Talk:Pacers-Pistons brawl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The result of the debate was: Moved to the favored compromise Pacers-Pistons Brawl.—jiy (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Malice at The Palace → Palace Brawl – Casual observation indicates the word "brawl" is usually used at one point when discussing this event. Googling "palace brawl artest" yields 26,800 results, while "palace malice artest" yields 603. Additionally, Malice in the Palace is the name of a film, so the title is potentially confusing.—jiy (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support—jiy (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we could give it about five different names. I see no reason why we should choose the name to "Palace Brawl" over all the other names. I've heard it refered to the "Detroit Melee" or the "Motown Melee" more than anything else. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a name change, but I think a better case has to be made than this. --Jakob Huneycutt 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I gave the reason why we should choose the name "Palace Brawl" over the other names: it appears to be the most common. Additionally, the alternatives "Malace at the Palace" and "Motown Melee" are unneccesarily emphatic or slang-like, whereas "Palace Brawl" is neutral. "Detroit Melee" is unacceptable because of its ambiguity; "Detroit" can mean either the team Detroit (possibly implying the melee is all of Detroit's doing, which is false since Indiana was involved), or it can mean the area of Detroit, where the incident took place. In any case the current name has to go, and the "Pacers-Pistons Brawl" alternative that Ewhite mentions would also be an adequate replacement. —jiy (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • "Palace Brawl" is "slang-like" as well. That's why I can't see any reason to adopt it over the current "slang-like" title. "Detroit Melee" I think is far superior to the "Palace Brawl". At least from that title, we know it was a "melee" and we know it took place in "Detroit". Palace Brawl is misleading to someone unfamiliar with the event that it might have actually taken place at a palace. I like the suggestion for "The Pacers-Pistons Brawl" the best. We know it wasn't a Detroit-wide revolt that way and if we're familiar with the NBA, we know who the brawl was between. --Jakob Huneycutt 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I just don't think it makes sense to prefer one ESPN-contrived label over another. Whenever I hear it discussed, its usually the "Pistons-Pacers Brawl", not the Malice at the Palace, Motown Melee, etc. Those titles seemed reversed for use by the general sports media, not the average viewer.--Ewhite77 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Despite my previous edit of changing it to the original name, how about Pacers-Pistons brawl?--Roadrunner3000 00:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that Pacers-Pistons Brawl is looking to be the best possible name. Though brawl should probably be capitalized since we are referring to a specific event in history.—jiy (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm going to agree and say that "The Pacers-Pistons Brawl" sounds good as well. It's not a media term, it's descriptive so that someone would know what it referred to, and if someone were unfamiliar with it, they would have some sorta idea what the event was about. --Jakob Huneycutt 19:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

What about the original name, November 19, 2004 disturbance at The Palace of Auburn Hills (or maybe 2004 disturbance at The Palace of Auburn Hills)?--Roadrunner3000 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Discussion

As far as I remember, it was Jermaine O'Neal that made the foul on Ben Wallace, and not Ron Artest. I may be wrong as far as the foul goes, but I do remember distinctively that Ben Wallace shoved Jermaine O'Neal and not Ron Artest. If anyone thinks that that is incorrect, please speak up, because I do not remember Ron Artest ever getting involved until a plastic cup was thrown on him from the audience, before then he was rolling on a table. This is just what I observed from watching the game, it was quite a while ago, so I really don't know. I just wanted to make sure that the information in the article is correct. Shadowcat137 16:10, 2 April 2006

Actually, it was indeed Ron Artest that made the foul and was shoved.

Thank you. I have looked it up on several sites and I was incorrect. So, that's that. Shadowcat137 16:10, 2 April 2006

[edit] Public Reaction

I remember a few days after the brawl, Rush Limbaugh gave a comment implying that the brawl had to do with gang violence and gangster rap, claiming that both were tied into the culture of the NBA. He also predicted that people would call him a racist for saying it (they did, similar to after his comments on Donovan McNabb). Would it be necessary to add here? DaDoc540 04:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think so, just because a lot of talking heads made one comment or another, but none really had effect on the historical significance of the event. --Ewhite77 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Doug Overturf

Can we get a cite for this? I Googled "Doug Overturf" and "Pacers" and got no non-Wikipedia hits. StaticElectric 06:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think his real name is Mike Ryan. I'm not 100% positive but you will find his name if you look up the fight.

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Portrayal of Rasheed Wallace

From this section:

"Now Artest has jumped over the scorers' table, and is trying to get down to the bench! Artest is in the stands! Oh, this is awful! Fans are getting involved! Stephen Jackson's in the fans! Rasheed Wallace going into the stands! The security's trying to somehow restore order! Fans and players are going at it, and the players are trying to help each other out!"

The entire transcript of what the commentator said snould be included. Rasheed Wallace did go into the stands, but only to try and control the situation, something that the commentators acknowledged in the missing portions. I think this change is important, because a reader who hasn't witnessed the event may make the mistaken assumption that Rasheed Wallace was an escalating factor. In reality, he showed that his rambunctious Portland days were over, and that he was trying to stop the mess, rather than support it. This was never more evident than after Ben Wallace shoved Artest after the hard foul; Rasheed stepped in between the two and prevented the scene on the court from getting any further out of hand.

[edit] Other Detroit Incidents?

The following information was put on this article. I have removed it, because it does not relate:

[edit] Other incidents in Detroit Sports

Main article: Disco Demolition Night
Main article: Red Wings-Avalanche brawl 1997

The first event was a quarter century ago, in a different city, and not really similar. The second event doesn't involve fans at *all*. And big fights in hockey are not exactly unknown.

Thoughts?

I think the first one can be removed but the one about the Red Wings-Avalanche should stay. They're the most notorious fighting incidents that happened in a Detroit sport. Although the two are unrelated, it still should be worth mentioning (but not very long, though).

[edit] SC-Clem brawl

I removed the entire section on the South Carolina-Clemson brawl. It happened the next day, but in all other respects, was completely unrelated to this fight. There wasn't even any exposition attempting to explain a link. I saw this as a few paragraphs to artifically increase the article's size for no particular reason. -- Kicking222 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go *that* far. At the time, there was a great deal of thought that the two might be related: the P-P brawl putting it into the heads of the SC-C players that such a thing might be "acceptable", etc. However, we certainly don't need *paragraphs* of info about it. A sentence or two might be nice, highlighting the possible connection, but without a great deal of detail that does not belong.
For now, I've left your edits alone until I (or someone else) can come up with a good way to write a *very* brief entry. As you can tell, I'm not good a brief...  :) Maybe after further reflection the link at the bottom is sufficient. We'll see what people come up with. -- Tmassey 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/c/Talk%7EPacers-Pistons_brawl_e177.html"