Talk:Jerry Lucas

message: As a geezer, I remember his memory schtick in the late 1970s.  Can anyone find out more definiate details? Thanks Bona Fides 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory guy 1970s 

message: I invite anyone to rewrite this article, to meet whatever standard is expected or demanded here. I did try to edit what I originally presented, to satisfy criticisms here, only to see corrections deleted. So, I'm done with it. Make it a stub again, if you see fit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerjets11 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that, in addition to labeling my criticism(all of the criticism on this talk page is mine) of this "entry" "heavy handed", you have also taken it upon yourself to completely delete entire sections of this talk page, because, evidently, that is acceptable behavior for a supposedly open encyclopedia.  Every single piece of criticism I wrote about this entry was 100% accurate:  the insanely hagiographic tone(which is still evident, though to a bit lesser degree), the naked speculation regarding assist and rebound totals, the blatant plagiarism of multiple sources, the paucity of citations, be they inline or not, the embarrassingly familiar tone of the entry(the guy was referred to as "Luke" on one more than one occasion), the denigration of Lucas's teammates in order to make Lucas look better by comparison, the statement of opinions as fact ie Lucas was "rated higher" than Dave DeBuscherre and Willis Reed(the NBA had no such "rating" system), Lucas is the greatest amateur player ever(this was put forth as a statement of fact), the asinine claim that the Cincinnati Royals were favorites to beat the Boston Celtics, etc.  My comments did not constitute some sort of metaphorical waterboarding, rather they pointed out horrendous problems with this entry. Some improvements have been made(not nearly enough), but many still remain,  the most obvious being the very clear dearth of citations, as information that is not common knowledge(the only acceptable reason for not including a citation)is not sourced.  Numerous entries have been deleted for that very reason, which is what I should have done as soon as the plagiarism became obvious. Why I should waste my time editing this entry when even some of my comments on the talk page have been deleted is anyone's guess.  As for leaving the comments unsigned, perhaps you can explain to us all the value of signing your comment "JerJets11".74.134.145.218 (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing look back 

message: The article several times mentions JLs prodigious intellect and even has the text: 
He also earned the reputation of being arguably the most intelligent man ever to play in the NBA.
I think the article ought to cite reasons for claiming unusual intellect. 
Is there reason, say, to regard JL as superior to former teammate (Princeton grad/Rhodes scholar/long time senator/credible presidential hopeful) Bill Bradley?
--Philopedia 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's one of the glaring omissions of the article.  Lucas is acknowledged as a memory expert.  While still in high school, he studied memory improvement techniques, got through OSU with honors partly because he could memorize any textbook, and during his NBA career would frequently do public appearances where he would memorize the telephone book of a major city.  Lucas now has his own education consulting company to disseminate his memory techniques.  Google "Jerry Lucas" and you'll find it easily. Truddick 22:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual Intellect 

message: I found a board game called "Perplexion" at a thrift store yesterday. The company listed as the copyright holder has this name and has a Columbus, Ohio PO Box listed as their address. It is copyrighted 1964, which would have been around the height of his basketball career. Perhaps the company was named after him, or did he have any part in it? 
I have exhausted my traditional search methods, but will probably search at the library (I actually live in Columbus), or even write the address. Which would beg the question: add the info about the game-making company to this article, or a disambiguation page with a seperate article?
I suppose that would largely depend on the man Jerry Lucas' involvement on the company. With both being from central Ohio though, it can't just be a coincidence.
--Nbody 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerry Lucas Pass-Time Games, Inc. 

message: No offense to whoever wrote this entry but the entire tone of the supposedly encyclopedic entry is worshipful to the point of parody.  The entry, particularly the "High School" section, reads like one of those biographies that come out about adolescent pop stars that attempt to capitalize on their fleeting fame after they get their first #1. Compare the entry on Wilt Chamberlain to the one on Lucas to see how bad the Lucas entry is.  And I specifically mention Chamberlain because statistically Lucas wasn't even in the same league, yet the author of the Chamberlain entry managed to write something that doesn't read like he wishes he could have had Chamberlain's kids, if such a thing were possible.   The following sentence is one of the more laughable examples: 
"An academic ace as well, whose mnemonic skills made him an A+ student, Lucas cut quite the image of the handsome young star student-athlete."  
Academic ace?  Cut quite the image of the handsome young star?  Seriously, give us a break.   That sentence reads like it was written by someone with a creepy Jerry Lucas shrine at his house.  Here is another classic:  
"We do know he did hit a then very high 60% of his field goal attempts and over 80% of his free throws. Increasingly a passer, he may have also averaged 5–6 assists per game". 
Who exactly is the "we" being mentioned in that quotation?   Furthermore, the entire last portion of that quote doesn't even try to hide the fact the author is engaging in pure speculation, and the use of superlatives such as "very high" in that quote doesn't help things.   For an online encyclopedia that seems to want to have verifiability as its hallmark, the almost complete lack of citations(there is a grand total of one in the laughably venerational "High School" section)is troubling.  Furthermore, it reads like original research which is also supposed to be a no-no for Wikipedia.   Moreover, there are instances where Lucas is referred to by his first name, which just makes the obeisant tone of the "entry" even worse.   For instance, the following sentence taken from the "High School" section:
"Lucas was the first player to be named three time First Team All-Ohio by the Associated Press and on February 17, 2009 Jerry's number 13 was retired at Wade E. Miller gymnasium."  
Referring to an individual by his first name in such a way in an encyclopedia is just plain tacky. Also, the entry is filled with value judgments concerning Lucas's greatness that just have no place in an encyclopedia.  Here is one example: 
"Losing by one point to an undefeated opponent shocked Middletown to such a degree that the school never honored its departing senior star with a ceremony, until 50 years later when the oversight was discovered."  
The oversight?  That one however is not that bad, particularly when compared to this: 
"The Warriors, needing a small scoring forward like Cazzie Russell, dealt Lucas to the New York Knickerbockers, who needed a big man who would work behind both Willis Reed and Dave DeBusschere. Lucas had long rated ahead of both as an NBA player, but easily agreed as New York was a serious championship contender." 
Lucas "rated" above Willis Reed and Dave DeBusschere?  Really?   I was unaware there was a rating system employed by the NBA used to determine that Lucas "long rated ahead" of DeBusschere and Reed.  It goes without saying that no citation is provided concerning the supposed rating of Lucas ahead of Willis Reed and Dave DeBusschere.  Here is another example and this one is truly ridiculous:  
"Lucas led the way averaging 27 points, 17 rebounds, 60% shooting and perhaps five or six assists per game. It was a good balanced team, but one that ran well because Lucas was not a selfish star. All five starters scored in double-figures." 
In addition to the absurdly biased statement about Lucas being the one responsible for the team running well because he wasn't selfish (I guess the fact that John Havlicek was on the team really didn't have that much to do with it)we get another example of pure speculation regarding Lucas's assist totals, with the author also implying that the reason all five starters were in double-figures was because of the actions of Lucas.  And naturally, no citation is provided. Given that basketball is a team game, and all five starters scored in double figures, it would seem all of the players, not just Lucas, were unselfish. The next example is an absolute howler: 
"The 1960-61 team went into the NCAA Finals undefeated before losing to Cincinnati in an upset in overtime. During the 1961 NCAA Tournament, LUKE became the only player ever to record a '30-30 ', 33 points and 30 rebounds in a single tournament game, versus Kentucky. in the 1961 final, Lucas had played well for OSU, but other Buckeyes had off games"(emphasis mine). 
Yes, that's right, in an entry that is supposed to be worthy of an encyclopedia, the author is referring to Lucas as "Luke" as if they are best buddies, and given the tone of the entry, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.  Moreover, those sentences impugn the rest of the team without providing a single citation concerning the performance of the players being insulted.  Here is yet another, uncited, classic:
"He was commonly rated the greatest collegian ever upon graduation."  
He was?  Well if this rating was so common, why is no citation provided?  Oh and by the way, the quote directly above this was taken, without citation, of course, from an article entitled "The 50 Greatest College Basketball Players of All-Time" at http://bleacherreport.com/articles/415905-the-50-greatest-college-basketball-players-of-all-tim#/articles/415905-the-50-greatest-college-basketball-players-of-all-tim/page/39. I doubt it is coincidence that the wording is the exact same, thus it seems plagiarism can be added to the list of this entry's faults; I have listed only a very minor example of it, but I guarantee I could find more if I looked.  Putting aside issues of citation and theft of intellectual property, even that article ranks 4 individuals who played most, if not all, of their college basketball before Lucas ahead of him.  For those who are curious, Lucas ranks #13 on that list.   The uncited accolades don't stop there.  Here is more: 
"The local Middletown star and Ohio legend quickly again became a sensation. Lucas was still so popular, that he would boost league attendance that season. He was even a factor, as a needed white star, in the league's new television contract. Lucas would easily be one of the NBA's most popular players." 
Not a single citation provided for the "Lucas is actually a god in human form" tone of those sentences.  And, for good measure, two sentences later, Lucas is again referred to as "Luke": 
"With Lucas now added, Cincinnati was quickly named favorites to dethrone the Boston Celtics as NBA champions in Luke's rookie season." 
Man oh man would I love to see the citation for the assertion that the Cincinnati Royals, the Cincinnati freakin Royals,  were favorites to defeat the greatest dynasty in the history of professional sports.  Here is more worshipful bullshit(excuse the language but the absurdity of the entry merits it):  
"In 1967-68, Lucas out-rebounded Russell. Not the leaper or bull some others were, Lucas outsmarted other players to the ball, over and over again. From 1964 to 1968, Lucas averaged 19.8 rebounds per game."   And more:  "More than just a tip-in guy, Lucas the forward took half his shots from 15 feet or more and still out-shot most dunkers. He shot 50% for his pro career."  
I guess those other guys who had better FG percentages really weren't better shooters than Lucas (after all, is it even possible to be better than Lucas), they were just lousy, lazy "tip-in guys". I guess such is to be expected in an entry that implies Jerry Lucas was a better player than Oscar Robertson(don't make me friggin' laugh):  
"Some experts even named Lucas, not Robertson, as the team's key player." 
As is to be expected, given the "quality" of the entry, none of these so-called experts is cited.  I guess when it is so self-evident that Jerry Lucas is actually Jesus in a basketball jersey, no citations are needed when claiming he is better than a mediocrity like Oscar Robertson, right(and frankly, comparing Jerry Lucas favorably to Oscar Robertson is outright laughable)?  The entry on Lucas is easily one of the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia, and man is that saying something. It reads more like an article about Justin Bieber in Tiger Beat than an encyclopedia entry, which is what it is supposed to be.  But encyclopedias don't engage in uncited speculation and worshipful fellation in regards to their subjects.  Well, at least real ones don't.74.138.44.11 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "His overall amateur record of two Ohio high school championships, then three NCAA Finals with one championship was a total amateur record THAT PERHAPS HAS NO MATCH IN BASKETBALL HISTORY" (emphasis mine)
What a fuc*ing joke. Why does the author of this entry continually feel the need to imply (or outright claim), with no attempt, at all,  to hide the bias, that Lucas is quite simply the greatest player to ever step foot on a basketball court?  Off the top of my head, I can name numerous players who had  better amateur careers than Jerry "Jesus" Lucas, but I will bring up only one of them, as he is the most obvious, Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar).  In high school, Alcindor(I will use that name as he didn't change his name until he had played several NBA seasons) led his team to, according to Wikipedia,  three NYC Catholic Championships, a 71 GAME WINNING STREAK, and a 79-2 record.  When discussing Alcindor's college career, Lucas isn't even in the same league.  The Bleacher Report website(I provide the link in one of the paragraphs I wrote above this one), the same site that rated Lucas as the 13th greatest collegiate player, ranks Alcindor as the greatest collegian of all time.  According to that site and the Wikipedia entry on Alcindor, Alcindor was player of the year in 1967 and 1969, was a three time first-team All-American in 1967, 1968 and 1969, was named the Outstanding Player of the NCAA tournament all three years he participated in the tournament and, unlike Lucas, he won the championship all three years his team reached the final; that fact alone demolishes the silly notion that Lucas is the greatest amateur player ever.  Furthermore, Alcindor was the first-ever Naismith College Player of the Year in 1969 and was the USWBA Player of the Year in 1968 and 1969. Alcindor's dominance was such that the NCAA banned the dunk, a move that was commonly referred to as the "Alcindor Rule". UCLA went 88-2 during his time there; no, that record is not a typo.   No offense to whoever wrote it, but the assertion that Lucas's amateur career has no match in HISTORY is just plain stupid and serves as a perfect example of the worshipful-to-the-point-of-parody tone of the entire entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious editing needed for this "entry" 

message: This entry really, really needs to be redone and the pertinent citations need to be added to the body of the entry.   Merely including a reference section at the end of the entry, with no indication as to which information comes from which reference is improper, to say the least.  I have googled entire paragraphs of this entry and found that they were taken, VERBATIM, from others sources on the internet, with no direct attribution provided.  That is plagiarism, period.  Pretty much the entire entry copies WORD FOR WORD from other sources.  And the "author" of the entry merely lists a few references at the very end of the entry with no indication in the body of the text as to which references are being used for a particular bit of information.  If you don't believe me, copy a random sentence or paragraph from this entry, paste it into google and hit enter.  I guarantee you will get a hit other than Wikipedia.  I got word for word hits from the NBA website, the Cincinnati Enquirer, random blogs, the list goes on.  Merely listing a few references at the end of the entry is simply not good enough. This entry is plagiarised and something needs to be done to rectify the situation, immediately.  If the information in this entry is not properly cited and the other changes listed in the talk section directly above this are not taken into consideration, I am going to delete the entire entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: The dearth of citations in this entry is absolutely pitiful.   The entire "High school" section includes a grand total of one citation, one, and that comes at the end of the very first sentence. There are thirty other sentences in that section and not one of them is followed by a citation.  I would like one person to tell me how you can write a sentence like the following without a reference: "Lucas, still weeks from his 16th birthday, burned Cleveland East Technical for 53 points before a crowd of 5,000."  Are we to believe that Lucas's age, the number of points he scored and the crowd size, from a game that took place 57 years ago, are such common knowledge that one can simply state those numbers without reference to some sort of source? Yeah, sure thing.  And much like the blatant speculation concerning some of Lucas's assist totals that was thankfully removed from the entry, we get a sentence about a "legend[ary]" meeting with Adolph Rupp that may not have even taken place. No citation is provided, of course, for this "legend". Some of the people who write these entries seem to be confused as to how citations work. You can't just use a citation for the very first sentence of a section or entry and then expect that to carry over to every single sentence in the entire entry or section. Nor can you place the citation at the very end of a section with the expectation that that is sufficient to cover the entire section.  In regards to other sections, the one citation contained within the high school section represents an improvement.  The section entitled "Cincinnati Royals" has at least 40 sentences and not a single one is followed by a citation. The section even includes a direct quote from Lucas(which is improperly punctuated, by the way)yet no source is provided for that quote. There are multiple sentences containing rebounding and scoring statistics and not a single reference is cited.  Again, are we to believe that such statistics are considered common knowledge and thus don't require a citation? Hmm, I don't think so. The "San Francisco" and "New York" sections also contain no inline citations.74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitiful lack of citations 

message: The article needs a clean-up..  Many sentences are awkward, and there are actual grammar errors as well. Kdammers (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor English