Talk:Michael Jordan/Archive 1

message: How about a section on his personality?  He was the very definition of competitiveness - so much so, in fact, that he often went over the edge.  His dealings with teammates at practice; his gambling sessions; and his relationship with Phil Jackson are all deserving of mention.
Good point.  A lot could be added here really: "The Jordan Rules", his gambling addiction, his relationship with his wife (if anyone can find anything they can cite!), his relationship with Phil Jackson, more on UNC and his youth, more on the Wizards, something about controversy over how the referees treated him.  I think any additions would have to be done by an especially fair and objective writer who could portray known and relevant facts without creating a firestorm among fans or detractors.  As is I think this article is currently very neglectful of the controversial and the negative, and if it's still this way when I'm more confident in my editing, I may take a crack at it. --Mister Tattle 09:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan's Personality

message: Anent the edit by 68.41.161.165: Is anyone seriously pointing to LeBron James as the best player ever? Not yet -- no matter how much potential James has, he's never played a single minute in an NBA playoff game. Bbpen 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LeBron James?

message: I distinctly remember one season (probably the season that the Bulls beat the Sonics in the finals) that Michael Jordan defied the retirement of his old number and started wearing #23 again, incurring fines from the NBA. Anyone else have more details? — Phil Welch 16:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired number 

message: This link (A dissenting view of Michael Jordan) has been deleted several times without comment. I believe it's a good addition to an encyclopedic article because the site it links to presents a well-reasoned against-the-grain take on a near-universally praised Jordan. Its arguments could well stand presentation in the Wikipedia article itself. Let's keep the link. Bbpen 23:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While on the one hand it provides needed information, on the other hand it's a moronic and childish website. I'd prefer some external link that doesn't look like it was written by a 12 year old in 1998. — Phil Welch 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's only keep the link until we find another page that presents the same cogent arguments in a more up-to-date format.  Bbpen 01:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've readded the link. Despite their less-than-slick presentation and strident tone, the site's arguments are well-reasoned and well-supported, which should be the measure of a "reputable" source. The link makes this article more NPOV, not less, because it explores counterarguments to the various "best ever" assertions. (It does, after all, appear just beneath a link to "an online multimedia tribute"; how's that NPOV?) I agree with the suggestion to find a more authoritative and neutral presentation of such arguments; after we find one, this link can go. Bbpen 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both links should be removed then.  I have searched and searched and cannot find any reputable source from an sports authority that says that Michael Jordan is not one of the greatest players ever.  If we include a single site whose sole purpose is to argue is he not the greatest player then we would begin opening the door for just about every opinion.  I also stick by my first point, because of the material on the same site that is not only unprofessional, it is borderline classless.  If we want to maintain NPOV in this case, it is sufficient to make sure the references in the article to his "greatness" are listed as arguable or defined as "one of the" and not "the".  Also, their well-reasoned, well-supported arguments are not so much.  The numbers he provides are verifiable, but he does not reference his sources.  He uses "unofficial" numbers from unnamed resources on at least one page to make arguments.  View around some more of the site and you will see why I think we should not be linking it to wikipedia, especially if we are to appear credible ourselves. -Thebdj 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You searched for the wrong thing. The dissenting site does not argue that Jordan is not one of the greatest; rather, it offers reasons why he should not be considered the greatest. These are valuable additions to our Wikipedia article, because noting that "some say" Jordan is the best is not particularly NPOV if there exist good arguments that he is not. And if you want to dismiss as useless any Web page that does not cite its sources, you'd better start with this one. Bbpen 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Presentation is important. Inclusion of this link may have the effect of coloring all "dissenting" views as fringe and unprofessional. After all, if J. Random Webguy's opinion is the only one we can find regarding Jordan's status as "best ever", then it must really be a fringe viewpoint, right? If this is a fringe view, then it needn't be included, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If it isn't, then the article is better off without the link until we find a better one. android79 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not insensitive to design, but I think it's also possible to get past the cover before judging a book. Dissenter's arguments are actually pretty empirical, as these things go. He takes the common arguments for Jordan's "bestness" and shows their inconsistencies. Anyway, just for fun, I googled "Jordan not best ever," and got this as the first hit. So I'm pretty sure these arguments are not fringe. PRRfan 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually is pretty fringe.  You have one google link.  Look at all the ones around it and they all still talk about Jordan being the greatest.  We have two links which hardly removes it from being fringe.  All these arguments ignore completely the actual arguments people use for Jordan or the ones they use to discredit their own arguments.  The dissenting link actually makes some statements that so a lack of knowledge of basketball.  If you want to keep a dissenting view I say the link you presented is more appropriate then the immature and poor link we currently have. -Thebdj 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, so now we have J. Random Webguy and Vineet Radhakrishnan (who?) and Mr. Radhakrishnan sounds like he was cribbing from somewhere else, possibly Webguy's site. I'm open to having a dissenting view on this in the article, but we need to find this opinion being espoused by someone who matters. I did a little searching, and this column on this book shows some promise. Shaq as the best player ever is certainly a dissenting view... android79 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep "dissenting" link

message: I made a few minor edits today, and will try to add more content to the section on Jordan's early (pre-1994) NBA career, as it gets hardly any coverage in the article. Don't have time right now, so hopefully someone will beat me to it...
Hippo43 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early career 

message: I noticed in one of the edits that someone changed "B+" to "A+" in reference to his school days? Is this cited? Or was this a reversion and the "B+" was wrong? I doubt the credibility of the change since it is rare to hear of an "A+" average, such a student is normally described as "Straight A" and I feel it ought be changed back to "B+". JesseRafe 07:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know he never had an A+ average.  If memory serves me, from various books I've read long ago, a B+ sounds right. PS2pcGAMER 08:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grades? 

message: I wrote the original last paragraph. Someone edited it, very good job thank you!Better grammer, less conclusion more presenting of the facts!  
                                                   FTF
I liked the first edit, the next edit removing Isiah Thomas does not make me happy! Isiah won the national championship at Indiana as a sophmore and then entered the draft early. Jordan and Isiah had a real fued. They played against each other more than bird or magic played each other. Isiah played bird I think more than magic played him. Overcoming Isiah and the pistons was more critical to Michaels assention to the greatest than any other single factor b/4 and maybe after! remember I placed this in the Early NBA B/4 Jordan Rules! The way I see it the first Edit was just that, an edit, what I see now is a unnecessary rewrite! Write your own paragraph don't overwrite mine you have a differnt point follow up don't rewrite?
Here is the paste of the good edit, change is OK but come on.
During the 70's the NBA suffered financially because of a lack of interest from the fans. The impression of wide spread drug use and mediocre play fueled fan apathy. However, the NBA had rebounded somewhat in popularity prior to Jordan's arrival due to stars such as Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Isiah Thomas. In order to capitalize on this newfound popularity, the NBA changed several gameplay rules (some would say they were changed for Jordan). The two most significant changes involved the definitions of charging and traveling. The travelling rule was changed in such a way that players were allowed to take steps prior to putting the ball on the floor. They were also allowed to continue walking after stopping their dribble (beyond the traditional 1-½ steps). Many players, and particularly Jordan, were able to take particular advantage of these two rules. Whereas previously driving into the lane would result in a call for charging, the new rules resulted in either no call at all or a foul on the defender. For a more in-depth discussion, see the article NBA.
I'm not changing it yet want opinions, no point in I change you change we all change! FTF
:I was not the one who edited out Isiah, but I happen to agree with whoever did. I think that if you talk to anybody about the resurgence of the NBA in the 1980's, they'd mention two names as the primary catalysts: Magic and Bird. Now, maybe you'd see Jordan thrown in as well, but I don't think that Isiah Thomas is going to come up nearly as often (provided you're not polling Pistons fans), because: a) he was not as popular as those other three (no offense -- it'd be hard for any player to be); and b) he wasn't as good a player. Magic, Mike, and Larry won six of the ten MVP awards in the 1980's; Isiah won none. Isiah made 1st team All-NBA only three times in the '80's; compare that with Bird (9 times!), Magic (7 times), and Jordan (3 times, but didn't even start playing until 1984-85). If you like statistical measures, Jordan, Bird, and Magic far outpace Isiah in virtually every category (including complex ones like Player Efficiency Rating and Win Shares). Basically, if you're talking about the NBA's Eighties revival, you're talking Bird, Magic, and (to a degree) Jordan.
:Not that Isiah doesn't have his place, though. His Pistons were the team standing between Mike and the title in the late 1980's. There was (and is) a serious feud between the two stars. But that gets mentioned under the "Jordan Rules" section, which is where it should be. Davis21Wylie 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early NBA Career 

message: Someone asked or mentioned about when Jordan went back to his #23 jersey after it had already been retired. This instance came during a first round playoff game against the Orlando Magic in '95, a few months after he returned back from baseball. In one of the games, Nick Anderson, guard for the Magic stripped the ball from Michael Jordan and went on to score an easy basketball. Following the game, Anderson basically told a group of reporters that he would have never stolen the ball had Jordan been wearing the #23 jersey. So the next playoff game, Jordan started the game in his #23 jersey. Later on, his was fined a certain amount by David Stern.
:After having read the article, I have a question about Jordan's jersey.  How much was he fined?  The article says "...incurring fines..." which would lead me to believe that he was fined on a per game basis or something of the ilk.  But the above comment says it was one certain amount.  So which was it?  And either way, how much was it?  This should be pretty easy to find and cite for someone who's done the research for this article.  I'm hoping that you could include it.  Overall, I really liked the article!  Thanks to all the contributors!  Dismas|(talk) 08:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jordan's 23 Jersey 

message: that is in there, i think, (as i didn't start the category) to show wikipedians players that have had similar careers to jordan, in terms of stats and accomplishments... determining which players are similar to jordan  is the task given to basketball-reference.com which uses various formulas (which can be accessed at the site) that i don't understand
:It's original research. If there's a separate site that does these listings based on a statistical analysis, then the proper thing to do is create an external link. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: similar players

message: this site is way out of control!!! it talks about Micheal which is fine, but any mention that is critical gets talked about with "Wilt' or "Bill" and they get mentioned like tomato cans, Jordan never played against these guys!! Would ah, should ah and coulda are my 1st cousins and they think your all full of it! It was mentioned before about Jordan's struggles with the Pistons, his contemparary rivals were mentioned, now all that is gone! If Jordan is god, fine!! But just start the article that way! this article should be in people magizine not in a encyclopedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is so biased can't even edit. Michael is God!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.15.68.142 (talk • contribs) 
:If you see the article as one sided, then make changes!  Just back up any claims you make with sources.  If sources aren't used for controversial topics, the changes will probably be removed.  Please also sign your comments with ~~~~.  Happy editing! -PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan is God!!

message: I did my best with a bit of cleanup but far more is needed.  The sections are not separated into comprehensive, descriptions are overly long.  I would suggest an "accolades" section at the bottom appended to his awards rather than stating them up front in "NBA Career".  A lot of the writing is also a bit sloppy.  In general, the article as a whole is too long - perhaps main article links are necessary (For example, details about the 1998 NBA Finals could get its own article.) Thoughts?  Bssc81 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: IMO this article needs more on Jordan's wider significance - to sports marketing, to sports in general and to the resurgence of the NBA in the 1980s. If someone came to this article knowing nothing about Jordan, they would believe he was simply a very good basketball player, maybe the best ever - it never mentions his historical importance. It has to also tell people why Michael Jordan was such a big deal, which goes way beyond his ability on the court. At the moment it just reads like a fawning list of stats and trivia. I will try to add more myself when I have time. [And when people stop putting porn references in.]Hippo43 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan's significance 

message: 1255 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan's height in his sophomore year of high school 

message: Seems like this article glances over some of the notable controversies of Jordan's career: his treatment of his teammates (allegedly punching Will Perdue in practice, throwing passes at Bill Cartwright's head), his gambling (both the nature of it and the people with whom he dealt), his status within the team (many felt he was afforded undue privilege) amongst others. Do these allegations warrant their own section?
Unless there is citable facts included with those allegations and not just hearsay and rumours then maybe. Duhon
June 16 2006
*Sam Smith, the Bulls' beat writer at the Chicago Tribune, detailed the allegations in his book "The Jordan Rules". I really don't have time to write up the section properly right now (and I suspect it would be deleted regardless), but I'm sure others have read the book (it was a New York Times Bestseller). The source of the accusations, according to speculation (Jordan's included), was Horace Grant. --Kerwash 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: This article on an immensely important sports figures looks to be very nicely done, congratulations to all those who contributed.  I'd love to nominate this for Version 0.5, but the lack of references would kill its chances.  If those who wrote this article could add in their references, preferably as inline refs, this article would be ready for V0.5 and Good article status, and with a little work it might be a Featured article.  Can anyone help with this? Walkerma 19:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References