Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Greatest or One Of the Greatest 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives

Considered by many...

Whoever keeps deleting the comment that Gretzky is "considered by many to be the greatest hockey player ever" -- STOP. That is a NPOV statement of fact. It does not assert that Gretzky is the greatest hockey player ever, but that he is considered by many to be the greatest. That that is the case, there can be no doubt. [1][2] [3] [4] [5] So stop deleting factual statements under the pretense that they are POV. Rather, deleting such statements is POV in its suppression.-66.254.232.219 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not deleted because it's a POV statement. It's deleted because it's redundant and makes the overall opening paragraph sound like it was written a 7th grade student. The previous sentence/ already makes a reference to his possible title as "greatest player". Repeating it in the very next sentence is just a waste of space in the article. Indeed it is a very useless waste of space. ~Mr Pyles
  • As Mr Pyles said above, it's redundant. We've said that several times. Please don't add it back. Trying to call it POV or NPOV is irrelevant. RasputinAXP talk contribs 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's not redundant (perhaps you should look that word up). The statement to which you refer says he is regarded as "one of the best" ever. The statement in question says the he is regarded as many as the best ever. I've provided citations, including encyclopedic citations and citations from the NHL itself, to back up that FACT (that he is considered by many to be the greatest ever). It's NPOV. It's FACT. And it stays until you can provide citations proving that it is incorrect, i.e. that he is not considered the greatest hockey player ever by many. I won't hold my breath.-66.254.232.219 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. Similar statements are made on the Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Bobby Orr, and Sandy Koufax pages, just to name a few. They are not made for the truth of the matter asserted -- that Gretzky is in fact the best ever -- just to show that that is the opinion of many, which is a matter of fact. Anyways, the redundancy argument is pretty weak, as it can simply be remedied by rewording the previous sentence to say, "he is regarded as the best player of his era and many consider him the greatest hockey player ever." There's no NPOV problem here.-Onward ND 23:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to comment. I find this entire thing incredibly silly (yet mildly amusing). Yes, Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest hockey player ever, as the links provided by the anon above amply show. If you dispute that, then you have you-know-what for brains. Whether you agree that he is or he isn't, it is a view held by (here's the key word again)...MANY, and therefore deserves mention. Afterall, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if Bartleby and Encarta see fit to include such statements in their bios of Gretzky, so should Wikipedia. This is such an unbelievably easy issue I feel cheated for even having to take the time to write this.-R Esche 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oy, not this argument again. Please try not to take this out of hand people, this argument has been done before and last I heard of it it was put on mediation, but then something happened that stopped the argument. Although I come from the angle that many people regard Gretzky as the best ever, please do not let this turn into another redundant edit war. Keep the peace, guys. Croat Canuck 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It was kind of humourous to watch Croat Canuck....the little band of sockpuppets ended up with a page that was...more or less...what RasputinAXP had rv'd to in the first place. And I'm still for the word 'some' but 'many' isn't too bad. ~Mr Pyles
Just another point, TrulyTory, weren't you fighting last time to have it changed from "Most people view Gretzky as the greatest ya-da ya-da ya-da" to "Many people view Gretzky as the greatest...". Now you are trying to say that "Many people view Gretzky to be one of the greatest players of all time." I think that might be taking it a little too far, because anybody who knows anything about hockey views Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all-time, they'd be silly not to. Just a point. And good point Mr Pyles, I actually agree with you on this one. Croat Canuck 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It ended with that reversion because just about everyone else declined to get into edit warring. As far as the mediation, the request was rejected because one of the sides (hint hint) declined mediation. The obstinacy of Pyles' and Tory's position has long since become farcical, and IMHO has a lot more to do with their belief that Orr was the greatest ever than any adherence to NPOV. Quote after quote from contemporary authority has been presented to bolster the assertion; the very next quote (or any other scrap of evidence, come to that) which Pyles or Tory presents to support their case will be the very first.
Who actually was the greatest player ever is a debate rightly unsuitable for Wikipedia. That contemporary hockey authorities generally cite Gretzky as being so is fact, and that many more back Gretzky than back any other single contender is likewise. RfC didn't work, RfM didn't work ... I expect this will go to a fairly persistent edit war until the admins get off their duffs. RGTraynor 07:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts are of course, completely different. RGTraynor continues to use the opinions of many journalists, player's anecdotes, and Hockey News references to say that he has all the "proof" needed to make abolutist statements. You cannot PROVE that Gretzky was the Greatest of them all, just because his contemporaries say it in great numbers. It is a collective POV that cannot be substantiated. My logic in the "Most vs. Many" debate is airtight and logical in terms of the semantics. Older Players, Friends, and Family I know still say that Maurie Richard was the Greatest they ever saw. Others still say it was Gordie Howe. Others Bobby Orr. Others Gretzky. What, or who is the "Next One?" Sidney Crosby? For I am sure he will have his advocates in 25 more years. The point is that RGT is fully advocating POV and then tries to bully everyone off the page with his Edit Wars and his "Proof." On my first Edit on this Page, RGT warned me not to touch the article again, as he was the authority on all matters pertaining to Hockey. What a load of arrogant hogwash. I will state - yet again - my opinion: "Gretzky was one of the greatest players of all-time, and especially of his generation - but early in his career he was not much of a back-checker and was never really comfortable in the corners. Certainly the most prolific scorer of all time, and certainly the best passer I have ever seen, he does certainly rate a high position in the top five of all-time greats - in my opinion." There, I am a Gretzky Fan. I am just not an absolutist, and reject on a logical basis the contention that anyone can prove without a shadow of doubt, that anyone is "the greatest of them all" across all eras and across all of the globe. I have been watching hockey since 1970, and played at highly competitive levels between 1971 and 1985. I also have a pretty good handle on both semantics and epistemology. TrulyTory 12:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Enough, TrulyTory, but RGTraynor is not trying for it to say that "Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all-time" on the actual article. More or less, I can't speak for him, but what I'm looking for is that most, or many if that's your fancy, do view him as the greatest player of all-time. Many people also view Orr, Howe, Richard, Lemieux, and if you want to go really far back, Morenz, as the greatest player of all-time. My main objection is that if we are trying to change the line to say "Many (or most) people view Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all time." Like I said earlier, all people who know anything about hockey view Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all-time. It has to say "(Most or Many) view Gretzky as the greatest player of all time." I don't want to get into the most or many argument, it doesn't really matter to me it's just a word, but the main part I don't like is the mention of "one of" after "most" or "many. Croat Canuck 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Pyles: Thanks for lying about the biography for Gretzky in the HHOF. It most certainly DOES include a statement that he is "consistently ranked as the greatest hockey player of all time." [6] Thanks for playing, though.-66.254.232.219 05:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Back from your block so soon. I wasn't talking about the webpage when I made my statement. I was talking about the actual shrine itself. And that web bio still doesn't award him title...it says some end of the century polls ranked him as the greatest.(and seeing as how he had just retired at the time it's understanding that sentimentality would win out over reason) The HHOF web bios also use 'greatest of all' in several other bios...but again...they don't award the title outright, they simply make reference to a group of special individuals who MAY deserving of that extra merit. And as I've said before, declaring one player, in any sport, as the greatest of all time...is impossible.~Mr Pyles.
Uh, no. It doesn't say "some." It says he has "consistently" been ranked as the greatest hockey player of all-time. I suggest you learn to read.-66.254.232.219 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on that statement I am going to try and guess a few things....A)You're young(by that I mean under 40)...B)You've never been to the HHOF in person...C)You've never actually played hockey(at least not at any advanced skill level)....D)You've never been to many NHL games(more importantly, NHL games prior to 1980...and E)You're an American, aren't you? How did I do? Not sure about A and E , but I am betting B C and D are pretty close to the mark. Correct me on any that I am wrong on ~Mr Pyles.

Man. Is it too much to ask to leave an NPOV statement in an article that just got featured? It's like a bunch of kids in a corner store fighting over one stick of candy when there's thousands of candies around them. Stop arguing over one line in this article and go work on Stanley Cup, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr or any of the other myriad of hockey articles that really need help. 66.254.232.219, if you care that much, register a username, join WP:HOCKEY and start pitching in. Jeez. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. It's absurd to see how the objections of this tiny cabal of Rasputin and Pyles (and his sock Tory) have oscillated from POV (which was refuted when multiple references, including two encylopedias, the NHL web site, and Gretzky's Hockey Hall of Fame bio, were provided proving beyond any doubt that Gretzky is considered by "many" to be the greatest hockey player of all-time) to "redundancy" (which was then remedied by removing the earlier allegedly redundant statement) and now back to POV. The fact of the matter is there is no basis for objection, so we have these two users throwing up desperate Hail Marys in an attempt to censor properly cited facts from the article. They've taken obstinancy (and downright stupidity) to absurd heights.-Onward ND 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with RasputinAXP, there are much more hockey articles that really need help for in Wikipedia then this one little plum. Croat Canuck 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The last thing I had was identical to the wording in Bobby Orr. TINC. Thanks for insulting me and inserting yourself into an edit war that didn't concern you and certainly didn't need any help. The wording has been the same for the past few months before I even got my hooks into the article. Dredging this back up is simply ridiculous. Pick something and stick with it. As long as it's cited, I could care less. Let's move on to other articles, this one's already a FA. RasputinAXP talk contribs 10:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have a pretty good handle on both semantics and epistemology. Try using it sometime, Tory, because I'm fed up. Not once, not ONCE, have I said that the statement "Wayne Gretzky is the greatest player of all time" should be on Wikipedia, and your consistent attempts over a few months now to claim that I have either signify that you're deliberately misrepresenting my position or that you're just militantly clueless. What I have said is really simple, and do pay very close attention this time: "The great majority of hockey authorities cite Gretzky as being the greatest player of all time." The first is a statement of opinion. The second is a statement of fact. Perhaps you really can't tell the difference, but if you can't, please don't feed us any more garbage on how much you know about semantics already, and leave the discussion to those who do. RGTraynor 02:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


As someone who watched Gretzky defeat my Jets many times, almost single handed, I thing he is the greatest ever. MCSE 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way its irrelevant, as that's POV. Although I do think your Jets in 80's had a great team with the players they had, and would have made it to the finals any other decade if they didn't play in the same division as those Flames and Oilers. Croat Canuck 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
As yes, RGT back at it I see. Please submit the following evidence:

(1) A clearly quantified list of ALL hockey authorities who currently exist across the Globe; (2) A definitive listing of same, AND a fully quantified and clearly stated and proven ratio of those authorities who will unequivocally, and in the majority - with evidence - state that WG is the the greatest player of all-time. Citing SOME references is not the same as citing ALL references. Do you have references from a definitive list of such authorities that all of us can accept as fully & fairly comprehensive? Can you point to a scientific study that purports to demonstrate proof of your assertion? Other than the Hockey News? (a journalistic publication that is neither authoritative, nor all-knowing ...) Or Polls of People who grew-up in the 1980's? If you have scientific proof of your assertion, what was the research methodology employed? What controls were used to isolate potential bias? If you cannot provide any of this, your assertion is unfortunately POV - as all "rankings" surely must be, and in fact, are. TrulyTory 14:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. By contrast, I've challenged you more than once to come up with any evidence opposing the views. You have failed to even come up with ONE contemporary authority advancing any other name. Now if you want a blizzard of quotes, I can provide it, and have already done so. Harry Sinden didn't grow up in the 1980s. Bobby Clarke didn't grow up in the 1980s. Glen Sather didn't grow up in the 1980s. Lou Nanne didn't grow up in the 1980s. And so on and so forth, veteran and respected commentators who not only saw the players involved, many played against those involved. What are your credentials, if you're going to play that game? As far as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility until and unless you're willing to back up your argument. To date you haven't. RGTraynor 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to. I am advocating the poper use of language in the interests of deterring aboslute statements in the face of less-than-absolute proof. You don't have it, you can't get, and you are struggling to justify POV. TrulyTory 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I am not surprised, but then you couldn't have backed your POV up if you wanted to do so anyway. RGTraynor 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK folks. Hash it out here. The page is protected. Are we going to leave it identical to Bobby Orr's statement, or are people going to be that irritating about it?  RasputinAXP  c 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

my own thoughts on that have already been expressed. I don't like seeing 'greatest of all time' on any bios...in any sport because A) it's impossible to prove any candidate truly deserves it and B)it's just an invitation to emotional debate and edit wars. If its going to be out there I can think of about 25-30 'greatest of all time' players going all the way back to the 40's. Traynor will disagree because he has a book ultimate proof as decreed by 50 sanctioned individuals. And Tory will negate that because 50 out of several thousand doesn't equal a majority. And then a bunch of anon. IP's will drift in and change it all around to whatever they think. And then RV war will begin all over again. And then Croat Canuck will ask politely that everyone just try to get along. And then the page will be locked again. And we'll all be back here. I've seen fistacuffs break out between 2 brothers in downtown Montreal over a heated hockey arguement. I doubt a concensus will ever be found. My 2 cents anyways. Mr Pyles 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Quicky gaining a reputation as a pacifist I see. My POV is that the article should "Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest player of all-time" and if for some strange reason people have a problem with that, than my second vote is for "Wayne Gretzky is considered by most to be one of the greatest players of all-time." Both are truthful in everyway shape or form, and are the most truthful out of any other statements that come out. I am not a fan of the "Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be one of the greatest players of all-time" because since it is not mentioned as most, that means that 25% of the population who know anything about hockey don't view Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all-time, and that's simply not the case. That's my two cents. Croat Canuck 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
How do YOU know what 25% of the hockey-knowing population thinks? It is this kind of POV masquerading as fact that is the problem. Pyles has been correct all along. "Gretzky is considered by many to be one of the greatest hockey players of all-time." No one can dispute that. However, one can very credibly dispute that "Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest hockey player of all-time." What are the actual statistics backing-up this majoritarian claim? There are none, only RGT's POV. Glad to see that the article is locked - it's about time. TrulyTory 12:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Your getting too upset over this, there is no proof neccessary for either of those comments. With the evidence of Gretzky's career, all the records he holds and his scoring dominance, etc. No one in their right minds wouldn't at least put him in their top-ten or top-twenty greatest players of all time. Being in someone's top twenty could mean that he is in that person's list as "one of the greatest of all-time". The burden of proof TrulyTory, is on you to prove me, RGT, or anyone else wrong in this regard, because your baseless in your grounds of downgrading Gretzky to just another great hockey player, along the lines of a Ron Francis-typeesque legacy... great, but not spectacular... His accomplishes provide more evidence that most people view him as one of the greatest of all-time, or in my opinion, that many people view him as THE greatest player of all-time. Give me the evidence to refute the fact that many (not most), view Gretzky as the greatest player of all-time? Its not a majoritarian claim, if we inserted "MOST" in there, then I agree with you, it would be a majoritarian claim. Many could be considered 5%, 10%, 25%, 40%, of the population, and you cannot argue that even 5% of the hockey population (which amounts to thousands of people, and dozens of hockey experts... however minute compared to the ever-growing hockey populous) do not view Gretzky as the greatest player of all-time? Croat Canuck 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
My words keep being misunderstood. It's not the 'greatest' I disagree with. It's the 'of all time' part that just doesn't hold any water. Gretzky(and all his modern day counterparts) played the 'business' of hockey...not the 'game'. With big salaries...lots of teams to pick(or get picked) from...Medical support for every single injury no matter how minor...and so on. Put any one of them back in the 40's and see if they would be as productive. I expect they would still be above average players...skill is skill no matter what era you played in. But 150 pt, 200 pt seasons would not likely have occured from any of them. Likewise, if one could take a Milt Schmidt and warp him to today's modern league. And provide him with today's NHL medical staff...how knows. Him and many like him played entire seasons with sprained wrists and ankles...banged up knees...stitches, stitches and more stitches. All because if they said they couldn't play because they were hurt...they'd lose their jobs to some up and coming youngster. "Of all time" is an impossible crown to award to anybody. 2 more cents(and sense). Mr Pyles 16:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Two things. For one, NO ONE IS ACTUALLY ARGUING THAT GRETZKY IS GREATEST OF ALL TIME. That would involve justifiably objectionable POV. Now do you object to the position held by the vast majority of hockey pundits that he is? Fair enough, argue it out with them, in whatever forums are applicable and appropriate. I haven't attempted to do so at any stage of this longwinded debate. (There are certainly many assertions I'd refute were it appropriate to do so here, which it isn't.)
Secondly, I'd be a lot more sanguine about your position if it struck me as agenda-free. Only ... somehow Bobby Orr's name keeps coming up. Now to any Bostonian in the 1960s, as with me, Orr was God, no question. But that's POV too. If we're genuinely setting up Greatest Of All Time, where's Gordie Howe? Where's Eddie Shore? Where's Joe Malone or Newsy Lalonde? Rocket Richard? Doug Harvey? Russell Bowie or Dom Hasek or Clint Benedict? There are a lot of claimants out there, after all. This strikes me as far less an anti-Gretzky or a pro-neutral campaign as a pro-Orr campaign.
That being said, I've put this article up for both RfC and RfM. The first went without comment, the second was refused. It's nice that you protected it, Rasputin, but there is no way in hell this is going to be worked out on the Talk Page, least of all because there will always be a newbie, once a week, who pulls up this article, reads that Gretzky "may" be regarded by "some" commentators as "one" of the greatest players ever, thinks "What, are these Wiki yohos high?" and edits the offending passages anew whatever the wishes of the vocal minority. There needs to be some serious, formal mediation going on here. RGTraynor 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What RG said. I don't know why they won't mediate this. At this point, it's up to Pyles to leave it the hell alone.  RasputinAXP  c 19:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Before your panties get bunched up, review the page history. Other than my 2 reverts on the disputed sentence yesterday(which was an rv attack from an anon IP)...rv'ing Captain I.P.Redundant last week(and his sockpuppet)...and a few rv's for vandalism....I haven't touched the page for quite some time. And most of those rv's were back to previous versions...by....ahh....you RasputinAXP. I pointed out your Olympic box error yesterday but did not actually alter the page myself. I've kept all my debates to this page. So please come back in from the playground before you play "I know you are but what am I" Mr Pyles 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
zomg. lots of indents. Yes, I know they were mostly back to my versions, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone involved needs to learn to disagree. Personally, I don't care which way it goes if the edit warring stops. I think the semantic fight between "many/most say he is (one of) the greatest of all time" needs to end. Again, I don't care which way it goes as long as these billy goats gruff stop clip-clopping on my bridge. Oh, and the Olympic box wasn't my creation, I just moved it for the sake of appearance. When you pointed out that Canada lost, I whacked it.  RasputinAXP  c 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Again. Once again. You cannot say that WG is the considered by all or most to be the greatest player of all-time without accepting the burden of statistical proof. RGT is not providing unequivocal statistical proof for the assertion. FOR THE RECORD: My top six of all-time are as follows, and in no particular order: Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Richard, Hull, and Dionne. I cannot say who was the greatest IMO because I have no way to prove the assertion. As to holding a lot of records - well, both Howe and Esposito owned many scoring records at their retirement, and both Coffey and Potvin carded more points than Orr (short career) but is this really the way to prove the assertion? What happens if someone eclipses WG's records? What then? I can accept that "many consider Gretzky to be one of the greatest players of all-time." I cannot accept (a la Mr. Pyles ...) any assertion that anyone can prove that any of the Top Six is the "greatest of all-time." RGT cannot logically make this claim. TrulyTory 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I try and suggest a compromise, or are we beyond that here? I haven't commented in this discussion up to now, but I've been following it daily.

First, I think we can keep the sentiment of "considered by many" in the intro paragraph without using those exact words. If left in the article, they will continue to be taken out by editors on the lookout for weasel words. A sentence such as "Gretzky has been consistently named as the greatest hockey player ever by other players and coaches, as well as in a number of surveys." That sentence is specific and verifiable. I don't want to lose the idea entirely, because I think it provides an accurate context to non-hockey fans of Gretzky's place in the pantheon of the game's greats.

Second, there should be a short section near the end of the article detailing surveys, magazine rankings, etc. that have named Gretzky as the greatest ever. Without getting out of hand, a couple select quotes from players or coaches could be included as well. That way, the previous statement won't simply stand on its own.

Michael Jordan contains a section like the one I have in mind, although I don't think it's perfect. In my opinion, the descriptions of other players' credentials are out of place. However, the idea behind it is sound. In the course of the discussion, a number of sources have been added to this talk page, but as of now they don't have a place on the main page.

Does this seem acceptable to anyone? --djrobgordon 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a well written article the way stands right now.(it has been for several weeks) Expanding the introductory paragraph into an essay unto itself would just make the article more cumbersome. I still believe 'of all time' will just invite similar disputes in the future from other contributors. But the way it reads right now is OK(and HAS been OK) with me. Some of the other Hall Of Famers could have their bio opening paragraphs 'fleshed out' in much the same manner. Without using the exact same wording.(specifically the word 'greatest') Maybe more specific to decade or era or position played. But that's a discussion for a different talk page. Wayne's been through enough Mr Pyles 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a way of creating "weasel facts" that are still POV. I am with Mr. Pyles - the current edit seems the most fair and recognises WG's place as one of the best of all-time, without dengirating other players of other eras by incorporating partial testimony & references as the basis for the POV that he is undisputedly the "Greatest." Including such methodology is highly problematic because it does not address the central issue - namely, that you cannot PROVE who is the greatest of all-time. You can only INCLUDE a player in a Group Listing of those players who are broadly accepted as among the best. That is, if you are truly interested in being fair and objective. TrulyTory 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's Lemieux in that top-6 of yours? Anyhow I still don't understand how you see "Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest player of all-time" as POV. Croat Canuck 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts would be weasel facts only if they were supposed to prove that Gretzky is' the greatest of all time. However, the objective here is to prove that he is considered among the greatest. My main problem isn't the wording so much as that the statement, as it is, stands unsupported. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's shortcomings, who is coming at this from the background of a non-hockey fan, would find the statement suspect.

For instance, I know very little about figure skating. If there was a similar sentence, without any documentation, in Michelle Kwan I'd discount it as biased fancruft. It may be true and it may not. The point is, I don't know.

An editor mentioned above that Encarta and Britanica have similar statements. They have that luxury because people trust them. It's our job to make people trust Wikipedia. As they say on talk radio, I'll talk my answer off the air. I don't want to add fire to the flame here; I'm just trying to keep from having a new edit war every time some anon with an agenda happens across this page. --djrobgordon 17:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the user 'R Eshe' who quoted the other encyclopedias was likely a sockpuppet to 'Onward ND' who, in turn probably wore the sock of the 'anon with an agenda'...who started this whole new fiasco in the first place.(I requested a checkuser on them) He/they seemed to assume that RasputinAXP and I were some sort of rv cabal and that TrulyTory is somehow my sockpuppet. My guess is that A)they don't read User pages/contribution lists or B)they can't read a map of Canada. Not saying that the 2 encyclopedia references aren't valid, just that the source was suspect. I was actually hoping someone would have access to them to confirm their accuracy Mr Pyles 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Encarta's on my wife's computer, Brittanica's on mine, and I'll check them both when I get home unless someone else beats me to it. That being said, a sentence such as Djrobgordon proposed suits me fine. RGTraynor 18:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version is good enough and fair and objective. I vote for the status-quo. Anything else puts us back at war, IMHO. TrulyTory 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, lets end this silly edit war/argument/discussion, whatever, and focus on contributing to more meaningful things in Wikipedia than one (add your favourite expletive here) sentence. And let us all pray that we never have to do jury duty together. Croat Canuck 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version is not good enough, quite aside from being inaccurate. This isn't ending with a draw, this is ending with a vocal minority winning.
By the bye, this is a verbatim quote from the Encylopedia Brittanica 2001 edition: "WAYNE DOUGLAS GRETZKY: Canadian ice-hockey player who was considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League (NHL)." Funny how the most respected encylopedia in history has no qualms about making that statement. RGTraynor 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm not agreeing that the current one is good enough. I'm agreeing withdjrobgordon, on the sentence he proposed. Just to make that clear. Croat Canuck 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
These debates about Gretz, are great & very intelligent. I've been reading the arguments & have been enjoying them. However, here's a new fire-cracker to throw into the fire: Wayne Gretzky himself, says/claims that Gordie Howe is the greatest hockey player of all time, (I know, WG is just being modest, and he's a Howe fan). GoodDay 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/y/Talk%7EWayne_Gretzky_Greatest_or_One_Of_the_Greatest_5_e148.html"