Talk:1998–99 NBA lockout

GA?

Will you all plan to take this to GA? It looks like it could go, pretty soon. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan. There are still a few things I want to do, but I sense that it's almost there. Before any nomination, I want to have a peer review done to help weed out whatever flaws there are. I'd love to see some of the regular NBA editors there to offer advice, since this is my first attempt at bringing an article through GAN. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1998–99 NBA lockout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall, the article is very good. Here's a couple things I'd like fixed though:

• The image points out that Ewing was president of the NBPA during the lockout, yet he has no mention in the article itself. Did he have any significant role in the lockout?
• The lockout section moves from June 22 to October 20 to August 6, which makes for a bit of confusion.
• In the lead, be more specific on when it started and ended.

I'll put this on hold for a couple days, since there's only a few tiny things that need fixing/clarification. Wizardman 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ewing was one of many cilents of agent David Falk who were in leadership positions in the union. This led to the division in the union that ended the lockout. I added a couple sentences on this.
• I assumed you wanted the text more chronological, and fixed it accordingly.
• I was a little confused by the last one, because the dates were already mentioned in the lead. Glad that you mentioned it, though, because I found that the start date was one day later than the article previously indicated, and the lockout didn't officially end until two weeks after the agreement. I ended up putting the span of the lockout in the second sentence.

Also made some other changes, including a sentence in Aftermath on Michael Jordan's retirement, which was a serious blow to the NBA after the lockout. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better; I've now passed the article. Wizardman 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1999 botched season

Hatting discussion on editing of banned troll JavaHurricane 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just wanted to note that I've removed this addition from the article. It has a strange section heading, features a bunch of unsourced content, and includes numerous POV statements such as "just 1999 botched season with too many tiring 3 games in 3 days", "thus putting an asterisk on the season", and "The 1999 season was all about the money and the 50 games in 90 days were too many". Content of this poor quality doesn't belong in any article, much less a GA, in my opinion, but I'll leave this here in case others think it can be improved. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Per an edit summary, the title of the section in question is "28/42/56 games season: 34%, 51%, 68% season of usual 82 games". Now can the edit warring stop for a bit, please? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC) sources were given, these are not POVs, you destroyed valubale info; check schedules for all teams: 3 games in 3 days is true and everything else; 50 games are way too many in 90 days and yes 1999 season was all about the money and its a good thing michael jordan did not play that year but he should have come back with pippen next year to portland, with jordan, lakers would not beat it: www.espn.com/nba/playoffs00/s/2000/0518/538520.html 169.159.83.106 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Saying that the season "was all about the money" and that it was "botched" are absolutely POV statements in Wikipedia's voice, which goes against NPOV policy. Regardless, the addition as a whole isn't properly sourced. A Wikipedia article isn't an acceptable source as anyone can edit it to include inaccurate information, and I have questions about using The Ringer as a source, as I haven't seen that one used much on here. Also, the ESPN page listed here doesn't have anything to do with any of the content in question, much less support any of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) sources were given, this is very botched season, these are no POVs, you destroyed valubale info; check schedules for all teams: 3 games in 3 days is true and everything else; 50 games are way too many in 90 days and yes 1999 season was all about the money and its a good thing michael jordan did not play that year but he should have come back with pippen next year to portland, with jordan, lakers would not beat it: www.espn.com/nba/playoffs00/s/2000/0518/538520.html 169.159.83.106 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Saying that the season "was all about the money" and that it was "botched" are absolutely POV statements in Wikipedia's voice, which goes against NPOV policy. Regardless, the addition as a whole isn't properly sourced. A Wikipedia article isn't an acceptable source as anyone can edit it to include inaccurate information, and I have questions about using The Ringer as a source, as I haven't seen that one used much on here. Also, the ESPN page listed here doesn't have anything to do with any of the content in question, much less support any of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) There was no 1998/1999 season because there was no agreement to have any season until january 7 1999 and it still was not approved until days later!!! No, you giants2008 are totally wrong again, you killed tons of fine info and you are simply saying without proving that sources given are bad sources... simply saying that such and such and such site is bad source is like saying bbb and cnn news are bad and that britannica is bad encyclopedia because it is competition to wikipedia "encyclopedia" which is beyond total joke... nothing but anarchy happens here and if you know people they will get it your way and especially when you point out to some shitty wikicrapia rule... and you yourself said wikipedia article is no good but the wikipedia article given is not just any article but it is based on what is already well known and espn link was given to support mh winning with scottie pippen and that was inserted because 1999 season could have had 7th championship for the bulls with jordan and pippen and since they moved away from chicago, they still win 7th championship with portland... and this proves this season was about money and how hard was it to play 6 more games so each team faces each other? You question the ringer as a source? again, you are wrong... this is huge ringer article, it points out to every detail... so using inductive or deductive reasoning or anything to infer it is wrong (deduce or conclude information from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements) it's impossible to to go against deduction and that in turn with explicit statements to go against induction, meaning only some things may not make sense but not as a whole, just look how each meeting is meticulously woven together: www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/14/18222040/lockout-1998-99-season-david-stern-david-falk-billy-hunter-patrick-ewing-michael-jordan-oral-history and over a year later, logical follow up made my points even more clearer: www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/19/21262436/after-the-last-dance-the-bulls-became-a-historic-dumpster-fire So if you put all these people together (not all are from nba) + legends of basketball, you think all of them got together (just to waste precious time, money, resources etc...) to lie their assess off what happened to botched 1999 season?!? Please... fansided.com/2020/05/05/post-lockout-1999-nba-ugly/ www.si.com/nba/2020/05/18/life-after-michael-jordan-chicago-bulls-1999 More than Enough Said!!! 14.0.169.8 (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC) We can't use Wikipedia as a source because one of the site's foundational policies says we can't. Simple as that. You can call it "wikicrapia" all you like, but I doubt that self-sourcing will be permitted by policy any time soon. Oral histories are another thing that you should be very careful with, since they can reflect the biases of the participants. If the people involved happened to feel the season was "botched", than that is their opinion and it should be made clear that it is their opinion. It's not Wikipedia's role to state something like this as fact. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC) @Giants2008, this is WP:LTA/GRP. No need to feed the troll. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)