more accurate, provides and still retains a neutral point of view. We have reputable sources for all of these points.

Michael Jeffrey Jordan (born February 17, 1963) is a retired American professional basketball player. He is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time and one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century. With his unique combination of speed, strength, improvisational ability and unquenchable competitive desire he single handledly redfined the NBA (National Basketball Association) superstar and became the most effectively marketed athlete of his generation. Jmpstrtr 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is a fact, that is no POV for me. The problem is many (basketball fans or not) would quibble with assertions of greatness. That said, his accomplishments and statistics are thoroughly given treatment in the article, and put in the right perspective, viz. relative to what other ballers have achieved. To that extent, assertions of greatness are not ungrounded. put another way, if MJ never won a single NBA title, any claim to greatness is greatly dented. I know i'm not saying anything new. but that's also partly because i never found it disputable to begin with. Chensiyuan 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it is being disputed. The NBA itself acknowledges Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time, anything else seems quite disarming. If Wayne Gretsky can be regarded as the greatest Hockey player in a FA on WIkipedia, then I don't see why the same cannot be done for Jordan. I laugh everytime I read the current line, it just seems patronizing Zodiiak 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been tried before see above so it's not going to fly. Also the FAC is rife with complaints that people dare to consider Jordan an exceptional basketball player. Quadzilla99 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To comment further, basically I'd like to include it but if the FAC indicates anything it's not goin to happen. If we can't get the article featured the way it is, good luck getting it featured if it is stated that he is the greatest of all time. Basically, this is just a case of Wikipedia NPOV paranoia run amok. I mean look at the Britannica article:[4] There it states in the opening sentence, "American collegiate and professional basketball player, widely considered to be the greatest all-around player in the history of the game." and "At 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 metres), Jordan, a guard, was an exceptionally talented shooter and passer and a tenacious defender. He earned the nickname “Air Jordan” because of his extraordinary leaping ability and acrobatic maneuvers." That goes farther than the Wiki article ever did, we never even said outright he was the greatest of all time. I mean Wikipedia has reached the point of absurdity when stuff printed in Encyclopedia Britannica is considered radically biased and full of weasel words and POV. People here would say the Britannica article reads like a fanboy article, when actually it's just stating common knowledge. Quadzilla99 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As of now, no one has offered a single piece of evidence to show that the statement 'Michael Jordan is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time' is biased or pushes POV.

(Note: We are not saying Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. Only that he is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time. This still acknowledges that there are dissenters. Which is exactly what the NBA's statement 'By acclamation, MJ is the greatest basketball player of all time' means.) [User:Jmpstrtr|Jmpstrtr]] 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(Quadzilla99 i read your initial post wrong and thought you were suggesting the opposite of what you made clear in your second post. Apologies.) Jmpstrtr 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO that he is considered the greatest should be stated but also attributed. I.e.: "Considered the greatest player ever by the NBA and by Sports Illustrated..." or something like that. See, for example, this lead: Garrincha. --ChaChaFut 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want this article to ever be a featured article I would not change the way it is worded now. Quadzilla99 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From the new proposed wording or from the current wording of the Wikipedia article? (For the record I don't care in the slightest whether it becomes a featured article. I only care that it's accurate and that a perverted application of the POV argument is not used to cripple the article. As you and others have mentioned numerous times, the way the POV argument is being applied here is actually creating bias and inaccuracy rather than removing it. Unless someone can articulate a sound argument against changing the intro and against using the words 'widely considered the greatest' then the intro needs to change. Anything else would be a disservice to all the work that you and a few others have put into this page. Jmpstrtr 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording's not getting changed in any way. If you want to help in any constructive way look at the FAC and try to address some of the concerns there. Making matters worse is not going to help. Quadzilla99 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just took a look at the FAC and left my support. The arguments and complaints against the article are incredibly petty Zodiiak 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By looking at that you can see what I mean right? Forget claiming he was the greatest ever if we state his layup against the Lakers is famous or that he was an immediate success we get accused of treating him like Saint (Hagiography they call it). Basically this article is supposed to have no adjectives, we're not allowed to describe anything. Maybe we should just redirect it to here. Quadzilla99 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla99: What do you mean by 'the wordings not going to change in any way'? Please explain. Why is the wording not going to change in any way?

Quadzilla99: What do you mean by 'make matters worse'? I have articulated the reasons why the intro needs to change, offered a proposal for a new intro so that we can all see first hand the types of changes that several people are recommending and asked for anyone that disagrees to articulate why. How is this making matters worse? Jmpstrtr 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you better read here-> FAC and you'll know what he's talking about. Basically people are already complaining that the article has alot of POV (even though I disagree), and adding that intro in will just makes matters worse (with regard to Featured Article criteria/discusssions). Zodiiak 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm stating is that their is no point carrying on a discussion here at all. As you can see here there is strong opinion against even calling the layup he made against the Lakers famous, opinion against calling him an immediate success when he came into the league, hell people even complained because we pointed out that "commentators have proclaimed a number of players the "Next Michael Jordan" upon their entrance into the league". I guess we're supposed to leave that out because it protrays him positively. They even complained when we pointed out that he influenced a generation of young players (even though we had three sources verifying it). Basically we're supposed to remove all adjectives from this article. Quadzilla99 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the FAC and can understand your frustration Quadzilla99 - especially given the amount of work you've done on this page. But Taxman has agreed with us and said that the line 'widely considered the greatest' should be used. I don't think that we should be lumping the layup issue or any other issue together with that one. Can someone point me towards a single well articulated argument against using the phrase 'widely considered the greatest.' I still haven't seen one. (although i may have missed it in the FAC) The only dissent was the earlier suggestion that that it pushes POV but absolutely no back up was given for that claim. Jmpstrtr 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to happen move on with your life. Way to cherry pick your evidence too, as you can see Blnguyen, SandyGeorgia, NYC JD, Rama's Arrow, Samsara, and Dweller all complained of too much of a positive portrayal of Jordan. You picked one person as your evidence I don't have time to go through all the statements on the FAC you missed/ignored that were complaining of the overall positive portrayal of Jordan. I can only think how they would react if the opening line read "Michael Jeffrey Jordan (born February 17, 1963) is a retired American professional basketball player. He is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time and one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century. With his unique combination of speed, strength, improvisational ability and unquenchable competitive desire he single handledly redifined the NBA (National Basketball Association) superstar and became the most effectively marketed athlete of his generation.". Good luck getting that featured, people would laugh right in your face after the opening line. Quadzilla99 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your cherry picking accusation is way off. There was only one person in the entire FAC that addressed the 'greatest ever' issue - Taxman. You are the only one that is lumping this issue together with all of the others. Indeed, while Taxman didn't see any problem with 'widely considered the greatest ever' he still did have problems with the positive tone and use of adjectives in the article like the other people you mentioned. These issues are not the same and only you are lumping them together.

(btw ... Quadzilla99 there's no need to be confrontational (ie: move on with your life). I have asked 3 times for a counter argument to my suggestion and each time you have basically said 'put a sock in it'. Sorry that's not enough. You continue to ignore my requests for any substantial discussion on this issue and have ignored every direct question I have asked you even when they have been directly related to statements you made about me. Play nice. Peace. ) Jmpstrtr 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clear by now that you're a single purpose account whose sole purpose is to add that line. As I've told you before it's been tried in the past and failed. Look through the edit history and see the talk page and the talk page archives. It's not going to happen. Besides it's already mentioned in the lead that the is considered one of the 1-2 greatest athletes of the century. Quadzilla99 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you completely ignore my requests for any discussion on the actual topic. This is not single purpose account. This is just the first time I've tried to participate in wikipedia and I have met in you a wall of unhelpful resistence that is baffling and unsettling and doesn't really make me want to run over to another page and participate there. You haven't offered a single piece of evidence to support your claim that the statement 'widely considered the greatest' pushes POV. You told me to take my discussion over to the FAC page and then when I did you immediately tried to snuff out the discussion there as well. On the FAC page you claimed that I do not understand POV. If that is the case then teach me. Show me (and the others on this page who have voiced similar arguments) why the statement 'widely considered the greatest' pushes POV. Jmpstrtr 14:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not complicated as I stated repeatedly several editors on the FAC have pointed out what they feel is POV in the previous versions (which are radically different from the current version), adding the phrase you mentioned will only almost definitely make it worse. If you'd like to directly ask the editors who have complained of bias if they would accept that line go ahead. Be sure to denigrate me when you do ask them. Quadzilla99 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not denigrated you any way and your continued confrontational attitude is not in good spirit. I am in awe of how you continue to ignore my simple question at every turn. Now you are suggesting that I ask other editors for their opinion and yet that is exactly what I did on the FAC page and before anyone had a chance to respond you rushed in and tried to silence the discussion there as well. The fact that other editors have POV issues with the rest of the article is irrelevant as long as you are unable to provide any evidence that the staement 'widely considered the greatest' is biased or pushes POV. Jmpstrtr 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unbelievable who select Sam_Bowie over Michael Jordan in 1984 draft!!! -Unknown

'Player Profile' section

IMO, this section is unnecessary repetition - it is tacked on towards the end of the article and is simply yet more praise for Jordan. Any relevant info or statistics should be in the intro paragraph [if they are notable enough] or in the various paragraphs regarding his NBA career. Any thoughts? Hippo43 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect see FA's such as Wayne Gretzky (skills), Sandy Koufax (Mechanics), and Gilberto Silva (style of play) for featured articles with similar sections. Quadzilla99 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically it needs to be kept to specific descriptions of how he played. Statements like "he was the best ever according to so-and-so" are not needed. Just sourced examples of his skills. Quadzilla99 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Role with the Bobcats

MJ's role with the Bobcats is more dynamic than just being an owner. He is listed as "managing member of basketball operations". I suggest a reference be added to the first paragraph so it is clear he contributes more to the team than just the cash he used to buy a fraction of ownership.

Off this topic, let me add that saying MJs retirement was caused by a gambling suspensions is just a mean rumor and as such should not be part of the biography unless it is very clearly stated that its a bunch of bs that no one has any proof of. Serious gambling implications in sports are a huge issue, enough to keep pete rose out of the hall of fame, and shouldnt just be thrown around. Mathacke 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MT

Gambling allegations removed per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quadzilla99 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Attending Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School

I not only see no significance to the sentence about Jordan attending the school, but I have found no proof on the internet to the fact that he DID in fact ever attend the school. I suggest it is either cited or removed. -Unknown

I agree. I removed the statement because as you said, A: I could find no source for the statement whatsoever, and B: it's probably non-notable anyway considering we need to keep everything marginal out of the article to keep it from being overlong. Quadzilla99 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Additions

Ok I added a ton of citations per WP:Cite (finally, this article had pretty much none), found some bullet proof photos, and re-wrote large sections of the article. I plan on trying to help get this one to GA status in the near future. It still needs copy-editing and more inline citations and help would be appreciated. Quadzilla99 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The flickr links on those photos both state "All rights reserved". They were submitted as CC. Sorry, but these images aren't allowed to be used on WP as they are copyright violations and I have removed them. I'll nominate them for deletion tomorrow. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I got permission via messages from both users to use the photos. The lower image photographer sent me an email which I can forward. The upper image photographer sent me a flickr message, I've contacted him about sending me an email. Drop me a line about any relevant info needed. Quadzilla99 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything's Sourced

And I mean everything per WP:Cite, before there was like 2 sources in the entire article. Surprisingly there was very little information which wasn't correct and able to be backed up with a reliable source. I also copy edited the entire article, made a section on his career before the championships, and removed a lot of unsourced or redundant stuff. Not bad for a day's work. Quadzilla99 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's some nice work there. Good work on the images too. I added some too --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Every one of them is bullet proof except maybe the portrait one, the photographer hasn't emailed me back yet but I'm pretty sure he will. Quadzilla99 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan photo

Thanks to benevolent photographer Joshua Massel we now have a photo for MJ if you would like to thank him, you can do so here [5], by sending him a flickr message. Quadzilla99 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

Before the article is reviewed for GA status, make sure to add fair use rationales to all the fair use images. There are currently two that don't have rationales for use on this article (Image:JJam.JPG and Image:Michael jordan utah jazz shot.jpg). Also, this image was incorrectly tagged with {{cc-by-2.0}} instead of {{cc-by-nd-2.0}}, which is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Unless the photographer can be persuaded to release it under either {{cc-by-2.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, the image can be speedily deleted. ShadowHalo 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jazz shot has a fair use rational and always has (check the history) it is the exact same fair use rational verbatim as the Wayne Gretzky Kings signing photo, and the movie screenshot is the same exact licensing as every single other movie screenshot used to illustrate a movie on Wikipedia. As for the plaque I'm sure the flickr user will change the licensing as he gave express notice on the image's source page allowing it to be used on Wikipedia. Quadzilla99 19:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I emailed the user and he changed it. All of them should be fine. Quadzilla99 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The third image The first image has a fair use rationale for The Shot but not for Michael Jordan, though I'm assuming simply changing the title would work fine. The movie screenshot will also still need a fair use rationale, though the majority of it can be copied and pasted from any other screenshot. The third image looks good; I'm tagging it with {{flickrreview}} so that an admin can come verify its copyright status (it's custom for all Flickr images, so don't think there's something wrong with this one). ShadowHalo 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the Space Jam Photo. The Image's Fair Use Rationale should be fine now. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed?

I guess the GA review passed - which is somewhat fishy, considering the article barley meets the Stability area, but meh. Good work everyone! --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stability only applies to edit wars not vandalism per WP:WIAGA. Quadzilla99 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm really glad to see this important topic get the quality article it needs. When I requested references be added, I didn't expect to see 67 refs in such a short time! Thanks, Walkerma 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually they were all added in the past week thanks to Quadzilla99. Harvey100 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Quad worked harder than that, he added the refs in like 24 hours. :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilmington, North Carolina

The article makes it sound like Trask JHS & Laney HS are in Brooklyn but they are not. MJ`s family moved to Wilmington, North Carolina while he was young. NBA.com Bio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.15.195.1 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah I guess we missed that as we removed a sentence in the middle there for certain reasons recently, which made it clear he moved out of Brooklyn at a young age. Thanks. Quadzilla99 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sections

I combined a couple of sections as I felt it was over-sectionalized and an editor made the same comments on the peer review. Feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoax information?

A few days ago I added information about a media hoax that attributed false quotes to Jordan. The hoax fooled some and was covered by multiple sources. Today I discovered that the reference to the hoax had been deleted but I couldn't tell who had deleted or why. If you're opposed to including this information, please tell me why. Jamiem 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, apparently Quadzilla99 deleted it because "we're trying to keep the size down." Whatever. Jamiem 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a big news story that died down in a couple of days and is pretty much forgotten, just like the Lawrence Taylor-Michael Jordan gambling story and a huge amount of others. Really if we included every time this guy made the news the article would be huge, nothing personal. Incidentally to see the story about him and LT see here. Apparently they're still friends as they golfed together this year. Quadzilla99 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The tongue

Sort of a silly comment, but I noticed the article doesn't mention MJ's idiosyncratic tongue-wagging. That was a major part of his image, at least early in his career. Should we say something about it here? Zagalejo 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just searched, and it's mentioned, under First retirement. Are you suggesting it should be noted in other areas? Zodiiak 01:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that was recently added. OK, I'm satisfied! Zagalejo 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

fn 72 seems to be a broken link. Chensiyuan 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of refs and changed some things since then. If it's still around, it's a different number now. I looked through real quick and didn't see any dead links. Quadzilla99 08:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Quadzilla99 08:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's been a while since then if I find it again i'd let you know meantime I think it's safe to assume it's all good. Chensiyuan 08:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving award templates to a subpage

This might be a slightly controversial suggestion, especially since it is contrary to basically every article I have seen. How about moving all of the award templates at the bottom of the article to Career achievements of Michael Jordan? This would serve a few functions. Firstly it would make the article smaller (in bytes and physical appearance). This would also reduce the redundency of naming the awards (some awards are listed three times, in the infobox, in the text and in the box at the bottom). Thirdly, these boxes seem like they would go along better with the subpage. Finally, it would make the article look cleaner as they bottom of the page looks quite messy IMO. Thoughts? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't many of those have scripts that make the article they are put on appear as the name in their category section? I'm not familiar with this. Only one editor has complained about the length thus far, another editor complained about the templates but that's not really actionable. I would be a mild oppose just because it would set a new precedent. Quadzilla99 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I mean this table:

They don't do anything as far as categories are concerned. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Never really liked succession boxes but i suppose dislike in itself may not be a justification to move them. I'm unsure of their functional value. Chensiyuan 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing they were originally intended for state officials, royalty, heads of state, etc, rather than awards. They're rather pointless when used for positions that don't imply any kind of authority, official or unofficial, and especially one that is changed every single year. And Quadzilla, stop saying this isn't even discussable. I'm well aware that many projects are almost fanatical about including all kinds of cruft in the form of gigantic, bulky templates in just about all articles that happens to fall within their perceived jurisdiction. There's no general consensus about these things outside the projects, so you should try to take criticism from outside editors a bit more seriously. There are a lot of people who are annoyed about having articles with infoboxes and templates that take up more space than your average article.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really struck out on that one if you think I like these templates. I actually have no interest in them whatsoever and never look at them. Also I'm not sure what Projects have to do with anything. There's been no decisions (or even much discussion) made on WP:NBA (where I'm active) regarding article templates except for the NBA team roster template and NBA player infobox. Just doesn't make sense to remove templates from only one article. Also please don't try to characterize things in general terms and make assumptions in the future just stick to the issue and don't assume you're dealing a with a fanboy or a typical WikiProject member or whatever. Let's both try to keep civil and assume good faith of each other. Thanks. Quadzilla99 14:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one requires them, people are critical to them (with good reason) and you don't even like them yourself, then why are you trying so hard to belittle all the objections concerning them? You'd make it a lot easier on everyone if you didn't automatically cast doubts on any kind of suggestion merely because it a) hasn't been suggested before, b) hasn't been suggest by a very large number of people or c) is some form of non-specified tradition. The appeal to tradition in particular is a very bad argument.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just giving my views. I am actually a fan of logic and this is not a logical fallacy. If my point were logically incorrect and I referred to tradition it would be. It just seems very inconguous to me to include them on every article but here or other articles because they're big. I'm just giving my two cents, so don't get mad. I mean no one reads the templates, if size (in terms of readability not load times) is an issue it's not because of the templates in my opinion. Now let's just stop arguing and see what other people say. I only have 1 vote so it's not like I personally decide this, if others disagree consensus will win over. To end this I won't respond in this thread anymore unless someone directly refers to me or asks me to. Quadzilla99 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move them to the other page. I'm new here and don't understand the implications but if it will help get the article featured and on the front page I'm for it. Aaron Bowen 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is worth including?

Here's a quote from MJ regarding his game-winning jumper at the 1982 NCAA Championship: "That started everything. The confidence, the knowledge, and everything I gained from that, is without question the beginning of Michael Jordan as a whole."

Could this possibly be included in the Early years section of the article? I think it'd be nice to emphasize that Jordan viewed the game-winner as an important turning point in his career, but if others think it's inappropriate, let me know... Zagalejo 05:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think it's appropriate to include it, but I would say "Jordan credits this shot with changing his game" "Jordan credits it as a turning point in his career" or something of the sort. It has to be carefully worded. I definitely wouldn't include that quote because a) he refers to himself in the third person, b) it goes into mystique analysis which I think should be avoided, and c) I'm pretty sure FAC reviewers in the future will read that and automatically think of the article as cruft right from the beginning. It puts Jordan in reverant tones, analyzes his mystique, and tries to figure out what makes him "Michael Jordan", which would probably cause some FAC reviewers to "shut off" mentally right at that point. Quadzilla99 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be in there, Quad's idea sounds perfect. With the silliness on the FAC anything like that quote would cause people to start thinking they were reading a fanboy article. Aaron Bowen 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How's the present version? Zagalejo 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. Quadzilla99 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pic

I don't mean to mess around too much, but just a comment. The pic with him going in for a dunk with his tongue out -- that's probably the best pic we have right? i don't think there are hard and fast rules as to which pic should be featured in the box (i refer to the template on the right at the top of each NBA player page), but as a matter of first impression that pic is "box-worthy" and gives a good first impression. of course, there's going to be the question of where do you move the current box pic to etc... but like i said, just an observation. Chensiyuan 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some debate on if we should even use this image and if we are legally able to get rid of the original watermarked copyright notice. I would just leave the image where it is for now. If it turns out that we can use the image, then we can decide where it should go later on. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also fairly low resolution and doesn't show his face very well. Quadzilla99 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

okay both points by you guys are fair enough. Chensiyuan 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Because of the recent FAC discussion, we should probably double check some of the sources to seem if they are reliable enough. Here are really the only questionable ones. They might be ok, but I think we can do better. :

• 29 ^ Michael Jordan/Charles Barkley "Attitude vs. Altitude" - Nike Inc. 1993, sportsposterwarehouse.com, accessed January 15, 2007. (I don't really consider this the media, as it is just a poster)

Removed that was the best source I could find for that and it was admittedly dubious. Quadzilla99 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• 39 ^ a b c Birmingham Barons career, mjordan23.com, accessed January 16, 2007. (fansite)

Done, used Infoplease and the cnnsi.com as sources. Quadzilla99 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• 42 ^ A short trip through Michael Jordan's life, max23.de, acccessed March 15, 2007. (fansite)

That is the best source I could find, seems reliable. I remember Jordan saying that on Sportscentury, but I'll just remove the statement. To be clear that statement was in there I remembered it being true and tried to find a source for it. Quadzilla99 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not also to thrilled with citing encyclopedias. An encyclopedia citing an encyclopedia just seems odd to me. I think a more direct source would be better if possible, but I'll let that one go.

• 7 ^ Michael Jordan, britannica.com, accessed January 16, 2007.
• 88 ^ Michael Jordan, encarta.msn.com, accessed March 6, 2007

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well they're obviously reliable sources. Quadzilla99 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note 7 can be replaced with (Morris, Mike. "The Legend: A Highlight-Reel History of the NBA's Greatest Player." Michael Jordan: The Ultimate Career Tribute. Bannockburn, IL: H&S Media, 1999. p. 67.) I'm not sure why #88 is even necessary -- we have three citations to support something which should be considered common knowledge. Zagalejo 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, #87 is the Encarta source now. Zagalejo 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay encyclopedia refs removed. Quadzilla99 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Should it have a title? Chensiyuan 11:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I proceeded on the basis that there was something strange about it and decided to fix it. I hope I fixed it right. Chensiyuan 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

none of the footnotes have the website names wikified, with the exception of infoplease.com - e.g. NBA.com could well be wikified too. what's the standard? the other point is sportsillustrated.com is cited as sportsillustrated.cnn.com, which is the precise address, but for espn, instead of sports.espn.go.com or espn.go.com, we use espn.com throughout. final point: some of the sources are wikified, e.g. sports illustrated or Chicago-Sun Times, but not Washington Post or the New York Times. i raise these questions only because there was so much talk about consistency in the footnotes at the old FAC nom. as i am unsure if there is even an inconsistency, i raise the questions here rather than unilaterally proceed and make changes. Chensiyuan 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Like anything else they should be wikified the first time they appear in the footnotes section if they have a Wikipedia article, I think they are. For instance The New York Times appears several times but should only be wikified the first time. sportsillustrated.cnn.com is actually part of what used to be CNN/SI.com, as it says on it's page "SI.com: a CNN website", so CNN is a contributor it's not actually just sportsillustrated.com. Also nba.com/history is actually a separate website from nba.com:[6] devoted to just history, in any case there is no article on nba.com anyway it just redirects to the NBA article. They're all pretty much fine as far as I can see. Quadzilla99 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Baldness?

It was mentioned in some other article that Michael Jordan began to develope male battern baldness and shaved his head, and he was one of the figures who popularized this habit. Does anyone know of any sources for this, or anything else related? Even though it's quite common in sports, especially in basketball, it seems notable to him to mention why he does this since it's a character trait. Tyciol 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that's kind of on the trivial side personally. People can see from the photos that he shaved his head. I don't think we need a big analysis of it. Quadzilla99 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty trivial. Aaron Bowen 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite as trivial as you're making it, though. You'll find lots of people claiming that Jordan "made bald beautiful" or "made bald sexy." (see [7], [8], [9]...). I think Tyciol's suggestion deserves some more consideration. We don't need a whole subsection about Jordan's baldness, but a sentence somewhere wouldn't be so bad. Zagalejo 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several more notable things which are left out. See WP:NOT WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aaron Bowen 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see what WP:NOT has to do with this. Could you elaborate? Jordan's impact on men's style is well-documented and, in my opinion, encyclopedically notable. I do agree that, with someone like Jordan, there are so many important things to say that we can't include everything. However, I'll propose that Jordan's impact on the fashion world is actually more important (and, for the average reader, more interesting) than some of the things currently in the article. For example, we could probably cut a sentence out of the stats-heavy Washington Wizards section to make room for it. Zagalejo 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's pretty trivial, sorry. A couple of minor comments from some sportswriters makes it seem even more trivial. The clincher for me is to think of what secion it should go in. Legacy? Not even close. Personal life? Nope. Media figures and business? That'd be forcing it. You know what it would go great in? A trivia section. Aaron Bowen 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I already knew about the many talking heads who credited him with starting that trend so you're not giving me any new information. For me it's so hard to prove and seems like hagiography. People complained that we stated that he influenced a generation of basketball players. If you include that you also have to include the baggy shorts. Then you've got him potentially being called the greatest of all time in the article and you're crediting him as the reason that black people shave their heads and the reason that people wear baggy shorts. Also it would belong in a Michael Jordan in pop culture section. I think there was a proposal before to create an article that could house this kind of stuff. Let me check.Quadzilla99 01:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There it is right above here; the "Cultural depictions of Michael Jordan" section. Read that apparently they even made a featured list out of the pop culture info for another article and there are a lot of articles like that now:[10] Sounds like a perfect solution, then a link to it could be put in the see also section. Quadzilla99 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a neat article, but I still think Jordan's bald look deserves a mention in the main page. MJ was much more than a basketball player. He was a pop culture icon, too. I don't think the article emphasizes the latter strongly enough. Zagalejo 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's important enough for the NBA to mention it in their bio : [11]. It's certainly more important than his motorcycle racing team or his Looney Tunes commercials. Indeed, the average Joe on the street probably doesn't even know Jordan's career scoring average, but he would be able to identify a silhouette of Jordan's bald head. The fact that the current structure of the article wouldn't accomodate the information means nothing. The structure should not dictate content; it should be the other way around.

Obviously, the article need not say that Jordan did start the trend, just that many writers have credited him with doing so. And it's not just a "couple of minor comments from some sportswriters." I could probably dig up 100 other unique sources expressing the same idea. Heck, there was an entire article in the Christian Science Monitor in 1997 about the impact of Jordan's bald look. If you're interested, I can provide the bibliographical info, but I get the impression people aren't seeing things the way I'm seeing them. Zagalejo 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MJ=FA

Michael Jordan is now a featured article. Booyah. Quadzilla99 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work Quadzilla99. Aaron Bowen 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Great Success!" Good work Quad, thanks for the contributions. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Quad. I'd also like to thank all of the people who made suggestions for improvement and/or copy edited this article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"One of the...

If MJ, from all the experts, is top 3 all time in sports athelets. What's with all of that crap? Tell me one respected sportswriter who doesn't think Jordan is the greatest NBA player of all time, and the most marketed of his generation? --Twlighter 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I'll leave it at that. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I still dont understand why we need "Widely considered" AND "one of the". We dont run any risk of POV by dropping the latter. "Widely" doesnt even imply "most", but "many", and it is trivially easy to prove that many people still consider him the best. Zagalejo 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed over and over again. However, I agree, it's redundant to state both Zodiiak 07:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is. Let's not get into this over and over again. If you read through the article his place in basketball history becomes clear. The current form is the most neutral way of stating things. I'd oppose changing it. Aaron Bowen 08:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Little league

I put this article on my watch list basically because I was impressed with it and was worried if someone doesn't keep a good eye on it that it would quickly become filled with cruft and deteriorate. I removed the following info because I felt it dikdn't merit mention in the article. i may be wrong feel free to comment:

"He played Little League baseball and as a teen was a pitcher and shortstop for a Babe Ruth League team that won the state championship, with Jordan named MVP, which Jordan describes as his "greatest accomplishment"." Aaron Bowen 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The refs were formatted wrong anyway (they didn't follow the system in the article) and the line has to be drawn somewhere. I know this is difficult. Aaron Bowen 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Encarta's encyclopedia article mentions MJ's Little League career. Actually, I think it might be worth including here, too (although I would tweak the wording). If nothing else, it would make Jordan's 1994 stint in the minor leagues seem less surprising to the average reader.

Let's not be too conservative here. The article can always be a little bit better, so we should encourage people to edit it even after it has achieved FA status. If something is obviously crufty, then feel free to remove it, but if an addition seems interesting and is well-sourced, then we should at least discuss it on the talk page. We can always send the article to Featured Article Review if it seems to have changed too much, and if the people there don't like what has happened, we can revert back to the old version which received FA status. Zagalejo 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The minor league stuff could be included, I feel better about that than the other stuff. The quality isn't the issue the length and unnecessary detail is. I wouldn't have a problem with a brief mention of this but the other stuff still belongs in the pop culture article in my opinion. One thing I have to say is I would not be in favor of removing B-Ball info to add little league info or pop culture info (I'd really be against a pop culture section). I think you're missing the point somewhat Zagalejo (I may be wrong), there has to be a limit somewhere and since it's imaginary and arbitrary each thing will have to be decided on a case by case basis. I personally am not against improving the article but adding info is not necessarily equal to improvement. (I think the baseball career is already explained fine, if it comes off at surprising well it was but it's explained why he did it in the article). I don't feel the baldness and baggy shorts meets the cutoff. That's my two cents on that.

I would put it behind the fact that he broke down crying when he won the title in 98 because it fell on father's day and the fact that he got in fights in practice personally (goes to describing his practice intensity, his overall personality, and would not be crufty in any way). Those things also aren't speculative and potentially hagiographic. So I'm not against improving the article I just completely differ on what would be an improvement. Also each of these things might not seem like cruft by themselves but the cumulative effect is something you have to be careful of. I'd be interested to see what you think doesn't merit inclusion ( not a personal attack just maybe you could elaborate). Some people might say include it all, but then we'd have an overly long article. So to summarize, I'd be against both things being included in lieu of the father's day info and the practice fights. However, I wouldn't fight one sentence or so of the baseball info, in general I'd like to stay focused on the basketball career in this article. Obviously if other people differ I'll defer. Quadzilla99 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we also probably come to the conclusion that as long as we try to keep the size manageable we'll probably never be able to make everyone happy. Myself included, of course. Quadzilla99 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably true. Zagalejo 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)