Talk:Steve Nash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Steve Nash has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

incorrect full name[edit]

as listed, full name is "Steven John Nash", not "Stephen John Nash" can someone add in the re-direct link of "steven john nash" to this page, I would have done it except i don't know how Z3u2 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

His full name is indeed Stephen Nash, per his acceptance on his Order of Canada[1] is spelt that way.(For the record, Steven is American spelling whereas Stephen is British spelling) For him to accept the highest honour in his home country and have his name spelt wrong wouldn't make any sense now does it?--Cahk (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"Stephen" is how his name is spelled in the Official NBA Encyclopedia. (But for the record, "Stephen" is a very common spelling in America.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Stephen is common in America within those who have British ancestry or from states that used to be Thirteen Colonies. Otherwise, most people spell Steven not Stephen for pronounciation sake.--Cahk (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We're getting off-topic, but do you have a cite for that? I've known lots of Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc etc named "Stephen". Zagalejo^^^ 06:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant to say that Americans (as oppose to x-Americans) do not use the spelling of Steven. I didn't meant to exclude other nationalities in using Stephen (it's Greek, afterall). For a (not reliable) source lol[2] On a more serious/academic route, I guess you can trace it back via history or linguistic route. --Cahk (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GA push[edit]

In an (way belated) attempt to push this article towards GA-quality, I've touched up the article in the following areas:

  1. Lead (not fully satisfactory yet for GA; contingent on touching up of other areas)
  2. High school and family
  3. College

The sections on his NBA career/player profile/off the court/int'l career leave much to be desired at the moment and I would work on it in due time. A round of copy-editing is probably needed as well. P.S. in line with my comment above about citing sources I've also made the formatting uniform. Chensiyuan 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Update -- lots of chopping and changing, working slowly through the Suns section at the moment... but much more to come. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Update -- done with Suns (save for 2007-08 season which would be done in due time), more or less done with player profile... get ready to get chopped for "off the court"! Chensiyuan (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Anyone who has access to the books listed in the article, feel free to incorporate. Chensiyuan 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference style[edit]

Please see the relevant WP guidelines/policies on how to reference. Templates are not necessary; rather, the key is being consistent within the article. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When referring to Bill Russell, it should be spelled "center" since he is an American.

[3] Chensiyuan (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Excessively long intro[edit]

The introduction is way too long and the information there is misplaced and mostly redundant with the body of the article. The intro shouldn't be more than a couple of paragraphs long, and should only be an overview. Right now, it lists every accomplishment, personal life details, and career moves. I'd be happy to cut it down to a reasonable size, but I want to make sure there's no strong objection and that no one thinks I'm destroying the article. --Mosmof (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Having written, and contributed to, quite a fair number of featured articles, I'd have to disagree that it's "excessively long". By a long shot in fact. I would agree however that it can be trimmed. Let's have a little discussion on what detracts from WP:LEAD before proceeding. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. My issue, I guess, isn't so much the length but the structure and level of detail. The intro should deal only with the really, really important facts about the article subject, i.e. what makes the subject more notable than others like it. Right now, it's a chronological bio.
Here's stuff that I think should be in the intro:
  • Birth date and location
  • He is a point guard for the Phoenix Suns of the NBA.
  • He is a two-time NBA MVP and x-time All-Star.
  • ___ (insert expert here) calls him one of the greatest point guards of his era/ever.
  • He played for Santa Clara and made 3 NCAA Tourney apps.
Everything else is more appropriate for the article body, I think. --Mosmof (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay since I've been editing this article for a long time I'd work around your suggestion first but it'd probably take a couple of days. I should also add that my take on what's most pertinent about WP:LEAD is the reader shouldn't be surprised by the fact that something is in the body wasn't summarised in the lead. Many times, when an article is up for GA or FA nomination, the common gripe is a short lead rather than a long one; here, by virtue of length alone, it's not terribly cumbersome. The importance lies of course in the content, and I just think that anything that is given extensive treatment in the body warrants some indication in the lead. Chensiyuan (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant to respond sooner, but thanks for taking my suggestions. You've spent more time on this article and GA nominations, so I trust your judgment. Like I said, looking back, my issue had less to do with length and more to do with the level of detail. --Mosmof (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated and compelled me to re-look the quality of the lead. I've since trimmed it down quite a bit, although I'd be the first to admit that (a) a chrono presentation of his bio; and (b) some degree of detail, are still present. That said, I hope that both points can be justified, on the basis that only his most important achievements are mentioned. What do you think of it now? Chensiyuan (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Tim Duncan, an FA I co-authored with a couple of other editors, employs the sort of title/award-driven lead you're talking about. Guess who wrote that lead... lol. The parallels between the players' style of basketball and their respective leads stand out as well! Chensiyuan (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"...enjoyed a successful high school career" Success according to whom? If folks want to keep something about his HS in there, fine, but I'd caution against using "successful." "...eventually given a scholarship..." Seems to suggest one of two things: that a) he was a walk-on and later earned a scholarship or b) he was indeed a successful HS b-ball player, and therefore it would not be surprising to read that in light of the overwhelming fact that the most talented of athletes who go to college often obtain scholarships. "He made a minimal impact..." Based upon who's assertion? Keep in mind Nash played behind Jason Kidd and Kevin Johnson and averaged 10.5 min his first year and 21.9 min his second...("minimal" is a judgmental adjective that can be debated for years to come, but should be avoided in/on an encyclopedia. I can possibly understand mentioning specific players he's played with, as Nowitzki and Finley are mentioned currently, but this is debatable as Finley was a 2-time All-Star and never past 2001, nor certainly in 2003 or 2004, the years in which are being written about in the LEAD. For LEAD purposes, Nowitzki would suffice I would think. The next sentence is also questionable..."However, he became a free agent..." This could also be written "Mavs owner Mark Cuban declined to match Nash's asking price..." or "Cuban was willing to let the 29-year old Nash go in favor of rookie Devin Harris, younger veteran Jason Terry and even younger point guard Dan Dickau..." But this is obviously too much info. for the LEAD, and therefore recommend something like "at the end of the 2003-2004 season, Nash returned to the team that drafted him and that very same year, led the Suns to the Western Conf Finals." "...and missed out on a third consecutive MVP to Nowitzki..." is great meat to add to the below sections, as the Western Conf during those years included battles between PHX/DAL and the competition between Nash and Nowitzki is storied and the 2 players remain friends, etc, but it seems to be a bit cumbersome in trying to provide a quality LEAD (it's also open to more debate, because although Nash finished 2nd in MVP voting that year, he actually finished with a higher percentage of votes than the previous year when he actually won the award). Basically, Nash's MVP place finishes would be OK to mention further in the article. The fact he's the only PG other than Magic Johnson to win consecutive MVPs is a feat worthy of standing alone. The next part about statistics Nash excels at seems to be lacking an accomplished feat that continues to improve with each game: his current position at eight in career assists. "Nash, who is married..." I do not see how being married has anything to do with his philanthropic efforts or his adoration with soccer. It's something that would be perfect to mention in the personal life subsection (including the current divorce filing), but seems to be a random aside in the LEAD that when coupled with what I have stated (above), provides one last, hodge podge of tidbits that only goes to confuse readers and provides a choppy few first paragraphs to the rest of the article. I'd be more than happy to help Plunge Forward, so let me know what folks think since the article is protected. (For the record, the Tim Duncan LEAD is much better than the Nash one. Perhaps attesting to what Mosmof was saying above, much improvement is needed IMO.) Zepppep34 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Rule premise is? Also, lead requires no sources. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The above comments never suggested inserting sources. If a LEAD has to include a source, I highly doubt its inclusion in the LEAD. What's required to get this fixed? Why two players that were not named in the NBA's Top 50 are included in Nash's lead is beyond me. Take a look at two players' LEADs...Tim Duncan's article mentions no other players in the LEAD, even fellow teammate and TOp 50 player and HOFer David Robinson. Michael Jordan, who also played alongside a Top 50 and HOFer, no. Jordan had epic duels with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, far beyond the level of whatever Nash and Nowitzki might have when playing against each other, and the Jordan article doesn't mention either of those two. Even Dirk Nowitzki's article has no other mention of players, including Nash! The writing could be improved. To deny so is a discredit to the article. Rule? Perhaps we could invoke Wikipedia: Consensus? Others have already stated, above (and below), the LEAD needs some work. It seems we have a bit of Wikipedia: Ownership of articles going on. I've offered specific examples...I think we need to Plunge Forward a bit on this one. Under the GA Review comments on this talk page, someone stated they agreed the article had achieved GA status but some things could be changed, including the LEAD, to get it to FA status. I think they have a good point. Zepppep34 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Clutching at straws with a generic consensus rule? Then resorting to owenrship allegations? Btw, I wrote at least half of Tim Duncan as well, from lead to end. And been plugging at MJ, Magic, and Dirk to make them reach where they are since five years ago. You also need to stop making references that are no longer relevant (eg, the lead has been changed many times since the last time others made comments about it.) At any rate, please list your suggested changes in a more readable form, perhaps in a list. And it'll be even more helpful to state the current phraseology alongside the proposed one for ease of comparison. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Has the article reached FA status? The changes that were proposed above, by Mosmof, weren't taken into consideration it appears. I'm a supporter of something like that. Ok, great, you helped write the Duncan article. So let's pursue more of the ideas that others must've had in creating that lead, as well as the Jordan, Magic, and Dirk leads, than the ones that are being used to keep Nash's lead in its current form. I'm not pointing the fingers directly at any one user--WP is a result of group efforts, both good and bad. It does appear any changes can only take place at the behest of one user, however, which is a bit surprising. When I mentioned Ownership and Consensus, it wasn't a personal attack against you or any one user. Please don't take any of the above as a personal attack, Chensiyuan. I've already written what I perceive to be weak spots above (as well as offered various recommendations on how it can be improved, rather than just mere weaknesses), but here's a list that's perhaps easier for folks to read:
  • Birth date and location. Info. on his parents background is acceptable, but there are lots of people in Wikipedia with more diverse backgrounds than his that don't mention the specifics of that in the lead, but I digress.
  • He is a point guard for the Phoenix Suns of the NBA. He was drafted by the Suns, played for the Mavs and helped the team find the conference finals and later returned to the Suns and led them to a conference finals as well.
  • He is a two-time NBA MVP and x-time All-Star.
  • He is 8th all-time on career assists. He is statistically relevant in a few other categories (e.g., 3-pt made and percentage, three throw percentage)
  • He has been honored from the Canadian government and received its highest civilian honor.
  • He played for Santa Clara Univ and made 3 NCAA Tourney apps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepppep34 (talkcontribs) 03:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The things talked about above were implemented into the lead changes I just made. I also noted these in the article history. I tried to throw in some more specific info. regarding the 1996 Phoenix team he was joining. I didn't feel the article was clear on just which PGs were present on the Suns roster and when, as well as what caliber of PGs these were (the caliber of players was mentioned in the Dallas subsection). The Dallas subsection part about Donnie Nelson seemed a bit murky; I don't recall the article mentioning he was a Phoenix asst. by the time Nash was drafted, an integral detail to Nash's trade to DAL. I also attempted to provide some immediate context to the success Nash found within one season of leaving DAL, in hopes of making the Cuban comment that much more poignant to the reader. I also mentioned the fact that DAL was in the finals the same time Cuban appeared on Letterman. Not sure if the changes to the lead reflect others' desires, but hopefully it's a step in the right direction. Zepppep34 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You need to be more careful when rewriting. Are you familiar with how references work? The rewrite eliminated a few references and ref tags, which in turn caused formatting issues (including inconsistent ref format), introduced red links and error tags. Then there were mos breaches like the use of correct dashes, inconsistent use of US/Canadian spelling, overlinking, etc. To avoid these problems, I suggest proposing a list of changes here, then someone may make the change for you in the article itself. Finally, all substantive changes should be tallied against wp:lead; in essence, the lead is meant to be a solid summary of the body. Ie, reading the lead per se suffices to let me know the essence of the article. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I can see, however, many changes were indeed kept and and not reverted. I think they only help to make the article better. Regarding the lead being a summary of the article, the article details Nash's rookie year playing 10.5 minutes per. What I attempted to do in the changes I made was to show the reader the Suns decided to trade for Kidd, and essentially traded away Cassell the same year and Nash the next. As Johnson continued to age, the Suns put stock in Kidd. You have reverted to "traded after having a minimal impact with the Suns" sort of speech in your lead. What has also been reverted is the elephant in the room--Donnie Nelson being a PHX asst. during Nash's first year with the Suns. Do you really think readers should only be left to think Nash and Nelson met while Nash was at Santa Clara? The article again leaves this critical detail out of the article. In all likelihood, if Nelson wouldn't have been with Nash during his rookie year in PHX, he would not have lobbied his dad and Nash would most likely never have played a day in DAL. Regarding MOS, I left "honour" as is and am not aware of any spelling inconsistencies I may have had a part in. If I did anything, it was inadvertent. All links I made within the article were not red by the time I was done with the article; the only changes to linking I did were to links that had already been created (for example, the article kept linking San Antonio Spurs when I thought the particular Spurs' season was more relevant, such as San Antonio (this is the norm in other sports article, such as NFL and college football). In fact, I even removed some overlinking, such as the Dirk Nowitzki reference in his 2nd PHX stint (Nowitzki had already been mentioned enough, a reader would be well aware of who he was at that point, and additionally, he's the only person in the article with such a last name) the only sentence I moved which was attached to a ref was the Walk of Canada (which I see has tastefully been kept out of the lead since your revert). The reverts take away wording about Nash being only one of two PGs in NBA history to win consecutive MVPs; this puts him in rare company and is consistent with the flow of the article (ostensibly, Nash had his most impact after being in the league 10 years). The lead could make readers believe Nash's best years were when he was in DAL, which can be statistically found false, and also seems to be in direct contrast to the lead rules you just stated. The article clearly shows the meat and potatoes of his career took place during his 2nd PHX stint. Lastly, I again have to voice my disagreement with including the names of Nowitzki and Finley in the lead (Nowitzki 2x!). (Especially the 2nd Nowitzki reference, where the reader is provided minutiae of a MVP vote breakdown. It wreaks of obvious DAL favorment.) On neither of their pages is Nash listed in the lead. I'm not trying to pursue an exact replica of the other articles of those two players as the basis for my rationale, but it makes it seem Nash couldn't have done anything in DAL without Nowitzki and Finley. He's actually played more seasons with the Suns and gone to more Western Conf. Finals with them than with DAL; in fact, Amar'e Stoudemire outweighs both Dirk and Finley three to one in Western Conference Finals alongside Nash. Why do you have this compulsive desire to name two players whom accompanied Nash in DAL, yet none of his Suns teammates, and furthermore, why put any mention of any of Nash's teammates in the lead? Magic's article has no mention of HOFer Kareem, Jordan's no mention of Pippen...Garnett's even rightly states he was involved in a blockbuster trade without mentioning Pierce or Allen in the lead. Zepppep34 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
1) Would you also explain your reasoning behind the removal of Larry Brown's quote after 2010's Game 6? 2) explain why you reverted the edit I made to Porter's record when he was ousted. You have reverted it back to 29-28, yet | the league's official site and | Bask Ref state 28-23. 3) "Porter preferred a more traditional style of basketball", according to whom? When I wrote "he preferred half-court sets and stressed defense," that can be backed up with analysis, quotes, and stats; the article will have a tougher time standing up to criticism with your desire to use "traditional." 4) Why did you remove the quote from Phil Jackson, coach of a team battling for years in the same division? Nash's bloody face/broken nose was all over TV and print in two distinct playoff occasions; his grittiness is a defining characteristic of his game, and having you explain the above would be apropos. Zepppep34 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change to Porter's record as wording regarding his style preference in the article, since I'm getting no response. In an attempt to build consensus, would the user(s) who've made changes please reveal their reasoning for the above questions posed? If changes have been suggested here, then no response, but then later an edit revert, wouldn't it be reasonable to list the reasoning for the reverts? Zepppep34 (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Honestly, after reading the whole thing and looking through everything, I actually see nothing wrong with this article, and I'm going to outright pass it. The lead's a little long, but not too long to bother putting this on hold. Well done, I really enjoyed reading this! Wizardman 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this - I agree that it should be a GA. I hope, with some changes, that this article will eventually become a FA --Shruti14 t c s 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Early Life[edit]

"His arch enemy is Jared"? Jared who? Why? Is this legitimate? SpellcheckW7 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. And removed. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Something to add for the soccer section.[edit]

Maybe just a little thing, but he was a guest of friend (and Spurs chairman) Levy at one of Tottenhams games. (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


It currently states that Nash died on October 6th, someones idea of a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that. Are you viewing a cached older version of the page? If not, can you not correct it yourself? DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you must be viewing a cached version. It was vandalised a day and a-half ago and reverted minutes later. Wikipedia:Bypass your cache DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tv appearance[edit]

Yo Nash appeared on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? as a celebrity contestent and won $50,000 for his Steve Nash charity. The episode will air 8pm on thursday August 20. I was at the taping. --Cooly123 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Point us to a reference, thanks. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be in the article somewhere.--Cooly123 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As above. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Add something about him running with the torch and 2010 olympics in the section about Off to court? (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ok. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

50-40-90 misunderstanding[edit]

There's been some debate lately over the number of times that Nash has shot 50-40-90. Correction to the proper number has been made several times but due to a misunderstanding is repeatedly undone due to the belief that .890 = 90%. From the NBA Bio page of Steve Nash for 2008-09...

"First player in NBA history to shoot 50 percent from the field (50%), 40 percent from three-point range (44%) and 90 percent from the free-throw line (93%) in three different seasons"

The only way this would be the case is if the year he shot .899 is not counted. Would very much like to see the correct information in the article, but am not willing to repeatedly edit the information just to have it edited back to the incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR disruption[edit]

User: is currently changing instances of the word soccer on this page to the word football. As Canadian English refers to association football as soccer, the guidance of WP:ENGVAR would be to maintain the status quo of soccer as the preferred spelling on this page. The editor has been unresponsive to my query in this matter. Could someone please revert these edits and report to WP:AN3 if he or she persists? Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Statistical clarity[edit]

Player profile: and his total assists, assists per game, and three-point field goals made rank him as one of the top 15 players in league history--The preceding statement seems to be saying Nash is one of the 15 best NBA players of all time. I think what the fragment is trying to convey that he ranks in the top 15 of those 3 statistical categories. The former is a debate for the ages; the latter is statistically verifiable. Additionally, Nash ranks in the top 15 (actually, top 10) in 3-pt percentage. What's more, he is in the top 10 in career assists and assists per game...wording could be added to make Nash's current standing in career assists, 8th, to stand out more. He will likely be in the 6th spot by the end of the season, passing Payton and Thomas. To be ranked 6th in such a lofty category is a true feat.

Can you suggest the rephrasing here? Chensiyuan (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I put it into the article before it was reverted: "He is ranked second in NBA history in career free-throw shooting percentage, top 10 in career assists, three-point field goals made, and three-point shooting percentage." Zepppep34 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, some clarification is needed regarding to the statement about the other NBA point guards who have also won a league MVP. Cousy and Johnson won the MVP as PGs, however Iverson and Robertson also played PG and (I'm not sure if they won it while playing point guard that particular season or how the NBA determines the position for players, unlike Nash, who play multiple positions). If Iverson and Robertson won the NBA while not playing PG that particular year (or a certain # of minutes to qualify as PGs, again, I'm not sure how the NBA determines the position), a parenthetical statement could be included to show those two players, while PGs, didn't win it that particular year as PGs. Or, if they did win the MVP as PGs, then the statement needs to be completely changed.

It should be pointed out that Nash is the only other PG besides Johnson to win the league MVP consecutively. Zepppep34 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is already mentioned (somewhat) but perhaps can be made clearer. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is what I put before the revert: (lead)"...United States at Santa Clara University and later became one of two point guards in NBA history to have won consecutive Most Valuable Player Awards." And later (body), "Nash was named the league MVP for the second year in a row, joining Magic Johnson as the only other point guard to be named MVP in consecutive seasons.[29]" Zepppep34 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only does the wording I've used give the reader a real sense of Nash's accomplishments, but it is also in-line with the caption beneath the Early Life picture, where Nash said he looked up to Magic. I know the article already mentioned Nash as one of three PGs to be named MVP, but as I noted above, I think this might be at odds with Robertson and Iverson's MVPs. Both played PG/G; what I have not looked into is did they win the award as a specific position, and/or if that official position might have been both PG and G. The wording I had makes all of that irrelevant, as Iverson and Robertson (and Cousy) never won consecutive MVPs. Zepppep34 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see changes were made in regards to the wording (above). You didn't list your wording ideas, however, and I see the article has undergone some changes to this specific wording. Not trying to be a pain in the butt, but is it acceptable for me to ask you to list your wording suggestions here first, since I'm being asked to do the same? I realize your history with the page might be long and contributions many, but I guess I'm just confused in general to how this article is being treated and not sure why a user's history or depth of involvement would make them any more worthy to make changes/improvements/additions. Or maybe I don't understand the inner workings of WP and the policies of how the pages are patrolled--which is entirely possible and I would plead ignorance to that. Zepppep34 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't check about the Iverson/Robertson question, but I did include in the article Nash/Magic are the only two consecutive MVP winners at PG. I also added a lot more content to the second PHX stint.Zepppep34 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
See above about making changes here. I'll re-add what I can. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do all suggestions I've raised have to be posted here? Zepppep34 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
To avoid: reference destruction, reference format inconsistency, reference omission, MOS breach, dash breach, overlinking, over-detail. Finally, to document the consensus building. Chensiyuan (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem there's much consensus building going on here. Zepppep34 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix Suns season pages[edit]

Suns season pages exist now for each year of the franchise's history. The regular season and playoff statistics' tables currently link to the Phoenix and Dallas organizations, respectively, with the specific NBA season link appearing to the left. Rather than a link to the franchise, a link for that specific season for the franchise can be used instead (at least for PHX). If anyone has any objections, leave your reason(s), otherwise I'll look to implement the links. Zepppep34 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nash Longevity in Basketball Attributed to Low Sugar Diet[edit]

This aspect is relative to his longevity in the game, and should be a part of the main article.

HERE: is a source:

There is also a blog about it: this should be main articled. (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 22 June 2011[edit]

In the College Career section, two corrections: Dick Davey was not Santa Clara University head coach when Steve Nash was recruited. At the time he was assistant coach, and only after the recruiting process did he become head coach upon the retirement of Carroll Williams.

Santa Clara did not win the West Coast Conference in Nash's freshman season of 1992-93; they finished third. The Broncos won the WCC Tournament, defeating top seed Pepperdine in the final. In the final, Nash scored 23 points.

Source: (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Rookie Season Image?[edit]

I have a hunch that the image under Nash's rookie career is from his second stint on the Suns:

Nash averaged 10.5 minutes a game in his rookie year.

However, I can't verify this. Can anyone else? Here's an example of a basketball card from around the same era: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, image was taken in 2006 (, caption is a bit misleading in that sense. Chensiyuan (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You can find his early image by searching Google images for Steve Nash rookie card. Not surprisingly, he looks 10 years younger. Jrgilb (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Per wiki policy, images do not have to be captioned with the year they were taken. That image says he "averaged 10.5 minutes a game in his rookie year", not that it was taken his rookie year. MavsFan28 (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

He's still got it (2012)[edit]

At age 38, Steve Nash is once again leading the NBA in assists per game, and by a lot over the #2. That is certainly newsworthy. Jrgilb (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a little bit about that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sign & trade deal to the Lakers reported by ESPN[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) and now the L.A. Times,0,5953200.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve Nash spoke with Kobe Bryant before to the trade to "make sure he was completely on board". Reported on ESPN. Gilbertglee (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve Nash elaborates on reasons he chose Lakers[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • A: I don't think espn and Steve Nash himself is is an anonymous sources
  • B: Steve Nash saying it Himself is pretty official, doesn't Wikipedia have any type of common sense clause or is all just a bureaucracy?? (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You must have missed "or awaiting an official announcement"—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Clarify, an official announcement from the NBA or Phoenix. They won't comment until July 11.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
To address the concern, it's been reworded that an announcement from team/league is pending.—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Bagumba, but why wait til July 11th even if it's pending? I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time but it seem odd to me to ignore what is obvious, after I googled 'wikipedia common sense rule' it gave this result it seems that there actually is a common sense rule and it is one of five pillars. see here: it looks to me like that we really shouldn't have to wait for an official announcement if all the sports papers tv sports websites etc are telling us about the trade especially when Steve Nash is confirming that he indeed is going to the Lakers. It could read something to the effect that he was formally with the Suns but has announced in a trade deal that he is going to the LA Lakers which will be official on July 11th. I know it shouldn't be that big of a deal to wait a week but do you think the lag should so long that they have to lock the article? again thank you. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Because pending deals can still be changed or canceled. Have you learned from last year's Chris Paul deal. And July 11 is when teams can officially sign anyone.—Chris!c/t 04:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point but it's not the same situation as the Paul deal that Stern Vetoed, please read this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What else would you want to add to the article in its current form? Chensiyuan (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That the begining of the page let's the reading know about his upcoming trade to the lakers rather then being buried at 4.4 down the article, I think that the article could then be unlocked as it would be as plain as daylight to all passer by. I assume that's why it lock in fear that readers would want to mention @ the begining what's being said at 4.4 in the article or am i'm wrong about the reason for the lock? (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This particular article had already been semiprotected for a long time because of general vandalism. Removing the protection would simply overwhelm the people who are trying to keep things in decent shape. It should be worth noting that ESPN and Yahoo have not updated their profile pages for Nash, either: [4], [5]. It is simply factually incorrect to say that he is currently on the Lakers. The best we can say is that he has agreed to join them. I know that's not the way many people understand the situation, but Wikipedia is here to educate. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
All that said, I could see us mentioning something about the Lakers in the lead, if it were carefully worded. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying after all Nash one of the best NBA players so I can see a bunch of idiots mucking around with it out of jealousy, just want to say to you guys that you all do a good job on wikipedia it has been a great help to over the years perhap i'm making too much of the lead. Thank you for all the replys. (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012[edit]

"Steve Nash" (semi-protected)

In the section "NBA Career:Los Angeles Lakers (2012–present)" the last line, "He chose to wear number 10 because of his admiration for soccer player Lionel Messi." is unsupported by the named reference (46), and should be removed.

A suggested replacement would be, [As a soccer fan, he chose to wear number 10 because "#10 is the number of play makers in soccer."] as supported by existing reference (45).

Wordscot (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I did a Google translate on the Messi source and agree it didnt seem accurate. #45 ref also seems to be editorializing. I found an AP source that says he chose it to honor other No. 10s in soccer, and I did some rewording on the article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2013[edit]

nash is 39 today is his birthday (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: It looks fine in the infobox. Is there somewhere else you are referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2013[edit]

STEVE NASH IS 39 years old (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Already done Duplicate request.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

number of 50–40–90 seasons[edit]

The Steve Nash#Player profile section is claiming that Nash has had five 50–40–90 seasons, as does the Field goal (basketball) article. The 50–40–90 club article itself says that Nash's 2006–7 season doesn't count because his FT% was actually 89.9%, which although it rounds up to 90% means it doesn't technically count as a 50–40–90 season. This number is also listed on Nash's NBA stats page for that season. It seems to me that Nash has only had four 50–40–90 seasons, not five. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Finish Line"[edit]

Article seems to be lacking as a Good Article without some mention of his documentary, "The Finish Line".Google hitsBagumba (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox[edit]

Per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." His holding a British passport is a technicality. He is mostly mentioned as a Canadian, and he has not played on the British national team, so it seems irrelevant to the lead, or infobox in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball, and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to notify others I may have missed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. He holds British citizenship because his parents held it - he is not from the U.K., nor was he born there. Is there anything about his British citizenship which pertains to his notability as a professional basketball player? Unless someone can point to something relevant, his British citizenship need not be mentioned in the lead or infobox (although reference belongs to it in the "Early life" section of the article, as is the case now). Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The eyes of the law don't work by technicalities. If Steve Nash travels to the United Kingdom, he is required by law to identify himself as a British citizen or he is entering the country under an incorrect status. This is the same when he travels to Canada. He must identify himself as a Canadian citizen. If government officials ask him his citizenship, he must be honest and state both of the citizenships he holds. How people perceive his nationality is irrelevant because nationality/citizenship is a legal status, and in fact, he is ethnically British as well. Furthermore, most countries confer citizenship via bloodline, so that isn't a valid argument you make. Nash was born British and is ethnically British. He naturalized as Canadian citizen. While there is no doubt that he identifies primarily as Canadian and is clearly viewed more as a Canadian than British due to growing up in Canada, representing Canada internationally, as well as at the Olympics, and acknowledging his pride in being Canadian, he has also acknowledged his British citizenship, especially in terms of how he could have played in Europe due to being British. Moreover, just because he's proud of being Canadian, doesn't mean he doesn't feel pride in being British either. Encyclopedias should not necessarily make an emotional call on stating a person's citizenship in the intro. Encyclopedias are supposed to be objective. Therefore, I see no reason why the encyclopedia should not clearly state that he is both Canadian and British in the intro. It's perfectly alright to acknowledge his clear connection to Canada in the rest of the page since it's evident throughout his entire life, but under law, he is equally both and the encyclopedia should state this since it's not based on emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but your emphasis on his legal status is contrary to the conventions followed in most other articles, per the guideline WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Still we can wait for others' input to determine where consensus lies.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

While I understand the conventions of most articles, I actually think they all need to be addressed. Sticking with my argument, I don't believe that articles should mislead people when they look for nationality/citizenship of an individual in the intro or infobox. For example, when I look at those sections, I may be curious to see if an individual holds more than one nationality/citizenship out of curiosity. Yet, when I go there, I constantly find pages that list the most popular one, which to me, is misleading. The other citizenship may be buried in t he middle of the article somewhere but encyclopedia articles need not be subjective. They are supposed to be objective. If nationality/citizenship is to be mentioned in the lead and/or infobox, then it should include all nationalities/citizenships that are known to be held by the individual. In the body of the article, it may reflect that there is more of a connection to one of those countries or a perceived connection based on the actions an individual has taken throughout their life, which may lead the reader to draw their own conclusions. I think that should be the model wikipedia should follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter of providing due weight. We don't need to provide undue attention to a minor detail of a person's notability. For example, we wouldn't mention in the lead that a person worked at McDonalds in the lead if that occupation wasn't a large part of their notability.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but again, nationality/citizenship is a permanent, legal status (unless the citizenship has been renounced or stripped from the individual). It's not exactly the same thing as noting the list of occupations a person has had. Plus, the format of wikipedia is supposed to include the nationality/citizenship of the individual in the lead. Therefore, if the individual holds more than one simultaneously, they both should be mentioned. In this case, it's not as if Nash is no longer British. He hasn't taken any steps to give up the citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a legal technicality that has no bearing on his notability. Doesn't belong in the infobox. What he might or might not have to do at a port of entry in the U.K. is utterly irrelevant. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there an infobox for nationality if the box isn't going to be used to actually list all of the nationalities? Again, very misleading. I have to question why there is even an infobox and lead to list nationality when it's not going to be used to actually list the individual's nationalities accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talkcontribs) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Senorcanadiense was blocked previously for being a suspected sockmaster of, who commented above.—Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Your position is clear, so there is no need to continue to repeat it just because nobody has supported it. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple pages where the same argument is made and is supported, for example, the Missy Franklin page. This is a legitimate issue and there is a lack of consistency throughout the entire site. As in the Franklin page, it is clear that many people support the point of view that nationality is a legal relationship and if a category that is based on law is included, it should allow for all nationalities to be included. It's very strange to edit out correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talkcontribs) 06:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to being correct, information should be relevant. Trivia in the infobox can be misleading. For all of the many reasons provided above, the reference does not belong in the infobox. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship[edit]

"Nash was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, to a Welsh mother and an English father on 7 February 1974. He therefore holds British as well as Canadian citizenship."

This makes no sense. He has two British parents and was born in South Africa. How does this "therefore" make him a Canadian citizen? Somebody please edit to explain how he is *actually* a Canadian citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan Jeff (talkcontribs) 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the issue. Nash is clearly a British citizen. He was born to two British parents and was born a British citizen. His family relocated to Canada when he was very young. He grew up almost entirely in Canada and became a naturalized Canadian citizen. He is also clearly Canadian as he has represented Canada in international competitions, such as the Olympic Games. There is no debate that he is Canadian. However, the issue I have with the article is that it fails to acknowledge Nash's British citizenship. To me, this makes absolutely no sense. Nash is a dual citizen. He is ethnically and legally British, while also being legally Canadian. Citizenship is a legal matter and each country recognized him as one of their citizens. Nash has admitted to holding both Canadian and British passports. The only reason he's not listed as being British is because some people don't view him that way. It's a very poor argument because in the eyes of the law, he will always be treated as both, especially whenever he is in either country. I highly recommend wikipedia to be more objective and include both of his citizenships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talkcontribs) 23:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason he's not listed as being British is because some people don't view him that way: The reason it is not in the opening sentence of the lead or in the infobox is because of prior consensus above at #Nationality in infobox. As pointed out at the start of this thread, his British citizenship is mentioned in the following: "He therefore holds British as well as Canadian citizenship."—Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015[edit]

Done. The Interior (Talk) 22:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015[edit]

need to put location of his schools Irishsam13 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Steve Nash & South Africa[edit]

Just saw this edit on my Watchlist. And suddenly questions emerged in my head regarding his relations to South Africa. Yes, he was born there. However, he isn't South African. I think Category:South African basketball players and Category:South African emigrants to Canada categories should be removed from his article as he's isn't South African citizen and never was and place of birth doesn't make him South African. What's your opinion on this subject? – Sabbatino (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if he was a citizen, one could argue it is not WP:DEFINING, but neither are a lot of categories. At any rate, I wouldn't object.—Bagumba (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Categories removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steve Nash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Steve Nash's main picture should be in a Suns Jersey[edit]

He will be in the Hall of Fame as a Phoenix Sun, his entire career is defined by his team, the Phoenix Suns. The last team he played for should not be the main picture of his Wikipedia page. His picture should be him in a Phoenix Suns jersery, where he will be remembered most, by ALL fans of the NBA.


  1. ^