Talk:Jason Collins

Untitled

I hate pointing this out, but it's kinda funny. The picture of "Jason Collins in 2010" is actually of Marvin Williams (feel free to compare pictures). Not sure how that happened, but it looks like an overzealous Hawks' fan confused Williams for Collins during warm ups or something. I'm not taking the picture down because I don't have a free one of my own of Jason Collins, but it's good for a laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Resolved

 – Protected for 1 day.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This man just came out and already the page is under heavy vandalism. This page should be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonium194 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about earlier, but it now mostly seems like a neutrality issue. Comment here or at WP:RPP if it changes.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This page needs to be locked. Right now when you google "Jason Collins" the wiki link that comes up says "Jason Paul Collins (born December 2, 1978) is a f a g g o t and an American ..." Besotted (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to lock this. The homophobic bigots are changing it to that he became the first "athlete to take penis in the bum" and is a "f a g g o t'."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.198.108 (talk • contribs) 18:32, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Already protected at 18:11.—Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Major North American teams

This edit added back that Collins was the first active gay in "the four North American major sports leagues" as opposed to "major American professional team sport". The NA reference was first questioned in Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Jason_Collins. First of all, the accuracy of Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada was brought into question. Secondly, we would need to identify a source that brings non-American sports into the discussion of Collins coming out for WP:V and avoiding WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. I have only seen sources so far that put his announcement in context with American team sports.—Bagumba (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the sources all indicate he's the first athlete in one of the 4 major American sports leagues, being the NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL, the first three of whom all have at least one Canadian representative, and the fourth has one team that plays at least 1 game per year in Canada (the Bills). The problem seems to be is that a) Sources are unambiguous about this being the first openly gay active athlete in those four leagues and b) How to indicate that succinctly and not ignore the Canadians. In American press, if is frequent to just call these the "4 major leagues" and leave it at that; for non-U.S. readers of Wikipedia, context is needed to indicate what these leagues are, and one cannot claim that the 4 big leagues are only American, as they all have some level of Canadian representation (well, the NFL is a bit tenuous). Suggested wording then should be "the four North American major sports leagues, being the NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL" or some such, to make clear the exact meaning of the Big Four. --Jayron32 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide the sources for Collins that specify specific leagues or name "big 4"? It would help to guide how we should phrase this. I'm not convince "Big 4" is a Canadian term (see Talk:Major_professional_sports_leagues_in_the_United_States_and_Canada#Complete_rewrite). Agree that we need to separate the "big 4" being a possible American saying versus implying the leagues do not have Canadian membership (or in NHL case, league HQ is based in Canada).—Bagumba (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Daily Beast: " But he is the first from the Big Four sports leagues—NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL—to do while still active."
• Yahoo sports: "Collins isn’t the only gay man currently drawing a paycheck from the big four major sports leagues, but as of right now he’s the only active gay player open about his sexuality that could head into next season’s training camp."
• CNN: "This makes him the first active openly gay male athlete in the four major American pro team sports."
• Business Insider: "He's the first active, openly gay athlete in one of the big-four American team sports."
• Reuters: "Collins became the first active player from any of the four major U.S. men's professional sports leagues to publicly reveal his homosexuality...But there has been no active player from the big four pro men's leagues - the NBA, the National Football League, the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball - who had come out until now."
• The New Yorker: " becoming the first active male player in any of the big four of American sports leagues—baseball, hockey, basketball, and football—to come out as gay."
• Boston Globe: "The center the Celtics traded to the Wizards in February is believed to be the first male athlete in the United States' big-four pro sports leagues to live openly as a homosexual while he's still an active player."
• Associated Press: "the first active player in one of four major U.S. professional sports leagues to come out as gay."
• Tuscon News Now: "Free agent and Washington Wizards center, Jason Collins, has come out as the first active openly gay athlete in one of the big-four American team sports."
• Washington Times: "Washington Wizard Jason Collins on Monday became the the first “active” player in the “big four” of professional sports"
• Grantland.com: "one of the big four American sports leagues has an openly gay active player for the first time."
• ESPN: "Collins, the former center for the Washington Wizards who is a free agent, became the first active athlete in the four major North American sports to announce he is gay."

Howsat? --Jayron32 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Great resources. I'm taking a bit of a break from this. If anything is added, it might be best in the body, keeping the lead simple, but perhaps moreso in Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada.—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How about "...in a major American sports league (the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL)." with links at each acronym to each league's page? I know that's a bit clumsy, but if we say just "major American professional team sport," that's too ambiguous. Who gets to decide what is "major" and what isn't? Players in the WNBA, for example, have already come out. Precisely what makes this story notable-- or, what makes Collins unique-- is that he is an active player in a male professional league that is one of the country's "big four" sports. If the "big four" term is unusual, we can think of another way to say it, but it's not "professional team sport," which could include the WNBA (already happened). Moncrief (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It might have been a technicality, as gay usually refers to males and lesbian to females. In that context, there aren't any gay players in the WNBA.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a technicality. Moncrief (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually really like "becoming the first active male professional athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so publicly" from the "Personal Life" section. Can we use that instead, maybe modifying it slightly in "Personal Life" so it isn't too repetitive? Moncrief (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the lead to be similar to "Personal life" verbage. Feel free to massage for repetitiveness.—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I'm not opposed to the "four" formulation either, especially with all the links above showing it's a common term. But I'm no longer concerned with the current version either. (And I know this sounds crazy and Wikipedia-self-important, but I've also seen it before: I wonder how many of the above news sources consulted Wikipedia to get the nugget of how we phrased it before writing a headline that includes "big four." You really can see the interplay between Wiki and the media in real time. I wouldn't say it if we weren't such a highly trafficked and famous site.) Moncrief (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR is a concern, but hard to identify sometimes esp. in cases where WP is actually true :-)—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Free agency

While Collins calls himself a free agent, he technically will not become one until July 1, when the July moratorium starts.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about a related point earlier. If he were to never get another contract, is it still fair to say that he came out as an "active" athlete? It almost sounds like wishful thinking / crystal ball to say that he is "active". --B (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since he is still part of Washington, and not yet a FA, I believe that is the interpretation of active that is being used. At any rate,I haven't seen a source that has said he is not active.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is all about the sources. Every one of which I've seen has described him as an "active" athlete. Wikipedia editors trying to divine whether he may, or may not, get another contract in the future is more WP:CRYSTAL than simply describing him the same way he's described in every single reliable source cited. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if he retires before signing another contract, he is still currently active. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

He might be considered "active" as long as he does not say he retired. If there are sources that make the distinction, it may be worth a mention or a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to clarify "active" somehow. For people who don't follow sports, I'm not sure the distinction is necessarily obvious. Is "currently active" an improvement? I feel that "current" is a word that makes more sense to a broader audience. Though "active" seems to be the word the media is using, so I dunno. A clarification (mention or footnote, as noted above) could still be helpful. Moncrief (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I usually avoid "current", as I would assume everything is "current" unless otherwise specified. I would define "active", but I haven't seen a clear definition. Frankly, I had the same concerns that he is not technically playing or "active" since the season is over for his team (though playoffs are still ongoing for others), but I would consider it OR to call him otherwise unless I found sources.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the criteria that news sources are using is the fact that Collins has clearly stated that he would like to keep playing, so there is a perceived element of "risk" that comes with his coming out. If he had said he planned to retire, then there would be no distinction between Collins and numerous others who waited until they were no longer playing (and had no hope/desire to continue to). It seems like a clear distinction to me, but I suppose others may view it more literally. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've heard a radio talk show host say it's a PR stunt by SI to create a story, but I'm not even going to try to make it WP:V. There is this from Forbes.com that says "I don’t know if Jason Collins counts as an “active player”", but it's from a "contributor", he says "I don't know..." It seems WP:UNDUE to mention.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Referring to someone's sexuality as a "publicity stunt" just rings as a cheap-shot. Unless this radio host is notable in their own right (for example, if they have a reliably sourced Wikipedia article of their own, that isn't just a self-promotional "stub", verifying that they're a legitimate member of the sports media and/or some sort of well-respected expert on "publicity stunts"), then I think we can chalk their remarks up as a cheap attempt to use the story to grab a little attention for themselves (aka: a "publicity stunt" of their own). I'm not sure if a "contributor" who doesn't "know" is going to cut it either. I suppose the information could be re-framed with what's already in the article: He's completed his 2012–2013 season with the Wizards and hopes to play for the 2013–2014 season, etc.., but I don't see a need to create an extensive sub-section on the issue. He's publicly stated that he wants to keep playing and I think that's the point that all the reliable sources are making. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be inciting by the host. It was along the context that other retired players have come out, so being "active", even if he might never be out while actually practicing with a team, is definitely more of a story. The guy has a WP article, but I figure it will hit print media eventually if it really is a viable thought. I'm not advocating it be in the article, I'm just putting it here for future reference since I ran across it and User:B above had brought up the point above re: "active".—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. Still though, He's said (from his perspective at least), that he plans to keep playing and I think that's the point. I'm still not sure about it being a "publicity stunt" even in the narrow context of referring to him as "active", since if Sports Illustrated honestly believed he was washed up, I'm sure they would have been more careful with the way they framed the story. It's not like anyone who cares about sports hasn't already heard of SI, and they posted the article online for free, so I don't see how they benefit in any way by saying he's "active" if they didn't think he had a realistic shot at another season. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New photo: better or worse

Previous photo

File:Jason Collins 2012 3.jpg

Current photo

The new photo that was swapped in by Crakkerjakk last night is not at all flattering to the subject, and is underexposed and out of focus. In my opinion, the previous photos is a better representation of Mr. Collins and is of better quality. - MrX 21:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The new photo has a better view of his face, a plus. Focus is good enough for a thumbnail. However, in light of the fact that he came out, does he really need a picture with a "funny" expression? I'd be OK with swapping back if people consider it unflattering.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. As in that I don't like either photo and I wish we had a better one available. One doesn't show his face, the other shows it weirdly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The one on the left was better imo. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked several photographers on Flickr to release the license for their photos and this was the only one that replied so far. I agree the Hawks picture isn't the best, but then neither are 99% of the pictures I found that were taken of him while he was playing (most photographers at a basketball game are trying to capture the "action", not to take a "pretty" picture). Regardless, the reason I asked the photographer of the Hawks photo in the first place is because I tend to believe the whole point of including a photo in the infobox of a BLP is to provide the reader with a general idea of what the subject looks like (as far as I'm concerned, the Celtics picture is essentially the equivalent to no picture at all). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the Hawks photo for the reason stated above. A goofy face is better than hardly any face at all. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for any particular photo, so I suggest we simply include both. We can add the original photo on the right, under the infobox. Any objections? - MrX 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Celtics photo is already included in the article. I cropped it to the standard 4:3 ratio because the crop shown here (which is awkwardly cropped at more than a 2:1 ratio) made formatting within the article difficult, and I didn't think losing part of his arm was a big loss to the photograph, since the primary purpose it serves, as of now, is to show him wearing #98. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow up. I misunderstood your comment. Yes, I would object to moving any picture to the infobox that doesn't allow the reader to identify the subject's face, for the various reasons outlined above. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that looks fine, at least until better CC photos are available. - MrX 23:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Team sport

This edit removed that Collins was the first gay to come out in a "major American professional team sport", reducing it to "major American sport". First of all, the original fomat was sourced. Second, there are major individual American sports too, which may or may not have gays that have come out. The original was more succinct and verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed when this edit was made. I'm guessing the editor probably thought it seemed too "wordy" and the change was just a good faith attempt to simplify the sentence. But your point makes sense, so I don't have any problem with restoring the text to its previous form. Like I said, I think the editor who made the change probably just thought the simplified wording "sounded" better, so I don't foresee it being a problem if you revert.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't intending to imply non-AGF, for sure. I had already changed it, but did want to leave a wordy edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I know you weren't. I just meant I didn't think there was much potential for it to turn into an edit war since it appeared to be more of a minor "prose" fix from their perspective, rather than an issue with the actual content. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

. . . on the magazine's website on April 29, 2013, he came out as gay

Why is "gay" not linked to the wikipedia article on homosexuality?

68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't realize gay was for the term and not the concept. Maybe "gay" should be a redirect instead with a hatnote to the the term at homosexuality, but I'll leave it to the experts. Changing this article as suggested.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is "On April 29, 2013, Collins became the first active male professional athlete in a major American team sport to publicly come out as gay.[1][2][3]" this really necessary in the introduction paragraph?

It seems out of place. Kind of just thrown in there. Also it is its own paragraph, just bam, a statement on sexuality. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article should summarize its main points, and this is certainly that. It should probably be expanded with another sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the exact date can be 2013 instead, but haven't bothered because someone always will always like updating the latest news with exact dates in the lead while it is still "hot". The lead can be expanded, but I think his coming out is fine with one sentence only.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentence speaks for itself. Being the first active professional athlete playing in the major 4 to come out is of historical significance and, arguably, may very well become the most significant thing he'll be remembered for long after his basketball career is over. The Wikipedia article on Jackie Robinson (which is a Featured Article) includes the historical significance of his being the first African American in professional baseball in the very first sentence, so we probably shouldn't be too surprised, or get too bent out of shape, if the fact that Collins is the first pro-athlete to come out as gay eventually becomes the opening sentence in this article over time as well. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the date, I agree that over time it will be sufficient if the lede simply lists the year 2013. However, since we're currently in the year 2013, it seems standard MOS to at least list the month: April 2013, and again, since we're in April, giving the exact date makes sense for now. After the current year is no longer 2013, then 2013 will most likely be sufficient. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point on the dates.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article says it came out in the May issue of SI. But it happened in April. That sounds weird. not a big thing. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)