Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Greatest or One Of the Greatest 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposed statement, with reference

Proposal: The discussion regarding the introductory paragraph has ground to a halt. So we can remove the protection from the page and move on, I propose we replace the following:

Born in Brantford, Ontario, Canada, Gretzky, nicknamed "The Great One," is regarded as the best player of his era and is considered by many to be one of the greatest hockey players of all-time.

with this sentence:

Born in Brantford, Ontario and nicknamed "The Great One," Gretzky is regarded as the best player of his era and has been consistently named as the greatest hockey player ever by other players, coaches and hockey and sports publications.

and use the following reference for the new sentence:

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/gretzky/greatnessascendant.html

as well as refactoring the talk page.

Note: I modified the original statement to readd "born in" etc. as per the Manual of Style after Jao pointed it out.  RasputinAXP  c 18:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Editors endorsing the proposed statement, sign below:

1.  RasputinAXP  c 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
2. RGTraynor 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Jao 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (changed after the modifications noted above)
4. Alright, this statement is more appropiate. GoodDay 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
5. djrobgordon 21:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Mike Selinker 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
7. JamesTeterenko 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Editors opposing the proposed statement, sign below:

1. Jao 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (we don't do that with birth dates, see the Manual of Style -- I'm all for the clarification on who's saying he's the greatest, though)

2 # In my opinon: "Considered One of the greatest hockey players of all time", would seem a more appropiate & neutral statement. GoodDay 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been the crux of the discussion. The simplest way is to make it a statement of fact as we have, supported with a reference.  RasputinAXP  c 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

3 # This starts the same debate on the same issue all over again. TrulyTory 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this ...?

Born in Brantford, Ontario and nicknamed "The Great One," Gretzky is regarded as the best player of his era and has been consistently named as one of the greatest hockey players of all-time by other players, coaches and hockey and sports publications.

Seems much more neutral and provable. TrulyTory 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't start anything. It is an attempt to seek a consensus, by which we're all going to abide, because that's the way Wikipedia works. RGTraynor 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Time will tell Friend. Just because SOME give their opinion does not mean that the statement is now verifiably true. Your disinclination toward logic and semantics is mind-boggling. You are up there with KDRGibby as a virulent POV'er. Until their is a TOTAL consensus by ALL editors (not just those who choose to come into Discussion, I personally will not accept POV in the Article TrulyTory 14:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement that I put forth is not POV. It's fact, and verifiable, with sources. I'm just trying to form some sort of consensus because the article shouldn't stay protected, and I don't want to see another 2-word edit war going on.  RasputinAXP  c 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is still not universally proveable, and thus it is POV. Until you can show that ALL SOURCES claim WG as the greatest of all-time, you cannot state that he is universally considered to be so. TrulyTory 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say "universally," so I'm really confused as to where you're going with this.  RasputinAXP  c 19:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Making up other people's arguments, of course.

That being said, Tory, you're still new here, so possibly you're unaware how Wikipedia works (Wikipedia:Consensus). To quote: "... Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities." Ultimately, what you choose to accept or not is irrelevant; if the overwhelming majority of the other editors agree on a particular stance, you risk sanctions by continuing your edit warring. RGTraynor 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll abide by the rules, but if a 6 to 1 vote constitutes a declarative resolution of this dispute then I guess all it has proven is that you have mustered a cabal large enough - to this point - to override logic and semantics in the interests of your Agenda and POV. You must be proud. TrulyTory 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Canuck is on break and Pyles' wife has been diagnosed with cancer according to his user page. Of the 6 agreeing with the change, 4 are relative outsiders. TINC.  RasputinAXP  c 19:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

TrulyTory: Your use of the word "cabal" clearly suggests bad faith on the part of other editors. In this, you violate, again, both the spirit of Wikipedia and the rules. If you don't like it here, why do you stay? HistoryBA 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Perspective

Well, here is an outside perspective. When something is this controversial, you need better sources. If you are going to say "players, coaches and hockey and sports publications", then you should have a source for each one, not a heavy-breathing page on the NHL website. Otherwise, you should say "In 1992, Puck Enthusiast magazine declared Wayne Gretzky "the greatest hockey player in the known universe", and in 2001 The Journal of Applied Slipperiness called him "supercalifragilisticexpealidocious" or some such. Honestly, do you think a credible encyclopedia would contain a definitive statement like that (to start with), and source it only with a website designed to promote the sport in question? -- Gnetwerker 08:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason I put five sources on the statement.  RasputinAXP  c 09:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, OK, but (1) is the NHL reference, (2) is op-ed from the NHL communications director, (3) is a story about his gambling (and uses the "great" reference rhetorically), (4) is an op-ed ("viewpoint") and in any case concludes "is he the greatest? He will leave that for us to argue, though in his mind, no one could ever or should ever replace Gordie Howe", and (5) is an anthology, so it is not clear what you may be referencing from it. Five crappy references are not better than one crappy reference. You need a secondary source. Failing that, you are presenting (someone's) unlabelled POV and/or original research. Otherwise, you have to say: "So-and-so said that WG was bigger than Jesus" or some such. To be more serious, the sentence would read (based on the current refs) "The NHL and several journalists regard WG as the greatest hockey player ever". -- Gnetwerker 09:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this fight? Tell me specifically what you would consider a valid source, and I'll do my best to find it. I honestly don't see how you can give the proper perspective on Gretzky's career without mentioning that a good number of hockey experts believe he's the greatest player of all-time. --djrobgordon 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you should say that "a good number" of hockey experts believe he's the greatest of all time. Just label it clearly as someone's opinion. An encyclopedia reports both fact and opinion. Fact is supported by definitive, secondary sources, and usually has multiple citations in the literature. So you cannot say "WG was the greatest of all time" without finding a secondary source for that statement. You can (and should) say: "The NHL believes WG was the greatest of all time(ref), as does Stick Puckly, editor of the anthology The Greatest Hockey Player of all time". That is a fact that reports an opinion, correctly labelled. But don't print opinion without saying (more or less exactly) whose it is. -- Gnetwerker 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gods, having this same argument every six weeks is getting tiresome. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT WG WAS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. No one has said that at ANY point. Furthermore, I'm likewise tired of the antis- always being the ones who Want Proof, but never somehow get around to providing the least scrap of contrary evidence. RGTraynor 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One cannot "prove" a negative supposition. You can't prove WG was not the greatest hockey player, anymore than one can find a citation that he wasn't the greatest checkers player of all time. Further, it doesn't sound like your "antis" are claiming that WG isn't one of the greatest hockey players of all time. They (and I) just want opinion stated as opinion. This is how encyclopedias work. What is tiresome is that a bunch of zealots want to turn Wikipedia into a set of fan pages. -- Gnetwerker 18:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If your only objection is truly the quality of the sources, rather than the assertion they make, how about finding some better ones? Improving the article would be a lot more productive than having this fight again. --djrobgordon 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just did, see what you think. -- Gnetwerker 00:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sorry about being so curt. There were a few editors here before who weren't really interested in improving the article, and I may have had some residual skepticism. --djrobgordon 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one. Thanks for contributing, Gnet.  RasputinAXP  c 06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess things are a little rough here on Wikipedia these days. I don't know beans about hockey -- I mean, I have never seen a complete hockey game, live or on television (which is why I didn't initially want to actually edit the page). However, it only took me 15 minutes on google searching for "gretzky" + "greatest" to find many more citations. If I wanted to work harder, I am sure I could find ones for coaches (there is one from the Phoenix team's owner), and from fans, but I quit after I got a couple that explicity included the phrase. I hope I have demonstrated my point of simply identifying the speaker -- I think it makes the point more effectively to an outsider while retaining the intended meaning. You guys have a good page, I will now slink back and edit what I know. Have fun! -- Gnetwerker 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sometimes an outsiders perspective is all that is required for some reasonable wording in a heated revert war. -- JamesTeterenko 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

Protected for weeks. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony.  RasputinAXP  c 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank God. This was rapidly degenerating from the merely asinine to genuinely disgraceful. RGTraynor 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)