Jump to content

Talk:Wilt Chamberlain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWilt Chamberlain 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 6, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 2, 2005, March 2, 2006, October 12, 2019, and October 12, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

[edit]

change "ability to leap from the foul line" to "ability to dunk from the foul line" TheRealDerek (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)  Done—Myasuda (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not considered the greatest player of all time

[edit]

he is one of the greatest, but very few people consider him the GOAT 97.93.106.251 (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute baloney. He is regarded in many sources as THE greatest player ever. Certainly better than James. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025

[edit]

Wilt Chamberlain is viewed as one of the greatest players of all time, it is not logically sincere to call him the greatest player of all time outright. 2001:4958:2FA6:D901:50CD:2B2:A3E8:C22C (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's consistent with Michael Jordan's article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025 (2)

[edit]

You should change his description from Grace Potter of all time to one of the greatest players of all time - calling him the greatest purple time outright is dishonest and incorrect in many NBA fans and experts opinions. Graves96 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

greatest player of all time to one of Graves96 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done It's consistent with Michael Jordan's article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but that's f****** stupid too, there's no unanimously regarded goat player - I mean to be fair Jordan is favored by many is the goat, but some people would put Kareemd of them Graves96 (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly... it often depends on a person's age. I never would. Greatest ever really belongs at a bar conversation, not an encyclopedia. But with it being thrown around with Jordan, James, and Chamberlain articles, it's the way wikipedia works. Same thing at Wikipedia in tennis with Federer, Laver, Djokovic, Nadal, Tilden. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about sources

[edit]
What reliable sources are there that call Wilt the GOAT? The claim in the article is only supported by Fansided and Bleacher Report, which have been ruled unreliable by community discussions cited at WP:NBARSU. ESPN and The Athletic are among the WP:BESTSOURCES for the NBA topic area, and they rank him fifth or sixth. Left guide (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC) edited in response to recent restoration of content Left guide (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to be clear, we don't base editorial decisions on what other basketball player articles say; it's a null argument regardless of how many times it's repeated. We do it based on individual merit with regards to what the weight of reliable sources say about Wilt Chamberlain. Left guide (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ranking a player is always subjective... it's always a he said she said... a water-cooler topic. None of them are worthy of an encyclopedia. But Wikipedia seems to like these things. Wording can be tweaked to say something along the lines of "Chamberlain has been called the greatest player in history" or something like that, as Jordan's should be. But I'd attempt to fix that article first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't tweak wording to say something that reliable sources don't say; that is original research which is prohibited by WP:OR policy. Do you have reliable sources directly calling Chamberlain the "greatest player in history"? If so, please provide them so we can discuss them and consider them for inclusion, thank you. Left guide (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be completely Frank and accurate, you should make the wording on Jordans page " often considered the greatest (if not one of) players of all time" , and then put wilts as" considered one of the greatest players of all time". Graves96 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read enough books to say that both are often considered the greatest ever. But if you try to change that on Jordans article it will get reverted quickly. Compromises have been made through the years to accommodate those things. A more accurate and easily verified thing would be to have both say, "widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time." That would be fair for both of them. Heck now we have folks talking about Lebron James being better then each of them. or Kobi. It makes Wikipedia look more tabloid than encyclopedic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what if you were to make that change on all of them (and you should also put Kareem in the mix), I would have little issue with it - I personally lean towards Michael as the goat, but I can understand other people throwing in other names, it's just dramatically inaccurate to name two people as the singular greatest player of all time... Graves96 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click):I've read enough books to say that both are often considered the greatest ever. Can you please provide references to said books? That would be very helpful in moving this discussion forward. Left guide (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just plopped in a heap more refs to support. They are all over the place. Some even call him the "greatest athlete" ever, not just basketball. As far as all of them, I think it's a losing battle. We have managed to get them all out of the leads of tennis players, but some sports have more superfans, like basketball. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to consider where Wilt fits in the whole landscape of basketball commentary. I'm not surprised that you can find some sources that list Wilt as the best of all time, but some of those sources are relatively obscure (like an out of print DVD). There are plenty of other sources that don't even list him as one of the top 2 players. The Athletic had him at number 6. ESPN had him at number 5. I just don't think he's consistently listed at number 1 often enough for the lead to make the current statement. We can certainly consider softening the language in the Jordan article as well (but at least that statement in the lead is presented as a quote from the NBA, rather than something in Wikipedia's voice). Zagalejo (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the quote listed from the NBA from a 2025 website? "Asked to name the greatest players ever to play basketball, most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list." Or Oscar Robertson when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, “The books don’t lie.” These are sourced in the article. Even a recent ESPN article on GOAT, the people involved would pick 4 or 5 players to always be included in that conversation... Chamberlain was always there!. This is an easy call to include him in the debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if you included that 2025 quote in the lead; "At or near the top of the list" is broad enough to cover all bases. The ESPN article isn't really as strong a source as you say. Look at how people respond to question three. Wilt isn't mentioned there. Zagalejo (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I don't think that specific quote would resolve the contradictions between this article and the Jordan article, so I'm striking that part of the comment above. For the record, I think that that NBA.com legends profile is partially derived from a much older writeup which has received a few minor updates over the years. I see the "at or near the top of the list" line quoted in a forum post from 2003: https://forums.nba-live.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11007&start=25. I'm curious just how old the NBA's original writeup is. Unfortunately, I'm not having luck with the Wayback Machine right now. Zagalejo (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out NBA.com was using that same line about Chamberlain in 1999: [1] Zagalejo (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably fewer now have him at the actual top. —Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that Oscar Robertson quote appears in newspaper articles and books from the 90s, and may be even older than that, so I don't think we should use it as evidence of current opinion. I see it in one book from 1997 (The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's 100 Greatest Basketball Players of All Time by Alex Sachare), which would have been published before Jordan's career was over and before LeBron was even in high school. Zagalejo (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Legacy" section currently reads that Wilt is is often suggested as the greatest NBA player of all time, ahead of Michael Jordan. The NBA.com quote doesn't say how often he is at the top of the list (likely rarely). And even if we lightened to call him one of the greatest, the source doesn't say anything about him being above Jordan.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could find books that call Bo Jackson the greatest athlete of all time, now you're just getting too subjective/generalist... That's a stupid point Graves96 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying he is the GOAT is actually misleading and nonsensical. There may be some who rank him ahead of Jordan but thats a WP:FRINGE viewpoint --FMSky (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the cited sources are at best borderline reliable. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy cautions against:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like them. We don't throw out sources because they are old. There are plenty that consider Chamberlain the greatest player ever.... so by definition that would be ahead of Jordan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream has nothing to do with whether one likes the content or not. Shepherd Express? Hoops Habit is "powered by Fansided", which is listed as unreliable. —Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead as written misleadingly implies that Chamberlain is still widely considered the best player of all-time. I think that's basically a minority view at this point (especially since younger generations are increasingly dismissive of Chamberlain's era). Older sources would give undue weight to outdated perceptions. Zagalejo (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite what it says. Unfortunately younger generation suffer from the general wikipedia concept the ceib. That is pov when plenty of sources say otherwise. We don't go with what younger generations say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from bruteforcing your preferred version into this article against clear consensus FMSky (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has long-term consensus. It's still under discussion. If something is true 10 years ago it is still true... we don't dismiss it. And there are current sources that agree. Just wondering... how many sources would you like me to plop up here to confirm he is called the greatest? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be more than the hundreds listing Jordan as GOAT - FMSky (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is POV pushing and against wikipedia policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "the ceib"? If we're talking about the public perception of Chamberlain, then the opinions of younger generations are an important part of the big picture. Several decades have gone by since Chamberlain played. As new players enter the NBA, there is more competition for the "best of all time" label. Zagalejo (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CEIB.... "current era is best." It's why the Baylors, Robertsons, and Chamberlains get tossed aside like manure. Then the next generation of Bird, Magic, and Kareems get thrown away. Soon it will be the Jordans and Kobis as players like LeBron take their place. But history doesn't lie. Of course kids opinions matter, but they tend to forget what came before. Luckily we have things like Wikipedia to keep things on the straight and narrow. Or at least we did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Can Wilt Chamberlain be called the greatest player of all-time?

[edit]

Can Wilt Chamberlain be called the greatest player of all-time? Yes or no? Sources offered for the claim thus far.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Left guide (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an RfC overkill (WP:RFCBEFORE)? It seems only one person has been supporting this at #Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025 (2) (above). Have mainstream sources been identified? —Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One person is including all sorts of proof that he is called the greatest of all-time. Obviously some here do not like it but it's a fact that Wikipedia can't simply ignore without appearing untruthful. The sources presented include hall of fame players and the NBA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

[edit]
  • Support - of course. That sentence says "He has been called the greatest basketball player of all time." That is absolutely true and there are heaps of sources that agree with this. Whether it's Walt Frazier, or Dominique Wilson, or Kobe Bryant, or Sportcasting, Clutch Points, Gary Payton, Edge of Philly Sports, etc. Unless we are talking youngsters, I always see Chamberlain's name pop up in GOAT discussions. Seems like a no brainer to include. I would include a one letter note in prose to clump the sources rather than a heap of numbers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose an obvious WP:FRINGE view --FMSky (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Huh? Is this asking whether the article should say "he is the greatest player of all time" (which is what the actual RfC asks and is an obvious "no" per basic wikipedia policy), or whether it is due WP:WEIGHT to say "He has been called the greatest basketball player of all time"? Assuming it's the latter, yes probably. Probably makes more sense as "has been called one of the greatest basketball players of all time"? Ambivalent on which of those makes more sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. We should not be making controversial statements immediately in leads. His being called the greatest by some sources is less notable than the unanimous consensus he is one of the greatest; it is UNDUE and verges on FRINGE. "He has been called the greatest" is far too vague—by whom?—and should be re-worded "Some sources have called him the greatest", which—again—is less noteworthy than the consensus "Widely regarded as one of the greatest". I am also not seeing any WP:RS supporting this claim.
Comment Personally, I do not agree with these sort of statements as a whole, where we can clearly quantify his greatness in terms of All-Star appearances, records, MVPs and titles. In Formula One articles, we only use such statements to identify athletes whose respective achievements in the sport do not justify their critical acclaim (e.g. Stirling Moss and Dan Gurney)—it becomes superfluous to add "one of the greatest" for every World Champion—and have made it WP:F1 convention to avoid this.
In this case, we certainly do not need to resort to puffery to introduce his success in the sport. MB2437 19:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we do at Project Tennis also... no greatest stuff in the lead at all. In the legacy it is supposed to be left at "one of the greatest" but superfans change things all the time. Even if subjective sports articles claim there are a handful of goats (of which Chamberlain is usually in that handful) I agree with you that the water-cooler stuff is best left out of an encyclopedia. However there are plenty of sources given that do support the water-cooler opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my response, I do not see a single WP:RS backing up the claim that he is the greatest. MB2437 00:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as worded. There's issues with puffery, NPOV, and on and on... Nemov (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - He has been called the greatest basketball player of all time. With a note saying, attributed to multiple sources. It appears to me that there is sustained coverage of that description throughout the years, this is just a few sources I found out of hundreds:
  • Bill Russell - Before the year's out, everybody will be saying that Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player ever (Time Magazine; 11/16/1959, Vol. 74, Issue 20, p.71)
  • Wilt Chamberlain—the greatest scorer in history... (Sports Illustrated; 3/02/1964, Vol. 20, Issue 9, p.24)
  • Chamberlain is indeed one of the greatest ever to play basketball (Sports Illustrated; 10/21/1974, Vol. 41, Issue 17, p.114)
  • Chet Walker - there is no doubt that Wilt was the greatest big man ever to play the game (People Magazine; 7/30/84, Vol. 22, Issue 5, p.43)
  • Bill Melchionni - I played with some of the greatest players: Wilt Chamberlain... (The New York Times (Apr. 4, 1987)
  • 1997 NBA All-Star Game - the 50 greatest players in NBA history were announced, #9. Wilt Chamberlain (Jet; 2/24/97, Vol. 91 Issue 14, p.52)
  • Wilt Chamberlain (1936-99) was considered one of the world's all-time greatest professional basketball players (Encyclopedia of World Biography, Gale, 1998)
  • Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Wilt was one of the greatest ever, and we will never see another one like him (Jet; 11/01/99, Vol. 96, Issue 22, p.51)
  • Dick Schaap - one of the two or three greatest athletes of the 20th century (People Magazine; 10/25/1999, Vol. 52 Issue 16, p.76)
  • Considered the greatest basketball player ever (The Sporting News; 10/25/99, Vol. 223 Issue 43, p.12)
  • Wilt Chamberlain, one of the greatest basketball players of all time (Sports Illustrated; 5/24/99, Vol. 90, Issue 21, p.21)
  • One of the game's greatest players was as giant an enigma in death as he was in life (Basketball Digest; Jan 2000, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p.48)
  • Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest offensive threat of his time (The New York Times; (Jan. 22, 2002, Vol. 151, Issue 52006, p.A1)
  • Earl Monroe - Wilt was the greatest player to ever play the game (New York Amsterdam News; 7/8/2004, Vol. 95 Issue 28, p.40)
  • The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball (2006) - two of the greatest basketball players in the history of the game, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell
  • I would not argue that it proves Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest center in NBA history (The Atlantic; Mar. 9, 2010)
  • Willis Reed - I'm basically playing for a championship with one leg against Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest center in the game (St. Petersburg Times; Feb. 22, 2010, p.1C)
  • Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the greatest to play the game (Philadelphia Inquirer; June 22, 2011)
  • Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are unarguably two of the greatest centers of all time (BasketballNetwork.net, 7/13/2024)
  • Scottie Pippen - In my eye, Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player (BasketballNetwork.net, 9/29/2024)— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The opening question is too broad (see #Discussion below). The issue is probably more specifically 1) Should this be in the lead? 2) Is this a past or present opinion? —Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The question is too broad. Is this about the current lead reading "He has been called the greatest basketball player of all time"? Or just generally can we mention anywhere that he is the greatest? In the body, theres more leeway to allow inline attribution of such opinions. The lead shouldn't have WP:FRINGE views. I doubt any mainstream sources say it's a widely held opinion now. This is not to be confused with merely finding 5 or 10 individuals that said it and WP:ORing that he's still "widely considered" the GOAT.—Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can't even generally say that Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant are the greatest. Many sources have opinions that say they are, as they do for Chamberlain. That doesn't mean they actually are the greatest... that's a water cooler discussion for a bar room not really for an encyclopedia. To be honest that kind of speculation is not a good look for an encyclopedia. Even Encyclopedia Britannica says of Jordan "one of the greatest all-around players in the history of the game" to keep it away from tabloid fodder. Comparisons like that are great for selling newspapers and magazines, but with Wikipedia seeming to embrace it also, we can't cherry pick imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's technically wrong to say, "He has been called the greatest basketball player of all time." Sure, whatever, some people have called him that. But if the lead leaves things at that, with no elaboration or nuance, people may interpret that statement as a representation of consensus opinion, when it's really more of a fringe opinion post-Jordan and post-LeBron. I think the body of the article gives more freedom to talk about Wilt's legacy, but even there, we need to stick to sources that are actually somewhat significant, and avoid synthesizing sources to make broader statements than necessary. I don't think the article should say he is "often" considered the greatest, because "often" is such a vague word. Zagalejo (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's look at a couple things then. Let's say we move that part into the legacy section with it's sources or additional sources added in this discussion. But we need to change something else in balance. Michael Jordan's lead paragraph says: "His profile on the NBA website states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." Perhaps that should go in the legacy section as well, but either way Chamberlain also has an NBA profile claim to be added exactly where we put Jordan's. For Chamberlain it would say:
  • His profile on the NBA website states that Chamberlain was "the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen" and that "most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list" of the greatest players ever to play basketball.
That would put it in line with how Jordan's is done. Now they can both be kept at the end of the first lead paragraph, or they can both be moved to the legacy section. I tend to prefer these water cooler boasts to be in a legacy section like we do for tennis players, but as long as we treat them with equal standards I can live with it. Would that be a better solution to this quagmire? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the NBA's legacy profiles offer somewhat contradictory opinions. They are recycled versions of much older write-ups. I don't think we're obligated to include either one. Zagalejo (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of obligation... can it work so we can move on from this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that makes anything clearer for readers. Again, the NBA.com Legend profiles seem to be making contradictory claims. I truly don't know how to handle Wilt's Legend profile. It's a product of an earlier era with some superficial updates. It's just not that great of a source. (Of course, Jordan's Legend profile is also a product of its time, and doesn't reflect the rise of LeBron James. I'd be OK with removing the corresponding line from the Jordan article.)
Frankly, the easiest way to move forward would be to return to the status quo that existed in this article's lead before you changed it in November 2024. It's clear from this talk page and the article's history that that decision has been repeatedly challenged. Zagalejo (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the legend article is contradictory at all. The quotes are as straight forward as Jordan's. And a year before my addition the lead had mention of him being the greatest. And the NBA profile is not a good source? That boggles my mind but if it's not a good source here then it certainly is never a good source. We can't cherry pick. The only reason this was changed in 2024 was because editors were treating Jordan's and Chamberlain's article with different rules. That's classic NPV. As long as they get an even playing field I have no issues if things stay or go. You seem to want them to go and I can live with that. LeBron James' article also needs a rework and removal in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Michael Jordan's Legends profile says, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." Wilt Chamberlain's Legends profile says, "Asked to name the greatest players ever to play basketball, most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list." The latter implies that it is common for fans to rank Chamberlain at the top, even though NBA.com suggests elsewhere that Jordan is acclaimed as the best. That does seem like a contradiction to me, and I don't know how to resolve that. If readers just saw the Chamberlain quote on its own, they may draw the wrong conclusions. (Yes, there are some people out there who still rank Chamberlain at the top, but they are definitely in the minority.) That doesn't mean that we should throw out NBA.com entirely, but NBA.com is a sprawling site with years worth of content. We should be able to exercise some editorial judgment as to how we use NBA.com as a source. No source is 100% infallible.
2) It's important to point out that this is what you changed in November. While the previous wording probably wouldn't survive scrutiny in an FAC discussion, I think most readers would be content with it. Your edit makes a much stronger claim and has been challenged multiple times by readers prior to this RFC.
3) I think LeBron's article addresses the "Greatest of All Time" debate with more nuance than the other articles. But look at the headlines under footnote A. They clearly frame the debate as being between James and Jordan. Chamberlain isn't at the center of the discussions. Zagalejo (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that James conclusion is wrong! I see debates among several players, not just James and Jordan. That has no place in the lead and is a diservice to our readers to make them think so. As for getting it wrong on Chamberlain... so they get it wrong with Chamberlain but right with Jordan and James? That's cherry picking and the sort of thing that is discouraged at Wikipedia. It's pure POV when it come to the same source and I can't believe you actually said what you said. LeBron James lead is 100% wrong when there are other players mentioned by other sources. I can see the reasoning of using these types of things in the lead even if I prefer they are left out, but if I see bias in how we present things that hurts our reader's understanding, especially when compared to other encyclopedias, that I call it out. Sure, Wikipedia can continue by consensus to do what it want, but that doesn't make it correct, or fair, or truthful. We can do better and we should do better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "they get it wrong," who is "they"? When you say "the same source," what source are you talking about? I don't really care if you remove that section of the LeBron article, as well, if that helps us move forward, although you may face pushback from others. One fundamental issue is that a lot of the sources you have provided are low-quality, out of date, or overly obscure. If Chamberlain was really as highly regarded as you say, we should have a more impressive range of sources. Bleacher Report is meaningless. Fansided is meaningless. The Shepherd Express is some random alternative magazine from Milwaukee and has little cultural impact on these matters. An Amazon link to an unavailable DVD with amateurish cover art does not advance a meaningful argument. Etc, etc... Zagalejo (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NBA since they are the source for both quotes. And again the NBA writing about both players is the same source just as the NY Times would be the same source if they wrote about both players. And there are other sources that have been provided in these discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that The New York Times is a secondary, independent source with a range of esteemed journalists and critics, not a promotional website for the NBA written by anonymous members of their marketing department. MB2437 04:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but that's my point. You can't say it's a good source for Jordan but a bad source for Chamberlain. It's one or the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good source for neither; I agree with the decision to remove it from Jordan's article. MB2437 08:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, NBA.com's Legend profile for Jordan more closely reflects the major player rankings that have been published in independent sources (ESPN, The Athletic, Slam Magazine, etc) over the last couple decades. But both Legend profiles are problematic because they don't make sense when read alongside each other, so it's fair to drop the corresponding quote from Jordan's article. I would really like to see this discussion focus more on independent rankings and less on NBA.com. Anyway, I've spent way more time on this than I intended, so I'd be happy to see some other people chime in. Zagalejo (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a couple decades ago when the NBA.com quote was added to Jordan's page, it was probably thought as undisputed and in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV—here's what NBA.com said, which is a fact that they said it, and nobody was arguably close to Jordan then in public opinion either. Today, Jordan might still be arguably #1, but LeBron gets a lot of run. As WP anyways should look at all sources, and is not tied to NBA.com's opinion, necessarily, we should be looking for mainstream sources that assess who is "widely considered" the greatest, if anyone still. A fair cutoff might be sources leading up to James becoming the all-time leading scorer (or after). —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 2 and 3

[edit]

Administrator Bagumba has twice suggested that the opening question is too broad, so this sub-section is being formally opened to help narrow down the issues:

  • Question 2: Should Wilt Chamberlain being called the greatest player of all-time be in the lead, yes or no?
  • Question 3: Is Wilt Chamberlain being called the greatest player of all-time a past or present opinion?

Left guide (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC) pinging all other participants from this RfC @Fyunck(click), FMSky, Rhododendrites, Mb2437, Nemov, Isaidnoway, and Zagalejo: Left guide (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No on 2 A WP:FRINGE viewpoint should not be in the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No on 2 - his being called the greatest player is not appropriate for the lead. Unsure on 3 - I think that oversimplifies things a bit. I'm curious if there are any good sources about the history of the "greatest of all time" discussion itself. Zagalejo (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, it was almost a toss-up between Chamberlain and Russell, depending if one valued individual stats or team championships more. Then Kareem came along, but fans were biased by mostly seeing him with the Lakers in the 1980s (there was minimal TV before then), by which time he was less dominant. Then Jordan quickly came. —Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So fans were biased with Kareem but not with Chamberlain? Com'n. The problem with Chamberlain and Kareem was that it is a team game and that they had lesser teams. Kareem had his championship with the Bucks and Chamberlain with the Sixers and Lakers, but most of the time their teams were worse. Kareem had his troubles with Bill Walton teams too and could not win a title with the Lakers until Magic came around. Magic was the secret sauce for Laker championships as Bird was for the Celtics. Jordan needed team help too. His stats would have still been top of the heap great, but those titles don't come without Scotty Pippin. Or Phil Jackson and the triangle offense. And I watched tons of basketball throughout all the 1970s. Big market cities showed them a lot. Not like today when every game is shown. It's the 50s-60s players I wish I could see more of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on 2, I'm surprised to see FRINGE being invoked here when it is a widely held view, like I said above, I support attribution. And it is both a past and present opinion as evidenced by reliable sources.
  • (Mertz et al. 2016) used linear regression and fitted lines to rank the top 150 NBA players in NBA history; the model used the 2015 SLAM magazine’s 500 greatest players list and regressed each player’s PPG, APG, RPG, WSPER48, and the number of championships won to see what factors most impact a player’s ranking. Their model assessed Wilt Chamberlain as the greatest NBA player of all-time, even though his tenure in the NBA only earned him two championships. (Mertz, Jeremy; Hoover, L. Donald; et al. (December 2016). "Ranking the Greatest NBA Players: A Sport Metrics Analysis". International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 16 (3): 737–759. doi:10.1080/24748668.2016.11868925.)
  • Wilt Chamberlain's 1.080 tendex rating for the 1961-62 season remains the best ever recorded in the NBA. Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, LeBron James, and Michael Jordan are the four greatest players of all-time. (Dave Heeren, USA Today Magazine; Mar 2022, Vol. 150, Issue 2922, p.76) — Isaidnoway (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised to see FRINGE being invoked here when it is a widely held view: Perhaps you are confusing "one of the greatest" with simply "the greatest"? —Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No on 2 Per above, it is not an agreed-upon view by WP:RS. Additionally, being consensus one of the greatest is more significant than a couple of sources saying he was the greatest. It is clearly a WP:FRINGE view that is WP:UNDUE in the lead. If it requires attribution, it does not belong in the lead. His records and achievements should be stated instead of a biased statement of opinion to peacock his greatness, which reads as persuasive MOS:PUFFERY. 3 being part of this discussion also underlines that such a statement is prone to aging, as we are seeing with Michael Jordan now. Such contentious statements also do not belong at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or LeBron James. MB2437 16:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am against all players having "greatest" in the lead as that is a subjective water cooler conversation not worthy of an encyclopedia. So as long as articles like James and Jordan don't have it in the lead then Chamberlain can follow suit. That sort of mention should be in a legacy section only. As far as being overly broad, remember when this was posted the line in the lead said "Chamberlain has been called the greatest player of all-time." That should certainly be in the legacy section. It should only be in the lead if we insist on keeping the same sorts of boasts in the leads of James and Jordan. As I write this, those terms have been removed from Jordan and James leads so it would show Wikipedia POV bias to keep it in Chamberlain's. The problem in the past has been they get reinserted with no attempt to remedy, as if it should be in the lead. That's when we run into the issue in this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can circle back to WP:NBA once this RfC reaches a conclusion. —Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are actually intrinsically intertwined. If you circle back to WP:NBA and they say we should allow "greatest" variations in the lead then we have the same problem here of POV bias against older generations of players. It's more like:
    Do we want to allow subjective iterations of the word "greatest" in the lead of player bios? Or do we want to keep that stuff in legacy sections?
    That is sort of the whole issue here when compared to all the players in NBA history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The broader discussion to reach consensus on a style standard across NBA articles is occurring at WT:NBA#Discussion on allowing "greatest" in the lead of all NBA players. Left guide (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per other Wikipedia discussions, it can be reached here but the full NBA project must be informed of it happening here. I did that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Left guide. We shouldn't make stealth decisions affecting broad topics when the advertised RfC question is a very specific "RfC: Can Wilt Chamberlain be called the greatest player of all-time?" Projects will use their best judgement to determine how it applies to other pages. —Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No on 2, lean present on 3. Wilt's peak raw statistics are so eye-popping that you can always find some statistical argument saying he is the GOAT. (This in itself is noteworthy; Chuck Klosterman once wrote that "I can't think of any other athletes whose reputation is so vastly inferior to his actual achivements. ... Is it reasonable for a man to average 50.4 points a game while finishing second in the MVP voting? It is not. But this is Wilt's legacy (and it always will be). ... But consider this ... Chamberlain is the only human who could have ever been Chamberlain." And this is a guy defending Wilt!) However, while Chamberlain's GOAT status isn't exactly a "fringe" opinion (my personal belief that Kareem is the GOAT is the real fringe opinion here), it's definitely not common. More broadly, we don't need to call Wilt the GOAT to paint a complete picture of him because of his absurd stats. I would be more willing to entertain more specific reputational claims (e.g. "one of the greatest defenders of all time" or "one of the best players of his generation") in the lede for players who for one reason or another had fewer All-NBA appearances than you'd expect, like Draymond Green. (But even then, Draymond is an 8x All-Defensive player...) But people without individual honors generally don't land in the GOAT conversation - the phenomenon I'm describing is mainly populated by defense-first Western Conference big men or talented players who got career-altering injuries. Namelessposter (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull the plug on the RFC. This was malformed from the beginning and this pivot just muddies the water even more. This needed a proper discussion first. Nemov (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Basketball doesn't have a universally agreed upon GOAT. Hockey is the only one where that would apply due to Wayne Gretzky. If you claim this for Chamberlain you'd also have to give it to Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Lebron James and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. s Never17 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Amazon.com: The Greatest Player Ever: Wilt Chamberlain (himself), Cecil Mosenson: Movies & TV". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
  2. ^ Swartz, Bryn. "The Greatest NBA Player of All-Time: Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain?". Bleacher Report. Archived from the original on April 30, 2022. Retrieved April 30, 2022.
  3. ^ Smith, Steve. "Greatness Revisited: Why Wilt Chamberlain Was the Greatest NBA Player Ever". Bleacher Report. Archived from the original on April 30, 2022. Retrieved April 30, 2022.
  4. ^ "The NBA's true greatest player of all time, Wilt Chamberlain". Hoops Habit. April 29, 2020. Archived from the original on September 12, 2021. Retrieved April 30, 2022.
  5. ^ "Legends profile: Wilt Chamberlain". NBA.com. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
  6. ^ Acedera, Shane Garry (11 November 2023). "Gary Payton explains why Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest player ever: "You know everybody is chasing after him"". Basketball Network - Your daily dose of basketball. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
  7. ^ Carter, Richard G. (19 May 2023). "Wilt Chamberlain is the Greatest Pro Basketball Player of all Time". Shepherd Express. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
  8. ^ "THE WORLD'S GREATEST POST-WAR ERA ATHLETE HAILED FROM PHILLY - WILT CHAMBERLAIN!". Edge of Philly Sports Network. 22 December 2022. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilt_Chamberlain&oldid=1278741865"