Talk:Tim Hardaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Hardaway article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Did Hardaway say he would ask for that player to be removed from the team?

I reverted the recent deletion of the phrase "Hardaway said he would ask for the player to be removed from the team" from the article. Zellin had deleted it, writing "He never said he would ask for that player to be removed from the team."

The Sports Illustrated article (footnote #1) says: "If he did find out that a teammate was gay, Hardaway said he would ask for the player to be removed from the team."

It's not a direct quote, but it seems good enough for me. Malik Shabazz 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that also. JoshuaZ 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will remove that unfortunate bit at the bottom-Juggsmurf 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia controversy taking up way too much of the article

As inflammatory as his comments may have been the fact that the homophobia section is now longer than the entire section detailing his life and career, that can't be ballanced. You don't see the Mel Gibson page more than 50% dedicated to his DUI or the michael richards incident. it should defennetly be trimmed down. ---Duhon February 16th 2007

There's no reason to remove cited text and quotations. This is the reason he's notable at this time and it will probably be the most notable thing he ever does or says in his lifetime. But if you'd like to include more content regarding his career, family, reading habits, preferred brand of microwave, you're welcome to flesh out the article. Removing cited content is not the way. — coelacan talk — 09:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If you're referring to my edit, I undid another editor's cquotes that highlighted Hardaway's comments and practically doubled the size of this section (in inches) without adding any substance. You can see for yourself what it looked like before I reverted those changes.
PS - Your name and the date will be added to your comments automatically if you add four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Malik Shabazz 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the Cquotes removal was fine. They're not stylistically necessary. I am only interested in the addition or removal of raw content; Duhon was recommending the removal of sourced content. — coelacan talk — 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The "controversy" does not need to be so extensively detailed on this page. The fact that it is current does not make it so noteworthy as to require such extensive explanation. As to the issue of whether it is the most notable thing Hardaway has ever done, that's a matter of opinion and seems like a bit of a biased point of view. Ronnymexico 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This week, I think this is the most noteworthy thing about Hardaway. Next week, or next month, when this blows over, an editor can prune this section to an appropriate length. But at this point in time, I think the balance is probably right.
PS - I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment to the bottom. Its placement above my statement "I agree" made it look like I agreed with your comment. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Fair enough, I guess for the time being it is probably fair to include it all. I definitely agree with pruning that section once the controversy subsides in the future though. No problem with the comment move. Ronnymexico 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the most notable thing about Tim Hardaway. Tim Hardaway was a great player who made the news regularly in his career because of his good games. The fact that most Wikipedia editors do not follow sports should not mean you should dedicate pages to athletes to be about everything they have done outside of sports. It should not have a whole section dedicated to it, it should only be a couple of sentences. If any sourced content stays, then you could have sections added for every professional game he has ever played in. The fact that the editors are so unfamiliar with Tim Hardaway as relating to what he was actually notable for, shows that Wikipedia should have no articles at all on athletes or anything sports related because the editors are not capable of properly editing them because they have no sports knowledge or any concern or will to attain any sources or information on athletics. Conman3000 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Go add the sports content that you think should be there. You're welcome to help. — coelacan talk — 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If I put as much sports content there as was there for this one news story, all my additions would be removed by another editor. 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conman3000 (talk • contribs).

I disagree. Add whatever you think is appropriate. If you think there's something to be said about his time on each team, or different periods in his NBA career, go ahead. Frankly, I think there should be much more in the "achievements" section, which is embarrassingly empty. Having references is helpful so nobody thinks it's original research; you can probably find the back-up you need at NBA.com, ESPN.com, or SI.com. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. I'll try to make sure relevent sports content stays in the article, and I'm sure Malik will keep an eye on it too. Add what you think is relevent, Conman. — coelacan talk — 04:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All the articles go through this. Any time a new story breaks, concerning a celebrity, that story tends to be overrepresented within the article. As the news story fades, the section is gradually trimmed. Give things a few months and you'll see it slowly shrinking. Honest - it happens every time. 67.55.4.52 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony?

So, he comes out with his comments, and gets added to the LGBT Wikiproject. Does this mean Adolph Hitler is on their list for his stance on gays as well? I think it is a stretch to add him, but just a tad bit funny, too. CodeCarpenter 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Homophobia is within the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject. The tag doesn't mean he's gay. It simply allows that Wikiproject to keep track of what occurs with this article. Don't read too much into it. — coelacan talk — 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought my point and my question were clear. 1. A person that came out with a desire to avoid gays is now linked to their wikiproject. I considered this humorously ironic. 2. Since someone with an "Anti" position was added to the project, does this mean that others famous for that position, ie Adolph Hitler, John Rocker, Rush Limbaugh, etc., are also in the project? None of them are linked, but they could be by the same logic. I went to the linked project, and although it is large and thorough, it does not show a list of linked articles, or at least I could not find it. Liberace is not linked, but Barney Frank and Elton John are. I was not reading anything into it, just pointing out how his face would look upon seeing the link on his name. A tad bit funny, IMO. CodeCarpenter 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, projects are only listed on talk pages for a reason- they indicate a project's interest in a topic, they say nothing about the topic itself. JoshuaZ 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For comparison, note that Mel Gibson's dad is on the Anti-Semite category, but despite his public comments, Mel Gibson has been removed from that list. Is there a Homophobic category the way there is an Anti-Semite category? CodeCarpenter 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my tone earlier, CodeCarpenter. I was editing before my first cup of coffee, a bad call on my part. I believe the Category:Homophobic people is about to be deleted, as it tends to be wp:original research most of the time (very few people actually explicitly announce themselves to be homophobic as Hardaway has done). Tagging can be haphazard, not every article is tagged that should be. The LGBT project tagging system is centralized at Category:LGBT articles by quality, if you're looking for it. — coelacan talk — 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Weasel Words

Does anybody know why the NPOV and Weasel Words tags were added to the article? I left a note asking the editor who added them, but maybe somebody else can explain. Malik Shabazz 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any obvious problems, and definitely nothing that corresponds to WP:WEASEL. If no response is forthcoming from PeteJayhawk, the tags can come down. — coelacan talk — 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TimHardaway.com is down

Should the link to it be removed? 70.19.31.152 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The site has probably been overwhelmed by traffic or vandalized, and I imagine it will be back soon. Malik Shabazz 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Malik. Also the message it is giving isn't the standard message one would get if the site were no longer operative. JoshuaZ 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Takei

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8

Worth adding something about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peephole (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

No. Pablothegreat85 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Homophobia' way too long

Would someone please clean this up? It seems somewhat obscene that his personal views on homosexuality take up way more space on this page then his actual career.

It would be adequate to mention that he made comments toward homosexuals, provide a rebuttal from another source in regards to his comments and leave it at that.

Not too mention that the article is obviously biased in a pro-homosexual light. It is a "little more" than what is needed to report the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 17:55, March 9, 2007

Three weeks ago, Hardaway's comments were very notable and, in my opinion, the space they got was appropriate. I asked other editors to "beef up" the section about his career to balance the size of the sections, and I added some material myself, but not many people added career information.
As I wrote above, "Next week, or next month, when this blows over, an editor can prune this section to an appropriate length." It's been three weeks, and the controversy seems to have faded. I think it's appropriate for the article to mention it, but I agree that that section should be cut back. Be bold and start pruning.
PS - I'm sorry that you feel that the article is biased. Several editors worked very hard to keep the discussion of the controversy neutral, and made sure that every statement in that section is documented to a reputable news source. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

--- Indeed and it should be, at the moment it is way too long this news has settled to the back of the newswire by now, I would say it is time to give more space to his actual career then his personal beliefs - which are his, and should not be attacked with flagrant bias. - The section basically condemns him for his personal belief as if he MUST like gay people or else. Orasis

There's no point in debating the matter, but I don't understand how the section condemns Hardaway — it simply states what happened. It quotes what he said, what Amaechi said in response, how the NBA and his employers reacted, and the fact that he has apologized and said he doesn't hate anybody. Those are facts, not opinions. (Well, they're the opinions of Hardaway, Amaechi, and the leagues, but they're not Wikipedia's opinions.)
Anyway, instead of griping about the problems in the article, why not direct your energy toward improving the article by removing the content you think is unnecessary or the bias you see in it? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made an attempt to cut back on the Homophobia controversy. It still looks longish, but not like it was. Mainly it's due to the quotes, but I didn't want to get accused of being gay-biased by clipping back on his apologies and leaving long homophobic quotes, or vice versa. I think it's an appropriate length given that the controversy has died down, but it still wasn't that long ago this thing occurred. The story of his homophobia is still in circulation on various websites and people may still be coming to this article for more info/references. Mentality 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reduction in length much appreciated. Chensiyuan 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Several editors started to cut it this week, and I agree that it's heading in the right direction. I would recommend leaving it as is for a few days to see if anybody compains. If not, continue to shorten it. My only thought it that I would keep most of the footnotes so that a reader could find the news stories if she/he wanted to find the details. Somebody suggested Michael Richards as an example of achieving a reasonable balance. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wanted to make a minor edit

and add the word "at" so it reads "At six feet (1.83 m) tall, he was....." I think that sounds better. Shorty4life88 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. You don't need anybody's permission. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing homophobia from intro

Whilst I doubt a lot of people will read this before editing, I thought I'd note something as it's happened a few times - will Tim Hardaway fans STOP removing the homophobia controversy from the intro. It IS a "notable" event, despite what you may think, and the fact that it is covered later on in the article is *precisely* why it needs to remain in the introduction. Please see WP:LEDE for further info. Mentality 11:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As you mentioned, many editors may not look here, so I added a hidden note in the lede as well. For the curious, the relevant portion of WP:LEDE states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (emphasis added) — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still deleting it. ;) There's no mention of Mark David Chapman in the Catcher in the Rye opening, so why should this be here? I can see how alot of homos may think Hardaway was some obscure athlete and this is his defining moment (as evidenced above) but he was an elite level athlete and celebrity for years before this. The fact that it's constantly removed should let you know that it's inapropriate. 66.167.148.135 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got a message warning me about "3RR", yet Mentality claims to have reverted the edit so many times from different users that he had to put hidden text in the article forbiding it. 66.167.148.135 08:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I request mediation! 68.166.64.241 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this Shabazz character is threatening to suspend me, yet he doesn't have the balls to coment on the talk page. Since 3RR has already been violated by an editor to keep it in the opening paragraph, I feel justified in deleting it as many times as necessary. Suspend away. It means nothing to me.

The contraversy is not notable enough to warrant mention in the opening paragraph. Maybe it was when he said it, and the few weeks afterwards, but not now. 68.166.64.241 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) I haven't commented on the Talk page? Look right above your comments. Whose name is there?
(2) Hardaway's comments are still notable, and it may be for a long time. For similar treatment of another celebrity, see Michael Richards. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Haradaway's comments are still notable. Richards will forever be known for 1) Kramer, and 2) Racist outbursts. Hardaway's comments are pretty much gone from the public consciousness. This is the equivalent of putting the charges of Jordan being addicted to gambling in his opening paragraph. Why isn't there mention of Mark David Chapman in the opening of Catcher In The Rye? More people know the book as "the book that crazy people read", than have actually read the book. Because it's a book. That's why it's known and that's the most important thing. In the opening paragraph it has an "oh, by the way" feel to it. It's inappropriate. 68.166.70.23 03:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty close call as to whether Hardaway's comments remain notable enough to stay in the lead of the article. I would agree with the previous editor that the Richards comments seem to have had a more lasting impact on the public consciousness for whatever reason, Hardaway's remarks seem to have faded from public view. Still, I guess it makes sense to leave a mention in the lead, but I definitely think the section on the homophobia controversy is too lengthy. For example, the quote from David Stern isn't necessary, it's evident why the NBA chose to distance itself and the footnote can remain after the first sentence rather than the second (so that the NBA statement is still accessible). Likewise, I don't think it's necessary to give a full timeline of Hardaway initially standing behind the remarks and then backing off, it's enough to say that he eventually apologized and then released a statement. Ronnymexico 03:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Richards' comments are still — and may always be — a notable part of his bio, whereas Hardaway's have largely receded from most people's minds. While WP:LEDE says that "The lead should ... briefly describ[e] its notable controversies, if there are any", it also says that "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject". I think enough time may have passed to take it out of the lede. Thanks for trimming that section; I'm going to cut it a little more. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia cat

I've removed Category:Homophobia again because Homophobia isn't central to who he is or what he did. See Category talk:Homophobia for consensus on how/wen the cat should be used. Please comment here before reverting. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN. No complaints from me. Just to say that the category is controversial, should only be applied in cases where it helps readers to understand what homophobia is about (thats what categories are for), and not to apply it just because someone has been accused or criticized for being homophobic. It is especially inappropriate on a biographical article, where a lot of care needs to be taken in such matters. Hal Cross 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)