Talk:David Stern

Criticism

"Stern also received criticism in 2005 for negotiating a labour agreement that did not introduce any major change in the NBA system. The existing "soft" salary cap is considered ineffective in maintaining a competitive balance between teams and holding down the escalation of player salaries."

Is this really a widely held belief? Certainly salaries among superstars have declined since the Shaquille O'Neal-Juwan Howard-Kevin Garnett heydey(with Shaq and KG still drawing astronomical sums due to being grandfathered in). And competitive balance has never really been a strong suit of NBA basketball. Other then in the 1970s there have tended to be 1 or 2 dominant teams. Other then the Lakers in the mid 90s grabbing Shaq, I can't really think of a champion that really exploited a revenue advantage to win titles.

--- Is it really appropriate to have his religion in the opening phrase? It does not seem particularly relevant to his work or his fame.

I DO NOT AGREE. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS HIS RELIGION IN HIS INTORDUCTION AS COMMISSIONER. I REMOVED THAT REFERENCE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.118.14 (talk • contribs)

"Stern is considered by some to be the best commissioner in professional sports." As to the preceding sentence, did Stern write it himself? One could argue that the statement is sourced. But what about the lack of dicussion of what many feel is overly dogmatic application of the rules that punish those who play fairly and reward those who don't, a criticism made in a wide variety of competing sports news organizations including Fox, ESPN, NBC, and many newspapers?

I am a sportswriter, not a fan, and don't really care who won the 2007 Spurs-Suns series. I just think if you are putting in a history of Stern, more should be put in about Stern's decision to essentially decide the NBA championship in 2007. Many have called the Suns-Spurs series was the real NBA championship series since the West was so strong and Utah benefited by Dallas being upset in the first round. That said, I can't remember any NBA title decided in such a fashion as this. A key point of contention by Phoenix officials was that Duncan went on the court in the same game 4 during another incident and was not suspended. Whether that was an altercation or not, is not the point. The point was it was highly contentious, and this part needs to be included to better understand what this decision by Stern meant. The series was tied when Stern made this decision, Phoenix had momentum for Game 5 going back to Phoenix and that was wiped out by Stern's decision. 98.204.186.237 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Something should also be said about Stern's decision to suspend Jerry Stackhouse of the Mavericks for the critical fifth game of the NBA finals in 2006. The 210-lb. Stackhouse supposedly fouled the 320-lb. Shaq of the Heat so hard in game 4 that Shaq referred to the hit as less violent than love taps made by his daughters. The Mavs lost game 5 by only 1 point in overtime and sorely missed Stackhouse, their sixth man who was averaging 13 points a game. Had the Mavs won Game 5, they likely would have won the 2006 NBA title and Avery Johnson likely would still be the Mavs' coach. And then in the 2008 playoffs, Stern refused to suspend Celtics and Hawks players who went on the floor during an altercation. He also refused to suspend Celtics star Garnett when the latter elbowed an official. But he did suspend Wizards big man Darius Songaila for the pivotal game 6 against Cleveland after Songaila hit LeBron James in what he said was an accidental blow after they got entangled. Adding insult to injury, Stern waited until the day of Game 6 to suspend Songaila, not giving the Wizards any time to adjust to the change. Usually, such suspensions are announced at least one day before the playoff game. The point is Stern has made a lot of suspect decisions that lead many to question the integrity of the NBA. Jacksonthor (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed image tag until image is uploaded.

(comented out image transclusion.Drewcifer (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)) I removed [[Image:David_Stern.jpg|frame|right|NBA Commissioner David Stern]] Until the image is uploaded. Once image is in place feel free to replace. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 13:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

no sense

Is "called out" by rap star Nas in the song "Hip Hop Is Dead" which was released in December 2006 ahead of its album by the same name makes no sense if anyone understands it please write the meaning below Mrsanitazier 9:08 AM Eastern Standard Time February 19,2006

it means Nas mentioned Stern in his song, "Hip Hop Is Dead" which was released before his album, also called "Hip Hop is Dead" 98.240.210.34 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Overly negative

This article is overly negative and looks strongly like it's written by some disgruntled fans. Quadzilla99 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the Kobe Bryant incident is dealt with in way too much detail. This shows a clear lack of historical perspective and illustrates my previous point. Quadzilla99 03:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and what makes it worse is that the majority of the section is not sourced, violating WP:BLP. This really needs to be fixed immediately. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible it's written like an angry blog. David stern is one of the most notable league commisioners in recent american sports history. Yet his carrer acomplishments take up less than a third of the article. if a re-write is being done, i suggest this article be put under semi-protect since it's very prone to vandalism.Duhon 06:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed any criticism that was not cited, per WP:BLP. It can be readded in the future, if sources are included. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, all that I bothered to salvage was the controversy about the replacement ball. It is now fully cited and NPOV to the best of my ability. If there is anything I overlooked, feel free to improve upon it.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Quadzilla99 01:15, 1 March 2007

(UTC)

The criticism page seems to be written by a phoenix suns fan. Warrush 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears to have been cleaned up since then, so I've removed the POV tag for now. Please re-add if there is something else odd. Kuru ^talk 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Overly positive now?

It looks like the pendulum has swung the other way. The "NBA Commissioner" section reads like it was written by the NBA league office. And the only criticism of Stern's is about the microfiber ball? We need to find an appropriate balance here. Funnyhat 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and include some negative criticism as long as its well sourced, also try not to violate the NPOV undue weight guidlines. In other words try to keep the size and amount of the ciriticism manageable. If you add too much I'm sure there are people here who will comment though, so feel free to add well sourced, relevant criticism. Quadzilla99 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it is sourced and neutral, so it doesn't violate WP:BLP, please feel free to make the article more balanced. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to start cutting some of this and condensing it. It's getting near WP:UNDUE territory. The criticism section is dominating the article. See here specifically see here on WP:UNDUE:"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I think the we can state some of these criticisms in a brief concise manner also a new section for each controversy is probably not a good idea either. Quadzilla99 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

why is there a Stern rule disclaimer below the references? it doesn't relate to the section and it seems like a biased opinion towards the Phx-SA suspensions

True. I've removed it. Kuru ^talk 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is a piece of propaganda. It shows the lack of integrity and commitment to the truth that someone has come in and completely sanitized the, to put it mildly, highly controversial decisions that Stern has participated in. The travesty of the Suns-Spurs Playoff Series this year, for example, resulted in the lowest television ratings for the NBA final in years. Why? Because fans throughout the nation, not just in Phoenix, knew that the series was a pathetic joke. All mention of this incident has been wiped from Stern's biography not because it didn't happen but because there is no way to see Stern in a positive light in the wake of this controversy. There is also no mention of the current scandal regarding point fixing alledged against an NBA referee who officiated at least one of the Suns-Spurs games. What is this, the former Soviet Union?

I agree something should be said about the referee gambling scandal last year, especially when Stern himself said: "I can tell you that this is the most serious situation and worst situation that I have ever experienced either as a fan of the NBA, a lawyer for the NBA or a commissioner of the NBA." http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2947237 Jacksonthor (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error

"In the 1997 NBA playoffs, the NBA suspended five players following a brawl between the New York Knicks and Miami Heat. Some of the suspensions were required by a league rule, implemented under Stern, that provides an automatic one-game suspension to any player who leaves his team's bench during a fight, such as the supsension in the 2007 Playoffs from the Suns-Spurs Game. Several players who had not gotten involved in the fight were also suspended, prompting complaints from officials on both teams."

Suspension is spelled wrong in the first paragraph of 'Criticism and Controversy.' It is spelled supsension.

You can make the change yourself! It is actually "suspension", although your's is probably a typo. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the page is temporarily semi-protected due to some 'seasonal' vandalism, I've made the change for you. Thanks for pointing it out. Kuru ^talk 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize that the page was semi-protected. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

intro

via a successful coup d'etat he wrestled control from the previous commissioner

what is this supposed to mean? if this is here, it needs details.

also, someone should mention the (not serious) conspiracy theory made popular by bill simmons about him supposedly fixing the 1985 draft lottery so that the knicks would end up with patrick ewing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.201.223.6 (talk • contribs).

I've cleaned up that statement in the intro section. Since it has some significantly negative connotations, it needs to be sourced. Kuru ^talk 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

removed scandal

I removed the scandal part claiming espn reported stern was controlled by the mob and that the san antonio spurs have to forfeit their title. there is nothing on espn.com close to this.

Referree Scandal

Seems that there is no mention of the latest referree scandal. Although there are numerous news items to support this. I personally don't know enough about it yet to change the page with reference to David Stern.

I agree something should be said about the referee gambling scandal last year, especially when Stern himself said: "I can tell you that this is the most serious situation and worst situation that I have ever experienced either as a fan of the NBA, a lawyer for the NBA or a commissioner of the NBA." http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2947237 Jacksonthor (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stern's contributions to partisan Democratic Party politics

Stern's major contributions to the Democratic Party should also be noted somewhere. If it was just a few thousand dollars, that's one thing. But he has given almost $1 million over the years to the Dems and only $2,000 to republicans. Yes, people can give what they want, but people also have a right to know when someone so much in the public eye like Stern is giving so much to one party. It tears apart the myth of no politics in sports. See http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/David_Stern.php Jacksonthor (talk)

Some OUTRAGEOUS vandilism

I had to edit something out about him getting shot yesterday by Anthony Parker

NPOV concern

Nearly half of this article is a section on criticisms and controversies. This gives undue weight to negative publicity that he might have received over the years. He has also received positive press. And, in any event, he's not such a polarizing figure that half his article should be a commentary on subjects barely related to him. I'm going to tag this article with an NPOV template and remove the offending section. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies Section

I arrived in this article via a link and don't know too much about the NBA but most of the controversies section doesn't at the moment seem directly relevant to Stern. Only the match fixing section really relates to him as it has accusations that he directly influenced the games. The fathering children in many cities by players, criminal activities of players and the Pacers-Pistons brawl don't seem to belong here, but would be better suited elsewhere, maybe in the the main NBA article. Unless it has been stated somewhere that it is down to Stern that these problems have arisen. I'm wary of making chages to an article that I don't have much knowledge of though. Franmars (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. This is a biography of a living person. It's not a dumping ground for every libelous statement imaginable. The first section that I deleted had nothing to do with Stern. It was just a poorly sourced shotgun-style attack on the NBA in general. The second section had only one source and was just a point of view dumping ground for various fringe attacks on the integrity of Stern. It appeared as though two-thirds of the article was an attack on Stern, and that was just way out of line. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Born to Jewish Parents?

Is this really necessary for the intro? He is already categorized under "American Jews" which means precisely that his parents were Jewish (unless he converted, which is unusual). Why do unregistered users feel the need to highlight this in the lead? It's not like he's a rabbi or something. Editor437 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok - Sgt. Dizzle Guy and her various IPs are the source of the focus on Stern's ethnicity - note that she is a sockpuppet and should be reverted and ignoredEditor437 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the mention of his parents religion in the background section. I don't see any similar mention for any other major league commisioner with reference to their backgrounds.Duhon (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

New section?

It might be hard to work in with a neutral POV, but could we add a "Ridiculous, nonsensical public statements that even he could not possibly believe" or a "Early foundations of a CYA strategy for when he axes the WNBA"? It seems to make sense, given this link...http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4715078 Please remember that gwopy loves you and wants you to be happy. 07:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

referees

referees should be closely watched in bank accounts and spending habbits so as not to fix games as previosly done and said to have been done by many its playoff ball let them play ball and stop the bad refereeing coaches know and so do fans

removed this: "Including the NBA's "Let's Get Kobe Another Ring,So Everyone Forget's About Colorado'." from the NBA section on charities. There is no such charity, and seems to be a product of irrelevant posting.

76.117.162.7 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)