Talk:Michael Jordan

Archives
July 2003 – June 2006 July 2006 – March 2007

image

here is a free image that might be useful for this article. --W.marsh 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an image of Jordan's statue (taken by the same person as the image you linked) at the United Center on the Commons, but it got deleted for being a derivative. The statue is copyrighted, so there can't be free images of it; at least that is my understanding. I was quite surprised at the time to say the least, but it does make sense. Thanks for the attempt though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

David Falk: Jordan's Agent

I am somewhat shocked (although not greatly surprised) that David Falk's name does not appear anywhere in this article. Falk was Jordan's agent for his entire career, and is rightly credited with helping his career take off. Besides being a master marketer and negotiator, Falk was a major figure in the 1995 and 1998 lockouts, where he used Jordan and Ewing (among others) to lobby for a decertification of the Player's Union. He also set many precedents for the new NBA economic structure surrounding the Jordan era (he "opted out" Jordan from the league's licensing program, reclaiming Jordan's image for his own use... no NBA agent had ever done that before).

Falk didn't make Jordan, but he certainly helped, and any article about Jordan which does not include him is hugely naive and not just a little dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.48.144.56 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

An article that does not include Falk is "hugely naive"? You act as if editors purposely do not include Falk. Falk isn't mentioned in 95% of Jordan biography's and articles. There is no justifiable way you can summarize Jordan, his achievements, or his widespread impact and influences. Everyone simply does the best they can in order to some what satisfy his legacy. So much about the man cannot be included because of the article's current size, and anything that is included needs to be well sourced, creditable, and significant. Why not provide us with a reputable source between the importance of the relationship between Jordan-Falk, so that we may at least try to include it somewhere, instead of ridiculing? It boggles my mind how people neglect to realize the amount of dedication and work that's been put foward by editors to maintain and bring this article up to FA status. Zodiiak 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do not allege dishonesty. You are entitled to say the article is incomplete; moreoever it remains completely open to you to edit in the information on Falk if you believe the information improves the article. Is that not what Wikipedia is about? Chensiyuan 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact since there is no Wikipedia entry on this David Falk you speak of, why don't you go ahead and create it, assuming he meets notability requirements. Chensiyuan 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Falk is rarely if ever mentioned in Jordan bios. He's not credited in Encarta, NBA.com, or Britannica. Some people crreedit him with making Jordan most the other way around. Trust me this is no glaring omission. Quadzilla99 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean books by the way (which contain hundreds of pages) but any concise bio. Quadzilla99 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked through several bios on bookrag and none, some of which were pretty lengthy, mentioned Falk. It's off topic and additionally, he doesn't even have an article. Aaron Bowen 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that Falk needs to be included in the Jordan article or not (though he did seem to have a huge influence on Jordan's career), but in any case, I have written a Wikipedia article for David Falk. I would appreciate it if others would read it over to see if the article is any good, and secondly to decide if he should be mentioned in the Jordan article (as I look at the Jordan article again, it even says in the second sentence that "he became one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation"... since it was Falk who did the marketing, he probably deserves a link there). My information for the Falk article came partly from David Halberstan's book Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the World He Made, which has about 10 pages on Falk, as well as a ton of online articles I found. Cheers! Joseph Petek 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a few brief lines about Falk in the section "Media figure and business interests." Falk is probably too off-topic to put him in the opening section, but I think he's important enough to mention in a section specifically about Jordan's role as a media figure, since Falk was largely responsible for crafting Jordan's image. Joseph Petek 03:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Divorce

Is is just me or does it seem like, unlike an earlier divorce threat five years ago, Michael & Juanita's split seemed to have been kept quiet by most of the media?

I'm wondering because the first I've heard of the current proceedings was last night when I heard something about this being the most expensive celebrity divorce ever? WAVY 10 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Five years ago, he was still in the NBA, so obviously he has a bigger spot light on him. For the most part, Jordan isn't under the lime light anymore, so it doesn't have much coverage. Zodiiak 17:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was announced in the press when it happened. But it was one of those things where people stopped talking about it a couple of days later. Quadzilla99 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Page text

The following text has been moved from the comment subpage which clutters the WPChi template:

needs references and inline citations plange 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Quadzilla99 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Achievements list is excessive. Kaldari 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Achievements list is now a separate page. Quadzilla99 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Article isn't accurate. problems need to be mentioned. BallingOutFull 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Quadzilla99 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-inserted it, there are thousands of pages with comments sub-pages, the code should be fixed in the template—the page shouldn't be deleted. Quadzilla99 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The code is fixed, so this is a moot point. Quadzilla99 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick Names

I don't believe the Nickname "Superman" is valid in the case of MJ. Yes, he was called Superman, Pippen was called Batman, and Rodman, Rod-man for a brief time. But Superman as a nickname has been used for almost every prominent player in the NBA; i.e. Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, and especially Shaq. Nicknames should be identifiable to unique players. If you ask someone who knows nothing about Basketball, what were Jordan's nicknames, they would say Air, or Air Jordan, and throw in the acronym's, M.J. Jordan has had plenty of nicknames, but we don't list every single Nickname, only the most identifiable. That's why his NBA.com Historical Bio, only lists Air Jordan as his nickname. I propose mutual consensus on the issue, before more users begin to add obsessive Wp:fancruft to the article. Feel free to comment. Zodiiak 07:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Superman is not a common nickname for him. At all. It gets used all the time for athletes. Unless he gets a Superman tattoo on his arm like Shaq and starts calling himself Superman it's not worth inclusion.Quadzilla99 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whosoever includes whatsoever nick should provide a reliable reference that indicates it is a nickname, not just a mere allusion to it. Chensiyuan 09:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reason why I suggested not including it, which I have already commented on the Users Page. It's completely trivial. Quadzilla has worked excessively hard on this article and knows the reasons why it has gained Featured Article status. One of the reasons being that he has had to remove even more well known small facts about Jordan, i.e. wearing his UNC shorts under his bulls shorts, etc. Zodiiak 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Early on, the Bulls announcer called him Captain America. That didn't last long once his shoes came out.

Superman is his nickname and it should be listed in the article. Basketball fan24111 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nickname (MJ)

I added "MJ" to the list of nicknames and it was removed by Quadzilla99, who simply commented "MJ is not a nickname it's a pair of initials." I have replaced the nickname because of the following:

First, the argument that "MJ is not a nickname it's a pair of initials" is akin to saying "Air Jordan is not a nickname it's a pair of words." Although it maybe true that MJ is "a pair of initials" it is most certainly also a nickname for Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Note that it also refers to his first and middle name). Most importantly, the definition of a nickname does not preclude the use of initials. In fact, the nickname article (which Quadzilla99 referenced in his comment) states the following:

   A nickname can also originate from someone's real name. Examples:
   * CJ for someone whose initials are C.J. (or if their first name starts with a C and is a Jr.)

In this case, although they are his initials it is also a nickname because he was was OFTEN called "MJ." (See the end of this comment for references).

Also note that a nickname is not alway an exclusive term. Just because other people can be referred to as MJ, that does not make it any less of a nickname for Jordan. (In the world of basketball, MJ could refer to Magic Johnson but he was usually referred to as "Magic" and MJ was used for Jordan.) Jordan was consistently referred to as MJ and it seemed like he was called that more often then he was called Air Jordan (which more often referred to the Nike shoes). Finally, if anyone requires a reference here are 3 that are already in this article: [1] [2] [3]. - Ektar 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have linked to that article, initials are not nicknames he is sometimes referred by his initials this does not make it a nickname, it's still his initials. You don't say his initials are a nickname. I know it's common to refer to him by his initials (I do it all the time). Also, this has been reverted before by another user don't single me out.[4] Finally, the way it generally works is new material is discussed first before being inserting, you don't insert new material then say discuss before reverting unless it's obviously wrong or incorrect. Thanks. Quadzilla99 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify further if you put a shirt on your head it's not a hat, it's a shirt on your head. If initials were nicknames, the dictionary definition would include that and say, "A nickname made by..." it doesn't anywhere:[5][6][7] Quadzilla99 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you linked to it or not, the fact still remains that the article proves that initials can and are often used as nicknames. You even said, "he is sometimes referred by his initials this does not make it a nickname" but that is actually the exact definition of a nickname... a name that you are sometimes referred to. It really doesn't matter where the nickname comes from, it only matters that it is a name that is used AND that it is not his full real name.

Technically, "Mike" is also a nickname for him but I would disagree with adding it because he was not OFTEN referred to as just "Mike." But he was certainly referred to as MJ, and I would say he was referred to as MJ much more often than he was referred to as "His Airness" or "Air Jordan". (At least, I know I can find many more articles in which the headline calls him MJ as opposed to "Air Jordan" or "His Airness").

Also, you are totally missing the point in your clarification. I am not saying that initials ARE nicknames, just that they are sometimes nicknames. A car is sometimes a taxi, but that doesn't mean that if i look up "car" it's going to say "taxi" in the definition. -Ektar 19:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As you should well know our articles are not valid sources in arguments, I took for granted that it was in good shape which it's not, it's clearly tagged as unsourced and in need of cleanup. Quadzilla99 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This online dictionary defines "nickname" as "A familiar or shortened form of a proper name" -- which would surely include initials. Personally, I don't have a problem with including MJ in the list. Zagalejo 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's really a stretch. What it's referring to is Rob as opposed to Robert. I don't know how you inferred that source counts initials as nicknames. Quadzilla99 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Strictly speaking, initials are a "shortened form of a proper name." But let's not fight over semantics; there are plenty of sources that explicitly describe MJ as one of Jordan's nicknames. For example, see The Complete Idiot's Guide to the NBA: "Michael Jordan has been given many nicknames over the years, but MJ, Air Jordan, and His Airness are the most common." Zagalejo 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like a dick saying this, but citing a basketball magazine of all things when the discussion has now turned to grammar and usage is particularly irrelevant. No dictionary or grammar guide I've seen refers to initials as nicknames. If the definition of at least one would say "commonly usd as a nickname" or "A nickname made by..." or such. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it. Quadzilla99 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A stretch? Are you kidding? It is not referring only to "Rob as opposed to Robert" or else Air Jordan wouldn't be a nickname either. One infers that initials are nicknames because there is absolutely NOTHING in the definition that excludes it. That's normally how things work, something is part of a set until it is excluded. Finally, you won't find "initials are nicknames" in most guides because most guides aren't going to list every single type of nickname. They'll tell you what it is, and if the description fits, it's a nickname. What you have failed to do is show any reference that states that an initial is NOT a nickname. - Ektar 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Let's all try to calm down, myself included. What you're saying seems to be a case of negative proof though. Quadzilla99 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this on Google scholar: The Semantics of Nicknames of US Presidents. There is a section called "Initials used in nicknames," and it includes FDR, JFK, and LBJ as examples. You're not going to find a dictionary that explicitly lists "nickname" as a definition for "initial"; Ektar's car/taxi analogy is spot on. But if you look at common usage of the term nickname, you'll see that the term can apply to initials.

Honestly, though, this is one of the most trivial things I've ever discussed on Wikipedia. Discuss among yourselves; I need a break... :) Zagalejo 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, your argument is an argument of negative proof, since you're saying that you have never seen a dictionary or grammar guide refer to initials as nicknames, so surely initials can't be nicknames. My argument would be one of negative proof IF I had nothing else to back it up. However there are MANY sources that say initials are nicknames, so the burden of proof is now on you. - Ektar 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AWARDS

What constitutes an award? What is merely an honor? We need to draw some guidelines and maintain consistency. Is an All-Star selection an award? Is being an NBA Champion an award? Stats are most certainly NOT awards. Is an All-NBA selection an award or just an honor? How about All-Defensive selections? If we use Jordan's page as the standard for all player's profiles, then All-Star selections are not awards. NBA championships are not awards, and of course neither are stats. All-NBA and All-Defensive selections are awards, however. Thoughts?--TyrusThomas4lyf 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a team championship should be listed as a personal award as for the rest I don't know. This should be here:WP:NBA though. Quadzilla99 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would list all individual awards but no team accomplishments. Aaron Bowen 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note Tyrus moved it to WP:NBA's talk page, comments should go there. Quadzilla99 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection template

Can the little lock be put on the top this article like George W. Bush instead of this large protection template here? Just for aesthetic purposes. Aaron Bowen 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Push-Off(?)

The controversy over whether or not Jordan pushed Russell needs to be at least acknowledged in this article. Added "possibly pushing Russell" to make this clear. Niremetal 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed over and over long before I even got here see the archives. Quadzilla99 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anytime you edit a Featured Article and add highly arguable material, you should discuss it. The issue has been discussed already (See archives). I've seen the video over and over again on replays, in stop motion, and step by step by step. Each time it looks like he just brushed him, not pushed. I reverted the edits because it's speculation, and the sources were extremely poor. Youtube is not a source and weeklywire is a dead site, see wp:rs. Zodiiak 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What, are only NYTimes frontpage articles acceptable now? I added a Washington Times source. Continued deletion of any reference to the controversy, which is very well-acknowledged, over the possibility that Russell was pushed does nothing except hinder NPOV.Niremetal 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I will also add that the articles for the Utah Jazz and the 1998 NBA Finals both reference the controversy over the push-off. The edit is necessary for consistency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niremetal (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

If you took the time to read what I said, I said that WeeklyWire and Youtube are not reliable sources and that the mention is speculation which was the reason for reverting. Who cites youtube as a source? Zodiiak 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not really happy with putting the info in based on the speculaiton/opinion of one sportswriter. I'll look the source up though and see what the comments are. Quadzilla99 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well here's the cached source of the article:[8] That is the guy's opinion. I'm going to assume more people are going to comment. Quadzilla99 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not pretend it's just a fringe opinion. I'm a Bulls fan, but I know that lots of people have accused Jordan of pushing Russell. Just browse through some of these Google news excerpts. Frankly, it might seem disingenuous if we don't mention there is a controversy over the shot. Niremetal's wording might have to be tweaked a bit, but I think he's on the right track here. Zagalejo 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Added another source from the website of The Sporting News. I could add many more, but I don't think that's honestly necessary, since, as Zagalejo's comment hinted at, this is far from an obscure controversy or a fringe opinion amongst basketball fans. Niremetal 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Never said it was a fringe opinion at all, just said it was his opinion. If it's sourced it has to stay, even if it's sourced speculation. Quadzilla99 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tastey. Someone's finally able to come over the top on Quadzilla. Although, in my opinion, I still don't see it as a Push Off, it seems to be worth noting. Way to go Niremetal. Zodiiak 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you're making this personal. I found the source and provided a link to it to show it was valid. Quadzilla99 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is directed towards me, but if it is, I'm not making it personal. I'm just stating that at time's it's difficult for one to impose their opinion on such articles you edit. Nothing wrong with that. Zodiiak 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I state my opinion clearly and strongly but that's allowed. Quadzilla99 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla - since you tagged me for starting an edit war over this, I do take it personally. If sourcing problems or the fact that it's "speculation" were really your beef with the inclusion of the statement, you wouldn't have kept reverting the article after I added the WashTimes reference. It's laughable that you kept referring to these opinions as speculation when the article you reverted it to affirmatively stated that Russell merely "slipped," which is obviously no less speculation than the opinion that he was pushed. Considering that far more obscure controversies with far more dubious sourcing appear on many other sports pages, and considering that there are many other arguable unsourced statements about Jordan even on this page, I question your sincerity when you say your problem with the statement was sourcing, and I take umbrage that you tried to shut me down with an edit war warning.Niremetal 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I was thrown off ny the fact that the first two sources were youtube and some other unreliable source. I formatted the ref and even provided a link here when I found out it was valid, besides three editors reverted you and you put it in 5 times in a short period. Quadzilla99 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As it stands now it's in and it's sourced. Quadzilla99 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then where was the source to the prior version of the article that stated that Russell "slipped" and which you kept reverting it to? As I said, the fact that the prior version that you kept trying to put up was itself unsourced undercuts your argument. Anyway, it's up now, and I'm done with this discussion.Niremetal 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reasons that version were chosen were decided before I got here and the hidden text was added before I joined also. See here. I was just reverting to the previous consensus. Quadzilla99 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To Zagalejo, I think the current wording is fine, it mentions it briefly without going into too much detail. Aaron Bowen 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What does NBA.com's History of the 1998 Finals have to say?--TyrusThomas4lyf 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd also like to point out that referees are the ones who call the game, not news reporters. So aren't officials technically the authority on this matter? They did not call a push off, therefore in past tense there was no push off... makes logical sense to me...--TyrusThomas4lyf 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt that discussion about it is widespread, the previous consensus, which was formed long before I got here, was to leave it out without reliable sources which we now have. Quadzilla99 09:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that he did push-off; it just implies that many people think he did. Zagalejo 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GOAT

I am wondering why in the summary we have to keep settling for "widely considered ONE OF the greatest". We could make this same statement for 20 other players. The fact of the matter is that Michael Jordan is "widely considered THE greatest", as all major and reliable sources in the history of sports place him at #1 or AT WORST #2. I mean, honestly, we should have no problem stating "widely considered the greatest basketball player of all-time". If you need to, we can put 10 sources after the sentence. Whatever you need for justification.--TyrusThomas4lyf 09:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

People have been over this before look at the archives. Aaron Bowen 09:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The counterargument provided was completely unfounded. , there isn't even a counterargument. The counterargument is that "there are dissenters on Wikipedia". What type of is that? If you're going to sacrifice accuracy in the name of getting a little star next to your article, then you might as well give up on being a respectable editor. FACT: Michael Jordan is considered the greatest basketball player of all-time by virtually every reliable source. FACT: Personally I have never even seen a reliable source that has not rated him #1 all-time. Please show me one. Until then, any counterargument is moot. FACT: The opinions of people on Wikipedia are not a reliable counter source. INFERENCE: There is no more accurate way to describe this page than "Michael Jordan is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all-time". If this is not allowed, then we are not allowed to say "Wilt Chamberlain was a star player", "Oscar Robertson was a revolutionary player", these are statements that technically have LESS evidence supporting them. I'm disgusted.--TyrusThomas4lyf 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus I'm starting an RFC for you just a heads up. This is based on your activity on Jordan related articles, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Dwyane Wade. Quadzilla99 10:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is an RFC? I'm waiting to see your evidence that counters this argument.--TyrusThomas4lyf 10:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See the archives. Quadzilla99 10:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe me. I saw the archives. I did not see a sound and founded argument for this lack of action.--TyrusThomas4lyf 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me a say. What are the references we are using in the article to say that he is regarded as so and so? Can we list them here: the source, and the exact statement in that source which talks about his level of greatness. If all the sources use the language of "greatest", then we shouldn't twist what the sources say. But if the sources use the language of "one of the greatest", then it's one of the greatest. A simple matter of comparison, maybe? Chensiyuan 10:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we say "widely," we don't need to say "one of the...". Widely already suggests that there can be dissenters. Indeed, "widely considered one of the..." implies that some people don't even consider him one of the greatest players of all time, which is a very bold claim. I don't agree with Tyrus' tone, but I do agree that no one has put forward any convincing arguments otherwise. Zagalejo 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To directly answer Chensiyuan's question, NBA.com says, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." SLAM Magazine has ranked him #1. ESPN named him the greatest athlete of the last century, which would logically imply that they think he was the best basketball player. The Olympics websites calls him "the greatest basketball player in history" [9]. I could go on... Zagalejo 13:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (Actually, most of those aren;t currently cited in the article, but they still exist.) Zagalejo 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

May I presume accordingly that, given the language of the possible reputable sources out there, it is entirely valid to state that MJ is widely considered the greatest... without the qualifier of "one of the"...? I understand this may cause a restating of some people's viewpoints, but for what it's worth, at least now for myself I would say "the greatest" is defensible. Chensiyuan 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just checking in after seeing the RFC notice on the Kobe Bryant talk page and let me state "widely considered one of the" is the best wording, rather than put something in that will cause edit warring and dissent as there are a handful of people that disagree. It pushes the POV, also if people read the article they can see where he ranks, I think this has been stated before in the archives. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 18:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Widely considered one of" due to all the editors comments on the FAC and also because generally people have to use even more generic language on Wikipedia than elsewhere as people are always conscious that they are reading something that might be biased. I know when I've read certain articles if I starrt to read something that I think it's too fawning or positive I immediately "turn off" and lose interest. Also if a person reads the article Jordan's status becomes clear. Aaron Bowen 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus was blocked for violating the 3RR. He had been warned in the past (which I originally overlooked, otherwise I would have blocked sooner). I limited the block to 8 hours so he could respond to the RfC. If Tyrus continues to revert war once the block is lifted, post a message on WP:AN/3RR. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that was getting a little stressful, this Wiki stuff can be more trouble than it's worth sometimes. Aaron Bowen 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To everyone else, revert warring isn't a good solution. Tyrus definitely has a history of going against consensus and he clearly was doing so again, but revert warring doesn't really solve anything for either side. It just leads to both sides becoming frustrated. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've commented on the RfC about his actions. But anyways, while I've always agreed that it is redundant to have "Widely" and "One" we should acknowledge consensus on the issue, and just leave it as is. I think it would be better to just completely remove the sentence, since, as everyone who disagrees has stated, his accomplishments speak for themselves. If you remove it, who he is, as a player and person, becomes very clear. Zodiiak 21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the "widely considered one of the" wording for all the above reasons. Quadzilla99 11:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of redundancy; having "widely considered" alongside "one of the" changes the meaning of the sentence. It suggests that some people don't even consider Jordan one of the best players! I think that's overzealously diminishing Jordan's accomplishments for the sake of appearing neutral. I'm aware of a few lists that might place him at, say, #2 or #3, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any basketball fan who wouldn't consider him "one of" the best. Most sources still do describe Jordan as the best of all time.

At this point, I'd rather remove the sentence entirely and just let the facts speak for themselves. The current wording suggests that Jordan is no better than Bob Cousy, Bob Pettit, Isiah Thomas, or anyone else widely considered "one of" the best. Zagalejo 18:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How about consensus on this once and for all? 2–0. Zodiiak 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think myself, Tayquan, and Quadz believe it's fine so I don't see how it's 2 to 0. Aaron Bowen 22:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice, I tagged the issue of consensus at that point, hoping to get a final call on it. Either agree with just removing it, or including the ambigious mention (yes, that's a bit leading, but it's very true =) ). 2–3. Zodiiak 22:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't reasons why this shouldn't be changed to "widely considered the greatest". It is a FACT that he is "widely considered the greatest ever". Dissenters' OPINIONS do not change this FACT. It's not POV because it is a FACT. Please find me at least ONE reliable source that does not list Michael Jordan as the #1 basketball player of all-time. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that provides information as accurate as possible, not a messageboard of people's opinions. I've looked at the archives. I've looked at this talk page. The only "reason" given to leave it as is is because there are editors who bitch about it because of their own opinions. Who cares about their opinions? It's not relevant to maintaining as accurate of an encyclopedic entry as possible. The fact of the matter is that the phrase "widely considered the greatest" is 100% supportable. Such sports authorities as the NBA, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, etc. etc. agree.--TyrusThomas4lyf 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are some dissenters; see this book. "Widely considered the greatest" is basically true, though.Zagalejo 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NBA.com opening line: "By acclamation Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball of all-time". Heck, that alone would suggest the right to say "widely considered the greatest", since that's exactly what BY ACCLAMATION means. We do not have a way to provide further proof that he is considered the greatest of all-time. People are not numbers. Everything points to him being the greatest and nothing points to him not being the greatest. I mean, where exactly do you draw the line for being able to say "considered the greatest". Do you list Babe Ruth as "widely considered one of the greatest"? Are the Beatles only "one of the most important bands"? Fact is that you cannot deny the statement "considered the greatest" because there is no EVIDENCE in existence that counters it.--TyrusThomas4lyf 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zagalejo, that's one person. Not a sports authority. Not a group of people. Not reliable.--TyrusThomas4lyf 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Given Tyrus edit history his views should be taken with a jilted eye. His edit history shows fairly severe bias, and his edits need to be watched closely. I'd prefer to keep the sentence in by the way. Aaron Bowen 22:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that he does seem to have biases, an opinion is an opinion. Consensus is 2–3 in favor of leaving in the ambigious note, as opposed to simply removing it and letting the facts speak for themselves. Quad, Aaron, and Tayquad in favor, and myself and Zargelo in favor of removing it. Zodiiak 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did you cast a vote, and how do you decide whose votes count? BTW Aaron Bowen, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You can point out to me a time where I did not post a fact, and then perhaps I'll shut up. You clearly have a reverse bias against certain players and posters by refusing to accept fact. And also of note, Aaron Bowen, since you don't seem to understand the concept of argument, it does not matter what a person's biases are in the context of an argument because an ARGUMENT is supported by FACTS and not OPINIONS, just like this one is supported by FACTS.--TyrusThomas4lyf 00:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are already a ton of his accomplishments in there and some of the stuff you are added is incorrect like high scorers don't win DPOY, that's incorrect a bunch have. Also assume AGF says assume good faith to a point, eveyrthing you add makes him look better. There's already a ton of superlatives and accomplishments in there every single thing you add is positive. Aaron Bowen 00:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this guy is going to turn this into a drooling fan page if he isn't watched closely. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is Tyrus there's a whole page for stuff like that; accomplishments, records, achievements, highest scoring average for a DPOY etc, etc. Quadzilla99 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider that a personal attack Aaron Bowen. I didn't add superlatives to anything so what are you talking about? Looks like another false accusation from you... you also make the false claim that "everything I add makes him look better". Hmm, well that's your perception. That's POV. I'm just adding facts. It's not my fault if you have a vendetta against certain players or posters. It's not my fault that Michael Jordan holds 50 NBA records and you might think that that "makes him look better". It's also not my fault that there's not much to add about this person that you perceive as negative.--TyrusThomas4lyf 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again you haven't stated a valid reason why this person's encyclopedia entry should not include him being "widely considered the greatest of all-time". I'm waiting. I'm waiting. I'm waiting. I'm waiting. I'm waiting. EVERY SINGLE MAJOR REFERENCE OUT THERE CONSIDERS HIM THE #1 BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL-TIME THEREFORE HE IS "WIDELY CONSIDERED THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL-TIME". I'm waiting for an argument that actually denies this basic logic.--TyrusThomas4lyf 02:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this again and again it poushes the POV as there are a handful of people that disagree. Aaron Bowen 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not push POV in any way whatsoever. It is a fact. 1. Who are these "hanful of people" you speak of? 2. Are they a reliable source? 3. They are a "handful", as you say. They do not negate the fact that it is something that is "widely considered" or "generally accepted" to be the case.--TyrusThomas4lyf 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not this again, really you can't talk to this guy, it's useless. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Really you have not provided any counterargument whatsoever. It happens to be a fact that said person is "widely considered the greatest" at something. You have not been able to counter this with any evidence. There is an obvious reason why this would be so; there is no evidence out there. Every source regards him as the greatest. So once again I'm waiting. I'm waiting to see an actual argument rather than a bunch of about "certain editors' opinions".--TyrusThomas4lyf 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So really it's not an issue of "talking", Tayquan, as you have not talked about anything. You have not argued anything.--TyrusThomas4lyf 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus, consensus on the issue agrees to leave it as is. The other alternative is to remove the line and let the article speak for itself. Those are the only choices right now. Zodiiak 03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus, I just read WP:AGF and it says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" given your edit hsitory and clear bias I'm not going to bother to reply to you anymore on this, your bullying behavior is tiresome and unacceptable. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see that reputable source that disproves that he is "widely considered the greatest". You appear to be under the misconception that the opinions of a few on Wikipedia changes what is generally viewed to be the case. Notice how we have to reference everything? Every reference out there regards said person as the #1. So go ahead and talk Tayquan ^holla_{My work}.--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT consensus? Consensus by whom? 3-2 IS NOT consensus any way you slice it, and the reasons given were completely groundless. "Because ppl here would edit war". Well then, lock the damn thing. Since when do people's opinions interfere with maintaining integrity and the most accurate article possible???--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's 4-2 against greatest myself, Aaron, Quadz, and Zodiiak from what I can tell. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 03:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"My bullying behavior"??? Dear Lord, what are you talking about? Where in this article discussion did I "bully" you?? Point the evidence out to me please. I'm waiting. You have no argument. That's why "you're not going to bother responding anymore". You sound like someone who just wants things his way.--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are the pros? Regardless you have not given any actual REASON. Meanwhile there is more than overwhelming EVIDENCE supporting the pro side...--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus you weren't around for the FAC the whole community objected to a portrayal of Jordan as too positive so we reached a lot of the current wording in response to that, your sole mission here appears to be to strengthen the wording, which is in direct conflict with that. Quadzilla99 03:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing he did on Lebron James where I first ran into him, he absolutely refuses to accept consensus see here:Talk:LeBron James see "arbitrary stat cutoffs" he reverted that despite being 1-5 in the minority. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice wording there. That's the point. It's a fact. It's not a "portrayal" that is "too positive". It's a ing FACT. What planet is this? Where does this argument come from? IT IS A FACT. It matters not what editors of this encyclopedia think. It matters greatly what the sources state. And they state it explicitly: "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all-time", "By acclamation Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all-time". How much more explicit do you expect it to get? They aren't going to waltz the answer out to you. This is an objective look at someone who demonstrably showed that they were the greatest. If editing is a problem, then just create a special lock or something for the opening paragraph that only the top moderators can unlock. Every source in existence acknowledges him as #1 all-time. So the idea of "having certain wording" that may not object to certain users' opinions completely defeats the purpose of an ENCYCLOPEDIA.--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Try to be civil cursing at people is not civil. You're in the minority accept consensus. It's obvious why this is so important to you by the way, given your edit history, your sole mission is to build up Jordan and downplay those compared to him. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't curse at people. Try to provide an actual argument. "The consensus" has no reasoning behind them whatsoever. Otherwise I would not continue to address an obvious fact, that being that "he is widely considered the greatest of all-time". But I'll note that as a personal attack by you. Nice job as always Tayquan.--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Round two... Still awaiting a valid reason

So I'm still waiting for an actual reason. Provide a source that disputes him as the GOAT. Better yet, provide several so that you can say that he is NOT "widely considered the GOAT". As opposed to the fact that he IS "widely considered the GOAT" because there are myriads of sources that support the latter statement.--TyrusThomas4lyf 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid reason, from a basketball standpoint. "Widely considered one of the greatest" is a limpwristed assertion to could apply to anyone on the NBA's 50th Aniversary Team. Even Bill Sharman. The assertion doesn't clearly explain why Jordan is so famous. He's not famous for being one of the best; he's famous for being the best.

If we're not going to reword it, we should scrap it entirely. Zagalejo 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it's fine, as I stated above. People aren't going to want to read an article that tells them that in the second sentence. I'll guess I'll have to stop back here every day or two to say so. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is fine, it's not Wikipedia's place to be telling people who is and isn't "the greatest ever" at anything. Incidentally, this whole page is kind a disgrace. I would recommend archiving some, if not all of it, and starting over with a fresh attitude on all sides. Trevor GH5 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not debating the use of calling the man the greatest ever, and I doubt anyone has the time to explain the subtlety of the arguments. Also, I don't think the page is a disgrace. I think certain comments are unwarranted, definately, but it serves as a strong example on how and how not to go about consensus. The same was done on the Wayne Gretsky Talk Page. Zodiiak 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came off as harsh, but I don't think it was unwarranted. I'm not talking about reasoned discussion, I'm talking about some of the bahavior here; in particular spamming a talk page in an attempt to be purposefully disruptive when you don't get your way, among other things. Trevor GH5 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure if you're referring to one particular user in general, by that I mean Tyrus. But if you are, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf. Zodiiak 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the phrasing could (and should) be altered to say "widely considered the greatest player of all-time" without being dishonest. I think that "is considered" or "is" are obviously too strong, since both imply a state of complete consensus where none exists. However, I think that "widely considered one of the greatest" is simply too weak. Trust me, I've read Tyrus's posts and think that he's been way out of line, and I definitely don't savor ceding any ground to him. I, for one, would rate Magic Johnson as the best player of all time. But I can't deny that a majority - or at least a clear plurality - of both fans and experts consider Jordan the greatest. Thus, I think that "widely considered the greatest" is the fairest statement possible here. (and keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who sourced in the push-off edit on this same page, so I'm far from a Jordan standard-bearer).Niremetal 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I still feel the same way I did three days ago. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet you still fail to deliver a good reason against including the phrase. He is considered the greatest of all-time by virtually every source and by all sources that have been brought forward in this argument. Hence, he is "widely considered the greatest of all-time". That's not POV. That's fact.--TyrusThomas4lyf 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that "Widely considered one of the greatest" is way to weak for who we are talking about. Jordan is considered to be the greatest of all time by media, fans, players(past and present). His contemporaries like Magic Johnson have already stated he thinks of Jordan as the GOAT, and past legends like Jerry West have said the same. We all know the media is in agreement, as well as the fans. At minimum the wording should be "Widely considered the greatest."--BluevState 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What people are saying is that the way it comes off here on Wikipedia is what people are concerned with, and I agree. Please reach consensus before re-inserting it. Marcus Taylor 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording of "By acclamation, the greatest basketball player of all time" is off the NBA's own website. The NBA's website is NPOV, a verifiable source, and does not original research as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously, the NBA itself would be considered the ultimate authority on all things NBA. Unless you can find a source from the ultimate authority, the NBA, that states anything in the contrary, the wording should stand.--Groovyman 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The current wording pushes the POV less, and because people see Wikipedia differently. In no place does it state he isn't the greatest, it just lists his accomplishments and lets people decide for themselves. Revert it again and you'll start getting warnings. Tayquan 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines states that disputes are decided by using valid, NPOV, and verifiable sources. The NBA is as valid, NPOV, and verifiable source as it gets. The language the NBA uses on their website is proper, and should be the gold standard that should be used here since the NBA is the ultimate authority on NBA players. Also, stating that Jordan is "one of the greatest" is like stating that tallest man in the world is merely "one of the tallest" or that the fastest 100m runner is only "one of the fastest 100m runners." That kind of vagueness and generalization actually creates an inaccurate picture of the subject and is bad as any other inaccuracies. Wikipedia guidelines actually defines this type of generalization under "weasel wording", as you can see below:

Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording.

The very fact the current statement is full of weasel words makes it more POV by definition. Wikipedia guidelines are clear, we have to make the statement without weasel words, and with substantiating sources. "considered the greatest basketball player of all time by the NBA, Associated Press, and ESPN" fits the bill. Or we can simply state "Considered the greatest basketball player of all time" and attach the citations, but the current statement of "Widely considered one of the greatest" is loaded with prohibited weasel words and won't stand up.

In addition, lay off the empty threats. What are you going to warn me on? I am well within my right to make changes in the article, especially since the statement I am changing is actually in violation of Wikipedia's stance on weasel words. On top of that, I haven't violated the 3-revert rule or any other rule for that matter.--Groovyman 06:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no weasel words in there, you're allowed to summarize in the lead. It takes a conservative approach and states the players accomplishments and lets people decide for themselves. Because you don't agree with it is no reason to be purposefully disruptive. Aaron Bowen 07:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the warning he's referring to (I assume) are for edit warring which is frowned upon here. Aaron Bowen 07:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your are just incorrect about the weasel words. In fact the statement "Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time" has two types of weasel words(generalization, syntax) and even Wikipedia has a documented example of weasel sentences that looks just like that sentence, here is it copy and pasted from Wikipedia under their NPOV section.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems. Wikipedia has already solved this for us. Wikipedia guidelines states that these type of statements need to be resolved by the use of attributing the claim to known authority(such as the NBA, ESPN, associated press) like I've suggested before.--Groovyman 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't agree with it because it is a weasel worded sentence in violation of Wikipedia standards. Editing because of that reason is hardly disruptive, it is part of the process.--Groovyman 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a weasel worded sentence. Please see Wayne Gretzky, Ty Cobb, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, etc. Simple declaratory sentences are allowed on Wikipedia. Also your previous version was copied directly from NBA.com which is plagiarism. See my comments above for my support of the current wording. Trevor GH5 09:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really. Simple declarative opinion statements are not allowed unless they are attributed by a authority source, otherwise they are just POV statements. The current statement is a near carbon copy the wikipedia's example of a weasel worded opinion statement, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." About my previous version, I cited the source in the statement, so it isn't be plagiarism. Lets look at Wayne Gretzky's wikipedia opening statement since you brought it up.

Nicknamed "The Great One," Total Hockey: The Official Encyclopedia of the NHL calls Gretzky "the greatest player of all time."[1] He is generally regarded as the best player of his era and has been called "the greatest hockey player ever" by many sportswriters,[2][3][4] players,[5] and coaches

Notice how they used authority sources to make those statements that Gretzky is the greatest player of all time and that entire paragraph is free of any weasel words since every claim is backed up by solid known authorities. They came to the conclusion to use that format after 6 rounds of discussion. I propose we use the same format for the MJ opening statement as the Wayne Gretzky opening statement. We really only need to copy or move some of the writing/sources from the legacy section to the opening statement.--Groovyman 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Things in the lead do not have to be sourced the lead is a summary of the article. Also "generally regarded as the best player of his era" is not sourced, see the talk page of Gretzky here. Trevor GH5 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening statements do need to be backed up by authority sources if they are POV opinion statements. Why don't you show me a link or a quote from Wikipedia guidelines that states that POV opinion statements in the opening paragraph do not need to backed up by a source? It doesn't exist. You can make up your own rules just because you don't like the proposals on hand. The Gretzky statement He is generally regarded as the best player of his era and has been called "the greatest hockey player ever" by many sportswriters,[2][3][4] players,[5] and coaches is clearly backed up by multiple authority sources and it is in the lead paragraph, I can't possibly see how you would miss that unless you are just messing around? I am trying to assume good faith here, I think we all deserve at least that much in this discussion.

Also, the link you provided isn't where it was resolved, the dispute was resolved on this page here. The Grezsky page came to to decision that each claim needed to be sourced. So if a statement was to be made that said "fans, coaches, players, writers, and publications" called Gretzky the greatest, a source was required for each one. They came to that conclusion, and Wikipedia itself asserts that POV issues are to be handled by using authority sources as seen by this link. In any case it is clear there needs to be some sort of change and I propose we use the Wayne Gretsky format as a compromise.--Groovyman 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There really is no POV in that statement, its a simple statement that pretty widely accepted. Leads do not need sources see any FA. Aaron Bowen 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't say the wording is widely accepted because it has been under contention here for a while now. It is too vague and general, well into the point of being a weasel sentence. It has already been shown to be POV since the statement is a direct parallel to Wikipedia's example of a weasel worded POV statement. It not only uses one type of weasel word, but two(syntax, and generalization). The fact that there is a debate about it also shows it is POV, and the fact that a similar debate about it already occurred in the Gretsky page on the same issue demonstrates that. The case has been made for a change, Wikipedia already has solved this in their guidelines. Wikipedia guidelines are clear, contentious POV opinion statements need to be backed by a source, it doesn't give exceptions just because it is in the opening statement or in any other place in the article. As Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia said,NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable", meaning the rule applies for an entire article. If you can show me where Wikipedia says opinion POV leads can stand as is without sources, I'll be willing to back down from the request for good, otherwise we should to compromise.--Groovyman 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The current statement is pretty innocuous. I agree with Trevor, Aaron, et al. Marcus Taylor 04:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether you think it is innocuous isn't the issue, since others clearly strongly disagree and dispute it, which by Wiki's definition makes it a opinion as you can read from this link. In the link, it says we are to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." The current statement is nothing but a stand alone POV opinion. It seems pretty clear what the guidelines expect us to do, and I am trying to follow it down to the letter of the law, so I don't understand why there is a resistance to compromise?--Groovyman 05:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's actually very inaccurate to say that Jordan is "widely considered to be one of the greatest" basketball players--There's noone who knows anything about it who DOESN'T consider him one of the greatest. To be accurate, that statement would either need to say "Widely considered the greatest.." or "Universally accepted as one of the greatest...". All you people arguing to keep "widely considered one of the..." are not fighting to accurate, correct, or honest, you're just fighting some weird fight against using any superlative. In this case superlative is justified and correct.

Compromise Proposal

Proposed new statement based on Wayne Gretzky's page, and Wiki's own guidelines on how to deal with this.

The NBA calls Jordan "greatest basketball player of all time."[1] He has been named the basketball athlete of the century and is regarded as the "greatest player who ever lived" by many sportswriters[2][3], players[4], and coaches[5].

The Gretsky statement is below for comparison.

Total Hockey: The Official Encyclopedia of the NHL calls Gretzky "the greatest player of all time."[1] He is generally regarded as the best player of his era and has been called "the greatest hockey player ever" by many sportswriters,[2][3][4] players,[5] and coaches.

By using authoritatively backed statements instead of stand alone opinion statements, the thorny issue of POV and weasel words is avoided for good. It might require some minor editing in the legacy section, no biggie though. Any suggestions are welcome.--Groovyman 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine and don't think a "compromise" is needed. Tayquan 22:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You really do need to read the comments I've already posted above. Whether your opinion is that it is fine isn't the issue, there are obvious parties that dispute that. That by definition makes it an opinion statement under Wikipedia's definition of opinion, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute.". Wikipedia is pretty clear about its stance on opinion statements, Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. Like I've said, this has already been discussed in my comment above, and my compromise solution above turns the POV opinion statement currently in place into a fact about opinion.

Wikipedia pretty much has written the protocol on how to deal with this here at this [link]. To our luck, their example on that link is an exact parallel to where we are in now, it is even a sports example. I am following their protocol down to the letter and have yet to hear one legitimate reason why we shouldn't be following protocol. I hope we can come to a solution, but if not, it might just be best to get some outsider help by filling out the request comment on articles.--Groovyman 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to read everyone elses comments posted above, the wording that is chosen is a conservative one because many editors think it better to be conservative than to push the POV. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tayquan, POV opinion statements are strictly forbidden by Wikipedia, whether they are conservatively or liberally worded. What is allowed are "facts about opinions", that is opinions from strong authority sources. If it isn't a "fact about opinion", it simply against policy for it exist in Wikipedia, since by definition an opinion statement isn't NPOV. The Gretzky page went through the same thing, and the solution they ended up with was the same one I am proposing now, and it is the same solution Wikipedia protocol would have us do.--Groovyman 02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest revision, while it may seem a decent compromise, seems grammatically poor: "Widely considered one of, if not, the greatest basketball players of all time, he became one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation and was instrumental in popularizing the NBA (National Basketball Association) around the world in the 1980s and 1990s." I suggest that it be either changed back or that someone come up with a version that says the same thing with better grammar.

I just deleted this change. I understand the whole debate that is going on with this page (about whether Jordan is "one of the greatest" or "the greatest"), but I did not make the change in order to dispute the validity of the content of the "if not" addition: I undid this addition *solely* because it was very poorly worded. Read it again and you'll see that it's remarkably awkward phrasing. If someone wishes to make this change, please find a better way of saying it. Thanks! Joseph Petek 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Statement in Dispute:

"Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time"

Summary of Dispute:

1. There is a dispute on whether or not the statement above is POV and weasel worded. I have asserted that it is based on the fact it is vague and an opinion statement that is not backed up by a source. "Widely considered" could mean anywhere from 40-100%, and "one of the greatest", could mean anything from top 1 to top 50. It appears to be a classic weasal sentence of generalization. It also nearly identical to Wikipedia's own example of a POV weasel sentence as seen on this link. Is the statement POV/weasel in nature?

2. There has also been dispute on whether a POV statement is allowed in the lead paragraph of an article. After combing through the Wikipedia guidelines, I found that NPOV is to be "absolute and non-negotiable" as quoted by the Wikipedia founder himself, and nowhere were there exceptions to this rule. But have received resistance despite this. Are declarative statements in lead paragraphs immune from NPOV policy?

3. The suggested compromise statement to correct the POV/weasel issues is below and is modeled on the Wayne Gretzky opening statement, which incidentally went through a similar debate(6 rounds) before deciding on a format identical to the one below.

The NBA calls Jordan "greatest basketball player of all time."1 He has been named the basketball athlete of the century 2 34and is regarded as the "greatest player who ever lived" by many sportswriters5, players6, and coaches7.

It is also based on Wikipedia's own simple formulation [link]., which is to Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. The proposed compromise statement follows Wikipedia protocol on how to correct POV/weasel issues, by stating opinions of verifiable authority sources("fact about opinion") and not stand alone opinions without citation. Despite this, there is still some resistance to implement it. Should the compromise statement be implemented? Yes/No? Any suggestions/comments on the proposed compromise statement is also welcomed.--Groovyman 06:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Groovyman has done excellent job summarizing the dispute, and I agree with his resolution. Are there any dissenters?

Statements From Outside Editors:

I must agree that even though "the greatest basketball player of all time is weasel worded, it is still a Verifiable fact. Look at the intro to Tupac Shakur's article. It says he has been ranked as the greatest rapper of all time, and that is not nearly as consencus as Jordan being ranked as best basketball player ever. Michael Jordan has been ranked #1 by just about everybody, incuding fans, sportswriters, NBA players, etc. "one of the greatest" just doesn't do justice in showing how widely it is percieved that Jordan is the best basketball player ever.<-----Darth Caton

I like the compromise statement. and the general guideline to reference the opinion, not just include it. On the original statement, it is too 'weasely', and 'point of view with no reference'.--Rocksanddirt 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

American professional basketball player

Why is this term used? It does not make any sense. MJ is a retired NBA player. He has only played professionally in the NBA. To say that he is an American basketball player is confusing for Americans play in the European leagues as well. Please changes this to NBA player..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.138.18 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

American refers to his nationality. Aaron Bowen 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Newbie Comments

I am a bit new to the 'server-side' of wikipedia. I was ignorant to the fact that there was actual protocol for editing. I actually don't really have the time to go through the protocols so I guess until I do I will stop editing. I hope this is even where I am suppose to write something in the discussion panel.

In anycase, I started reading the top of this discussion panel but it is just a bit long. I don't think I saw answered as I skimmed, but my general input and question are:

At least I am not stating that MJ IS the g.o.a.t.

ESPN.com and a whole gang load of magazines, news reports (like from the day he retired), and a whole library full of books, dvds, video tapes, audio tapes, videogames, and I am sure some other forms of media have stated that he actually IS the g.o.a.t. However, I can't list them as a citation cause 1. I'm not going to look all of that up to find specific details as evidence 2. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Continuing on though, everyone must admit that he is considered by experts, fans, and even some haters as the greatest player of all time.. right?

Dude just quoted ESPN right? ..the world wide leader of sports?

When i ignorantly edited the actual article.. I merely took out 'one of'. I did NOT take out the considered part, which is actually very subjective in itself if you ask me.

How can anyone refute that he is CONSIDERED, not is, the g.o.a.t.?

crap, I don't remember the protocol for finishing.. mrpark01 5/9/2007 7:51PM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpark01 (talk • contribs)

Read here, and here. Also, read up on the talkpage guidelines as well, and try to formulate a complete paragraph; it's easier to read and takes up less space. Furthermore, make sure to add your comments into the correct sections so that your comments do not convolute the wrong areas. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Jordan's Criticisms

This article completely ignores the aspects of Jordan's life that have received criticism, such as his lack of effort/presence in improving the African-American community. There is no talk about his quote: "Republicans buy sneakers, too."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krkr12 (talk • contribs)

I guess there could be some inclusion of that in the Media representation section, but the bias tag seems like the work of an angry fan. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a poor reason to remove a bias tag. Indeed, the user left a message explaining himself on the talk page within five minutes after he posted the tag. He's not just some "angry fan"; he cites a specific reason for his actions. If he hasn't been scared away, I think we should hear him out.

The article does sugarcoat a lot of the less-than-flattering aspects of Jordan's career. Besides the above quote, there are Jordan's practice fights with Steve Kerr and Will Perdue, the rumors that he switched jersey numbers as a marketing ploy, his perceived indiferrence to Nike's labor abuses, etc. The kind of stuff you find in Sam Smith's The Jordan Rules and other articles. Whether this stuff is notable enough to include in the article is up for discussing... but it is worth discussing, at the very least. Zagalejo 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's only so much this article can cover it's not a biography. Aaron Bowen 18:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I didn't put the tag there as an intendedly permanent one. If the issues that Zagalejo and I brought up are somewhat addressed in the article, the removal of the tag would be warranted. Krkr12 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User RfC related to this article

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf. Quadzilla99 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Most expensive divorce" statement is not correct

The article states that Jordan's divorce settlement was the largest in history. Even the cited article says this is not true; it claims Jordan's is the largest CELEBRITY divorce settlement. To pick just one counterexample off the top of my head, Roman Abramovich's wife will get at least $300M in their divorce.

I'm unregistered - could someone correct this?

I changed it to one of, I'll do some digging. Incidentally, the source does say: "Forbes estimates that the final settlement will exceed $150m - less than half of his $350m earnings accrued during the marriage - making it the most expensive divorce ever." in the fifth paragraph:[10] Aaron Bowen 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right it does appear to be in celebrity history:[11] I'll fix it, good spot. Aaron Bowen 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RETIRED

hey, i fixed the opening line, it said he was a retired basketball player or whatever, and i changed "retired" to "former." its more proper, and most basketball players pages dont say Retired, they are former. --Joooeeeelllll 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with changing retired to former...but since you changed much more than that, I've reverted your edit. --OnoremDil 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

um what else was changed??? I changed one word, that doesnt change anything more than a word. seriously I would like to know what i supposedly changed. --Joooeeeelllll 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff of your edit. You changed retired to former. You changed shooting guard to guard. You removed the word gambling from wherever it appeared. And it appears there were some other random partial deletions sprinkled in. --OnoremDil 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

"Eyeing" is spelled "eying" in the Second Three Peat section and I can't fix it because the page is protected.

Some dictionaries do list "eying" as an acceptable spelling. However, "eyeing" is far more common, so I'll make the change for you. Zagalejo 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Slam Dunk Contest Additions

I'm surprised there's no mention of Jordan winning the slam dunk contest, since that's one of his most hearalded achievements, which included the famous foul line dunk---which also inspired the logo for Air Jordan sneakers. It really should be added.

Kids

The sotry mentions younger son Marcus being in Loyola's class of 09. While he played for Loyola last year, he has trasferred to Whitney Young for the 07-08 season. He played summer ball with Young. Older son Jeffrey is trying to walk-on at Illinois.

List of achievements addition

he is the 1987 NBA Slam Dunk champion. This should be added as well.

Photos listed for deletion

Two photos in this article are listed for deletion. They are the two iconic poics of him taking the shots in the 91 and 98 Finals. They are both screenshots, and are discussed in the text. If that doesn't qualify as fair use, I don't know what does. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion in the July 18 section. Thanks. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)