Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Removal of "Greatest play of all time" acclimation from intro?

Anyone care to explain to me the rationale behind why this was done? I see it's not a site wide move (articles for Kobe, MJ, etc still feature it). It is a well-sourced assertion, and generally regarded as common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC) BROBAFETT (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing, that's why I reverted the original removal, just to get reverted back by the person who had removed it. I think it should be included, as it's also included on Jordan and Kobe's articles. Jay Starz (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Any way to ensure it stays this way?? I would suggest it's someone with a bias removing it...BROBAFETT (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored mention of "greatest of all time." I don't personally agree that he is, but Wikipedia is not about editors' personal opinions on matters such as these and this is a significant aspect of his notability/legacy, which is why we also mention it in his "Legacy" section. No one else is compared to Michael Jordan (who many or most consider the greatest basketball player ever) as much as James is. We could add a WP:Hidden note in the lead about why the "greatest of all time" piece is WP:Due for the lead. This article had somehow been removed from my watchlist. Otherwise, I would have seen this dispute and commented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked it with this. Followup edits here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Divergence5, regarding this, there is absolutely no need to use the "some players and commentators" wording. He is often regarded as such. And stating "some players and commentators" is more of a WP:Weasel wording matter than "often" is. It also downplays the fact that James is commonly considered the greatest. Like I noted above, "No one else is compared to Michael Jordan (who many or most consider the greatest basketball player ever) as much as James is." It seems that since you keep coming back to focus on this part of the lead, I should add sources that explicitly state "often" or "commonly." And when I do, we should go by what those sources state. If you WP:Edit war over the matter, like you've edit warred over the content in the past, it will be a lost cause on your part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy-wise, even the word "many" would be better than "some" if sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I'm certain that a significant aspect of, or the main reason for, editors' objections to mentioning "the best" or "the greatest" ever with regard to James is that Jordan is still so widely considered the best or greatest. When I went looking for sources that specifically state that LeBron is often considered the greatest basketball player ever, I consistently encountered sources speaking of the Jordan vs. LeBron debate. The sources don't mention that LeBron is often considered the greatest without mentioning Jordan and/or touching on the Jordan vs. LeBron debate. So it seems WP:Due to mention this comparison in the lead, just like we do in the "Legacy" section. That is why I made this edit. I think that with this context in the lead, it will help counter any objections to/edit warring on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

But why is the current version stating Lebron as the greatest of all time, and not ONE of the greatest, Kobe also has the mention of one of the greatest. Currently both Jordan and Lebron are called the greatest of all time, which just does not work out. Chaosquo (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The current version states "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." That is per the sources. It does not call him the greatest and that's it. It states "often regarded" and then mentions Jordan. Is the debate consistently about Jordan vs. Kobe? No. The debate is consistently about Jordan vs. LeBron, and the sources are clear about that. And in that debate, it's usually about who is the greatest, not who is one of the greatest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This wording (followup edits here and here) might work better to stop the "But Jordan is the best" (or even "Kobe is the best") objections among editors. I'm not going to keep trying different wording, though. Eventually, editors will need to just accept what the sources state and with due weight. This isn't a "sometimes regarded as" or "sometimes compared to" matter. We see the "he is the greatest" and Jordan comparisons frequently in the media among analysts. The only "sometimes" is when analysts are sometimes relaying what fans think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

12.50.49.66 (talk)i think i can edit kareems page becse i am smrt

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.122.166 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019

Lebron james is knwon as the goat of basketball and is one of the many greats in the nba 208.100.130.27 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done: He is, but I still don't know what you want changing in the article. Sceptre (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversial stance on Daryl Morey's pro-Hong Kong tweet

The earlier edit calling him a CCP spokesman was a bit on the nose, but there should probably be a blurb (worded as neutrally as possible) about the recent controversy, in which he's implied that Morey ought to have acted differently (and published the tweet after Lebron's trip to China) with an awareness of how the CCP might sanction the NBA and harm its players, its faculty, and possibly its fans in response--while simultaneously attempting to appear neutral by protesting that he doesn't know enough about the situation in Hong Kong to take a side on that issue.

He's probably been pressured into this position by his organization, but its still a shameful display.

It may also in the interest of Wikipedia itself to avoid the appearance of kowtowing to China by protecting LeBron. Quequotion (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We need to add in he is a communist within the first 3 sentences too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.233.47 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about it under the Public Image section. JohnnyH2000 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Should include the meme where LeBron is now the Chairman of the NBA and also mention the pun #LeBronShames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.218.7.108 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing Michael Jordan from Lebron's introduction - phrasing of sentence for GOAT

Does Christiano Ronaldo belong in an encyclopedia introduction describing Leo Messi? I do not think so. Similarly, I think Jordan and Lebron have their own encyclopedia articles, so I do not think that Michael Jordan belongs in an introduction for an encyclopedia describing Lebron James.

Jordan should be removed from this introduction for an encyclopedia article on lebron james and a slight alternative phrasing could be said for this sentence. Of course many people such as most notably Shannon Sharpe and Skip Bayless have opinions on the whole GOAT opinionated thing. I am not commenting or offering my opinion on the whole goat argument by suggesting that Jordan does not belong in an encyclopedia intro on lebron. Jordan just has nothing to do with Lebron's life in the same way Messi has nothing to do with Ronaldo's life and should be removed from an encyclopedia article introduction on a different athlete. One idea is, Often "considered" for the title Greatest of All Time for the title. Have any other ideas for improvements about how this GOAT sentence can have improved phrasing? Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also check out Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Tom Brady as they have this in their wiki intro too.Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikecurry1, to repeat what I stated on your talk page, regarding this and this, it's been discussed before: Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Removal of "Greatest play of all time" acclimation from intro?. Read what is stated there. I came to that discussion by BROBAFETT and Jay Starz late. I soon tried wording that was different than "regarded by [...] as the greatest player of all time." The current wording is after having tried different wordings and having settled on the "comparison" wording as a compromise for those who take issue with simply noting that LeBron is often considered the greatest. To these editors or readers, mentioning that James is often considered the greatest is like dethroning Jordan. To them, we can't have Jordan's article state that the NBA calls him the greatest and then have the James article call James the greatest. But like I noted when reverting you, "As an encyclopedia, we stick to what the reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight." Your "Often compared for the title of the greatest of all time" wording made no sense. Compared for what? To who? If going with the "compared to" wording, we aren't going to censor that it's Jordan he's often compared to. Whether one likes it or not, this is part of his legacy, which is why it's covered in the "Legacy" section of his article. And, yes, per WP:Lead, it also belongs in the lead of his article.

Given that you stuck with "comparison" wording, the wording you chose was vague and poor. That was my point on that, other than the fact that it is encyclopedic/WP:Due to mention the comparison in the lead. When we try to use "James is often considered the greatest" wording by itself, we get some editors coming along and changing the text to "one of the greatest" or "considered the greatest by some", which downplays the matter per my arguments seen at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Removal of "Greatest play of all time" acclimation from intro?. It is not simply a "one of the greatest" or "by some" matter. James is routinely called "the greatest basketball player ever." All of this is why I recently stated, "I might have to start an RfC on this and propose different wordings. That editors keep taking issue with something that is widely stated/reported is an issue. Wikipedia cares not about your personal opinion." I meant "your" in a general sense, to refer to any Wikipedia editor wanting to go by their personal opinions/feelings rather than WP:Due weight. This might be a case where we need to go with similar wording used at the Stephen Curry article. In that article, we state "Many players and analysts have called him the greatest shooter in NBA history." But in the case of that article, the very first source states "many," which exempts the "many" text from being WP:Weasel wording. Also, Curry's case is different because there is no consistent "Curry vs. [so and so]" debate when it comes to the greatest shooter. At this point in time, Curry is generally accepted as the the greatest shooter in NBA history. We shouldn't state "many consider LeBron the greatest" without a reliable source stating that. And we shouldn't state "some" (with or without a source) because that is downplaying the fact that he is routinely called the greatest; stating "some" is not appropriately adhering to WP:Due. You have mentioned other cases, but do see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What matters is what is best for this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Before the current wording in the lead, I tried the following: "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." But I take it that you don't like this either, Mikecurry1? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, Those are really good points. I actually like that alterantive wording you just proposed. I am not as familiar as you on the whole back history of the GOAT wiki argument and its history. I was noticing that there is a lot of talk about this on wikipedia, as I noticed Bagumba commented on the Tom Brady goat discussions and may have thoughts on this too. I know Bagumba thought this could maybe be updated too and may have an opinon. In all the other wiki articles, such as Pele, Tom Brady, Ronaldo, Messi, they do not mention other athletes in their encyclopedia intro's. Perhaps, there is another way to say it here, such as greatest of the era, or greatest forward of all time? I am not familiar with the whole history of this, so maybe you would know better of other good alternatives or ideas on how to mention this. Yes, I agree with you that you should propose different wordings, which would be quite helpful. I do prefer what you just wrote by far, as the primary subject of the intro then is lebron rather than jordan, and think that would be a big improvement over the current wording. You can update the sentence to this alternative wording in my opinion. Mikecurry1 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikecurry1, thanks. Stating "greatest of the era" or "greatest forward of all time" isn't what sources routinely state, though. As is clear by this and this source I used for the lead, that isn't what James is routinely called. The debate isn't about either of those things. As for what I stated above so far and using the "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." wording again, I'll wait and see what others state. If it looks like a WP:RfC should be started, I'll then start one. It will give a brief background on the matter and propose different wordings. No need to ping me, by the way, since this article is on my watchlist. If you'd rather not be pinged, let me know. In the meantime, I will leave a post about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association and a few other WikiProjects (a few from the list at the top of this talk page) for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, that wording would be an improvement for sure as Lebron becomes the primary subject of the sentence rather than Jordan in his own intro.Mikecurry1 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikecurry1, regarding this? Like I noted above, I used that wording before. Someone objected. And someone will object again. I noted that I would start an RfC. I've been busy with other matters on Wikipedia. But when that piece is tampered with again, I will likely start that RfC.

As for this? I disagree with adding his nickname to the lead. If it was as prominent as "Air Jordan", I would agree that it should be there. But it's not. I don't see that it should be in the lead any more than Kobe Bryant's nickname should be in the lead of his article. Also, the pronunciation piece should probably remain in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good! Yeah, I was just incorporating thes sentence as it was 10 days and there were no additional comments at the time. I thought you had a good sentence. If someone objects further to the sentence an RfC seems does like a good idea too for that sentence. Clearly Skip Bayless would object, but that is besides the point, haha.

Regarding the nickname, thats fine. Some basketball players, have nicknames on their wikipages, Lebron's is not needed here.

Good suggestion overall, I was quite satisfied too. Best Mikecurry1 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

GOAT debate

I would just like to raise one question: why does the following sentence "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." have only 2 sources stating the personal preference of only 2 people? Words like often and frequent should require more than 2 sources Paulinho28 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Because those two sources are sufficient, as they explicitly mention that James is one of the two basketball players in the longstanding "greatest of all time" debate. The other basketball player is obviously Jordan. Those sources are not giving their personal opinion when noting the fact that the debate has been about Jordan vs. LeBron for a number of years now. There is no need for citation overkill; see WP:Citation overkill. Three sources are used for this line in the Legacy section, and more sources commenting on the matter are in that section. If we go the citation overkill route, in which case we should employ WP:CITEBUNDLE (like the Mariah Carey article does for disputes regarding her birth date), where do we draw the line? Exactly how many sources do we add? Six? More than six? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)::

I believe there should be 4 or 5 sources, which should in turn be like a sort of collection of peers stating their preference between LeBron and Jordan, like the articles detailing celebrities reactions when another celebrity dies, so readers can clearly identify which of the two appears more frequently. Paulinho28 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should add sources where the authors are commenting on their preference, or at least not sources that are about that. I mean, we don't need sources that are more so about why an author considers Jordan the best or LeBron the best. For the "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." line, the sources should be focused on the fact that LeBron has often been regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time and/or the debate about that. Per WP:Synthesis, we want to avoid synthesis. I'll consider adding a bundle of citations so that there are six. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As for a "collection of peers stating their preference between LeBron and Jordan," that's fine as long as the sources are focused on the "often considered the greatest" and/or "frequently compared to Michael Jordan" aspect. I'll look for those as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The debate as to why Lebrron James could be the GOAT dwindles year by year. Practically no one under the age of 30 who actually saw Jordan play just one game in their life for someone other than the Washington Wizards believes it. It's nothing more than fandamonium and it isn't held on merit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of credible sources, a he said she said debate that launches Lebron James to the pinnacle of your Mt. Rushmore should not even remotely be in this article and the claim doesn't add up purely on the stats sheet alone. --2001:8003:7CE4:4F00:A8BC:35A5:C2AF:2CE9 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dwindles year by year? Basketball analysts compare them every single year. So do basketball players. And anyway, Wikipedia goes by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Not the opinions of Wikipedia's editors or its readers. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The conversation as to why he could even be remotely considered the GOAT on accolades or the stat sheet dwindles year by year. It's not a matter of my personal views, it's a matter of what happens on the courts based on statistics and evidence... Having it at all in the lead is a he said she said type of question that just represents the myopia of Lebron James fans... A player that has gone completely AWOL in the post season, who has never won three in a row, who despite his size can't win defensive player of the year in a weak era of NBA defense, a player whose stats padding still can't get him anywhere near Michael Jordan can never be in a serious consideration for the GOAT and at this point his fans and pundits are utterly delusional. Let it go, it's not a relevant discussion to even have on Wikipedia and should not be in the article. --2001:8003:7CE4:4F00:A8BC:35A5:C2AF:2CE9 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Log in. And if you do, remember WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not about being a forum, it's about not spreading useless information from people who could otherwise be claimed to be delusional based on the weight of evidence. A bit like climate change skeptics really. --2001:8003:7CE4:4F00:A8BC:35A5:C2AF:2CE9 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why LeBron's height has been changed to 6'9?

It makes no sense it should be at 6'8, he was listed as such for more than a decade and his official height from draft measurements with out shoes is 6'7.25, so much closer to 6'8 than 6'9, also Kevin Love height is now listed at 6'8, how can he be shorter than LeBron?, every picture of kevin love with lebron side by side he is always 1 inch taller, so Kevin Love's height always needs to be listed 1 inch more than LeBron's. I ask for their height to be changed, Kevin Love to 6'9 and LeBron to 6'8. Matan489 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Matan489: The infobox displays "listed", and 6'9" is what NBA.com lists him as (WP:NBAHEIGHT). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Status as "greatest ever"

Alright, I stumbled upon this page recently and noticed an error

On the legacy section of this article it is mentioned that LeBron has been ranked 2-5 in the past few seasons which is both true (he was ranked 2-5 in all of those publications) and fair (a very strong case can be made that he's a top 2-5 player ever) but the initial paragraph implies that he'a often considered to be the greatest ever? I don't know about that

Anytime these polls come up Jordan clearly has had an edge, sometimes (such as polls conducted last year) LeBron wasn't even close to Jordan. There are members of the media that bring it up but they not only do so Bballhoops84 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

To generate buzz/clicks but are often mocked for even suggesting that LeBron is in the discussion with Jordan

I would not put too much stock on media members or kids too young to have watched (or disregard) 20th century basketball, vast majority still see Jordan as the greatest

A few years back the wording went something along the lines of "regarded as one of the greatest ever with some calling him the greatest" which is a little more accurate while he's still an active player and while people (usually younger individuals" are being prisoner of the moment, but he's definitely not "often" regarded as the greatest ever. That's misleading

Bballhoops84 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope that you are not this IP. Regardless, I stand by what I stated before, and will again ignore the "but he's not the greatest because I said so" rantings. We are not going to go by your personal beliefs, including your view of the stats. That goes for anyone arguing "but he's not the greatest." We are going to go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight; that is how Wikipedia works. And various reliable sources make it clear that the debate regarding who is the greatest basketball player ever concerns Jordan and James, which is why James is often (yes, often) considered the greatest. We all know that Jordan is commonly considered the greatest, but James's name comes up as the greatest often enough among basketball analysts and players/in reliable sources that we report on that. We are not going to exclude this aspect from his Wikipedia article, including in the lead. We are not going to misrepresent the matter "as one of the greatest" when the sources are explicitly about "the greatest -- Jordan or James."

Expect a section like this to be archived sooner than later each and every time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. What F22 says. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to change the sentence because it literally frames Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time or inherently greater than LeBron James himself, therefore it erases that status. How can we make this make more sense? ⌚️ (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Like so many others, the NBA essentially calls Jordan the greatest basketball player ever. Jordan's Wikipedia article relays, "His biography on the official NBA website states: 'By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.'" The NBA doesn't state "arguably." It outright states that he is "by acclamation." The Jordan vs. LeBron debate is usually about whether or not James has surpassed Jordan. It isn't usually about them both being equally on the same level. So, of course, if Jordan is still considered the greatest by the NBA and by more NBA analysts than James is, stating, "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." makes sense. That statement isn't even telling people that Jordan is the greatest; it's letting them know that these two are considered the greatest. With regard to your comment, I don't see that it needs changing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The way it reads is that “James is the greatest but not as great as Jordan”. It’s just awkward. ⌚️ (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, "The Jordan vs. LeBron debate is usually about whether or not James has surpassed Jordan. It isn't usually about them both being equally on the same level." I don't know what else to state other than what I stated above. If anyone interprets the piece in the way you have interpreted it, then what they are seeing is something that is reflective of the general literature on the matter. But, as shown by previous discussions, editors before you haven't interpreted the wording in that way; they've interpreted it as us putting James on the same level as Jordan because the text states that James is often considered the greatest while Jordan's Wikipedia article has a statement from the NBA calling Jordan the greatest. No matter how one looks at it, going by the NBA and the vast majority of other reliable sources on this matter, Jordan is still the standard. So if anyone else reads the text as "James is the greatest but not as great as Jordan", it's staying true to the literature with WP:Due weight. We shouldn't have the text come across as though it's consensus that Jordan and James are on the same level; the literature debates who is the greatest, but it's also always about comparing James to Jordan because Jordan is considered the standard. Different wording has been tried. There isn't any wording on this matter that is going to please everyone.

Roxy the dog, do you agree with my latest commentary as well? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought that was inherant in everything I write. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ktmartell: I saw that you recently changed the body to say (markup reflects your changes) "He is often has been mentioned as the greatest player of all-time." However, related to this thread, the lead paragraph uses "is often". I'm not stating a preference for either, but the lead and body should be in sync. Perhaps you can offer your insight on this issue. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

With this edit (follow up note here), I restored "often", added bundled references (WP:CITEBUNDLE) per Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#GOAT debate regarding the Lebron vs. Jordan debate, and added a bit of additional material on the matter. Polls on the matter have noted a pattern of older people more often choosing Jordan as the greatest and younger people more often choosing James, but, as shown by the Business Insider poll, the "responses from Jordan voters [are also] fairly even across the board." Anyway, "has been mentioned" isn't as accurate; the "James is the greatest" declaration isn't a one-time thing. As the sources I added show, it's a consistent thing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey everyone. My apologies if I violated any community standards (that was not my intent). If we've decided that "often" is the way to go, then I will abide. With that said, I do have my own two cents on the matter, which I will respectfully share here. In my opinion, it is more accurate to say that James "has been ranked as the GOAT" or "is often included in the GOAT debate" (but worded better) than it is to say that James "is often considered the GOAT". My rationale is as follows: [1] As far as I am aware, no legitimate sports publication has ever listed James as the GOAT, and [2] fan or player-based polls only rank him as the GOAT about 10% of the time. Based on this, I feel as though it smells a bit funny to say that James is "often considered the GOAT". To me, only being regarded as the GOAT 10% of the time feels like more of a "sometimes". In conclusion, I think that it makes the most sense to say something along the lines of "James is widely considered as one of the greatest players of all-time. His status as the greatest player of all-time is often debated, but he is usually ranked second behind Michael Jordan." One thing I will say is that, whatever we decide, there should probably not be a full paragraph breaking down polling numbers and voting results and demographics. Basically every poll shows the exact same result. We can probably get away with a sentence or two.--Ktmartell (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ktmartell, the sources I listed are clear that the LeBron vs. Jordan debate is one of the fieriest/biggest debates within the NBA community, both among NBA analysts and fans (including coaches). And that's just six sources. There are many more than that, all stating similarly. These sources are clear that the "greatest of all time" debate mainly centers on Jordan and LeBron, not others. This debate happens often and every year. So to state "is often included in the GOAT debate", with no mention of Jordan, makes it seem like others who aren't Jordan are considered the greatest of all time as much as James is. They aren't. And making it seem like James is just another player in the debate downplays the frequency with which he is compared to Jordan/that it's Jordan and James who are usually debated as the greatest. And, like you stated, and polls I included show, Jordan wins when a poll is conducted on this matter. That he wins is no surprise since he is considered the standard -- the ideal that James must surpass. And I've addressed why "has been", as though it's a one-time thing, is not as accurate. So, for the lead, I think it's best to continue to state "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." I don't think your suggested wording should go in the lead; I think one sentence in the lead on the matter suffices. By "no legitimate sports publication has ever listed James as the GOAT," I take it that you mean official listings in publications ("greatest of all time" lists by them) since individual authors of sports publications have deemed James the greatest without placing him on a list. News and/or other media publications have also often weighed in on this, with some calling James the greatest (as a simple Google search shows). Sports publications aren't the only sources to consider. And just to add to what I'm talking about either way, even this 2019 "Bleacher Report's All-Time Player Rankings: NBA's Top 50 Revealed" source you added, which lists James second...after Jordan, states, "Rings shouldn't be the only factor in this debate. But when it's this close, stacking the 6-0 Finals record up against 3-6 is a fair tiebreaker. And by the way, calling this 'close' is probably an undersell. After examining every catch-all metric and basic number imaginable from the regular season, playoffs and 10-year peaks, it's almost impossible to find any real space between these two." For the lead, I did try the wording "Often compared to Michael Jordan for the title of the greatest basketball player of all time", but that received an objection. Looking at all of Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5, it's clear that there isn't wording for the lead that is going to satisfy everyone, but downplaying the matter or not mentioning it in the lead at all is not the way to go. At some point, as part of a compromise for wording in the lead, it might be best to go with your suggested wording, but I suspect that someone will also come along and object to that.

As for using your wording in the Legacy section, and removing the poll material I added there, I can agree to most of that if "usually ranked second behind Michael Jordan" is sourced. Even without "usually ranked second behind Michael Jordan", we can tweak the section in a different way. I think that the "James is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players ever." paragraph should remain its own paragraph, and that the "He is often considered the greatest player of all-time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." part should be moved out of that paragraph to the third paragraph (but conveyed differently; it doesn't have to match the lead exactly). I think that the generational gap material should definitely remain; it's significant, non-trivial information. So I think that, for the third paragraph of the Legacy section, we should state: "James's status has often been subject to 'greatest of all-time' discussions, which have resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan. In February 2018, Bill Simmons' website, The Ringer, spent an entire week devoted to both players, with Simmons ultimately concluding that Jordan was still ahead. NBA coach Steve Kerr posited that James and Jordan are the two best players in history. Joe Posnanski of NBC Sports stated, 'Both sides — the MJ fans and the LeBron fans — feel pretty sure that their man is supreme. But I suspect Jordan fans believe it more.' In polls, James has ranked second behind Jordan. The results strongly correlate with age, with older voters more commonly choosing Jordan. Davis et al. of Business Insider stated, "The data would suggest that younger, more-engaged NBA fans lean toward James, as he's still playing. Older generations who watched Jordan play and tune in less today lean toward Jordan." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that I am trying to make two main points: [1] LeBron is not considered the greatest of all-time by the majority of voters. We just need to avoid giving people the impression that he is. However we want to do that, cool. [2] I feel more strongly about this - I do not think that the Legacy section needs a wall of text about polling data (even though I genuinely appreciate the significant effort that went into it). I don't even think it needs a third paragraph. If there is no objection, would you mind if I tried condensing into two paragraphs, and then if it just doesn't work, edit or revert as necessary?--Ktmartell (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The text did not make it seem that he is "considered the greatest of all-time by the majority of voters." The text in the lead stated, "He is often regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan." This was repeated in the Legacy section. And it is an accurate statement per the sources I listed, and many more. When James is called the greatest, or debated as the greatest, by NBA analysts and others several times a year every year, that is not a "sometimes" matter. The LeBron vs. Jordan debate being one of the fieriest/biggest debates within the NBA community, both among NBA analysts and fans (including coaches), as made clear by sources I listed (and many more), would not be what it is if this were a "sometimes" matter. That stated, I altered the lead to make it clear that the matter is significantly debated. I was tempted to use your wording of "His status as the greatest player of all-time is often debated", but such wording automatically relays that James's status is "the greatest player"...even though it goes on to mention "debated." I see no need to mention polling in the lead. I'm hoping that this new wording will quell debates about how to relay the "greatest of all time/frequently compared to Jordan" matter in the lead. Like I stated, there is no wording that is going to please everyone (even though I've been trying to come close to that for months). My focus on this matter is adequately relaying it with WP:Due weight. We should be keeping our personal bias out of it.

The Legacy section was explicitly clear that James significantly lags behind Jordan with regard to polls. That doesn't make it any less true that he is often called the greatest; it is even seen just by watching an NBA season or NBA analysts on sports television. As for the third paragraph, I went ahead and somewhat implemented my suggested setup (followup fix here). It's "somewhat" because I removed the Kerr piece, replaced it with a statement from ClutchPoints and moved that to come after the first sentence for flow. I also cut the Joe Posnanski quote even though it specifically comments on fans, and I added a bit more and slightly rearranged text. For wording, you suggested, "[James's] status as the greatest player of all-time is often debated, but he is usually ranked second behind Michael Jordan." My implemented wording relays the same thing, but differently because I feel that it's important to directly mention that he is frequently compared to Jordan, and important to mention the generational gap aspect. You stated that we can probably get away with a sentence or two on the polling matter. With the cutting, I've given it three. There was already a third paragraph before I created one. It's just that it was a single-sentence paragraph, which should usually be avoided per MOS:Paragraphs.

I don't see that we should limit the section to just two paragraphs. I think that it makes more sense to have a paragraph about him being considered one of the greatest, with the ranking material there, and one paragraph devoted his status as the greatest/comparisons to Jordan because of its prominence in the NBA literature. There are many articles and a number of books (as seen on Google Books) on "Lebron vs. Jordan"...with extensive analysis. And we aren't even going to give this aspect its own paragraph? I disagree with that. A third paragraph for that is WP:Due, certainly more due than a paragraph devoted to several rankings over the years. In fact, I think it's far more educational for readers to see that Business Insider breakdown poll of 1,082 American adults than to see James's ranking over the years, but I cut it anyway. Hopefully, readers will click on the sources for more detail. So as a compromise, can you be fine with the current wording/setup I implemented? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably just being thick at this point, but something still feels a bit off to me. In my opinion, we have sentences upon sentences of data, information, and quotes that all say the exact same thing: Jordan and LeBron are compared a lot but Jordan wins out 90% of the time. I think that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish with far fewer words. But I also don't feel like debating it much longer - I gave my two cents and I'll let others have the final say. Maybe someone else can swoop in and provide a tie breaker. Thanks to everyone for your research and passion on the topic. I'm sure that either way the article will be better for it.--Ktmartell (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel that way. That final paragraph lets us know that James has often been discussed within the context of being the greatest basketball player of all time, which has resulted in frequent comparisons to Michael Jordan. It then lets us know that Jordan and James are universally recognized as the two greatest basketball players of all-time. It then lets us know that James acknowledged that his motivation was surpassing Jordan as the greatest. It then tells us that Bill Simmons' website, The Ringer, spent an entire week devoted to both players, with Simmons ultimately concluding that Jordan was still ahead. I wouldn't mind removing this piece as unnecessary. The paragraph also lets us know that James has ranked second behind Jordan in polls. It then tells us that the results strongly correlate with age, with older voters more commonly choosing Jordan. The Business Insider quote provides insight into that. And the final sentence quotes an author providing us insight into why James has not surpassed Jordan in the eyes of most people, stating, "The margin for error where Jordan is involved is overwhelmingly slim. In the rings-obsessed basketball discourse, Jordan's 6-3 advantage and unblemished Finals record holds significant weight." This is similar to the aforementioned 2019 "Bleacher Report's All-Time Player Rankings: NBA's Top 50 Revealed" source stating, "Rings shouldn't be the only factor in this debate. But when it's this close, stacking the 6-0 Finals record up against 3-6 is a fair tiebreaker." These are all different points in the paragraph. Important points. And with the exception of the Bill Simmons piece as slightly redundant, I don't at all see how the paragraph is redundant. That stated, I also don't want to keep debating this. And I do think that your input led to me improving the lead (in the context of hopefully quelling debates about how to relay the "greatest of all time/frequently compared to Jordan" matter) and further improving the Legacy section. So I thank you for that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I think the new paragraph looks good. Because of some of the movement though, the second paragraph probably needs a bit of a touch up. I can get to that at some point. Looking forward, I can envision another paragraph (maybe) about his impact on player empowerment, and then the section should probably be done for the foreseeable future, IMO.--Ktmartell (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am interested to see what you come up with. No rush, of course. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

41.104.255.172 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Add that his nickname is "King James" and he embraces this nickname (it's his instagram handle). Preferably with a link to the origin of this name, though I can't find a definitive source. Jefeljefe (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Affect to effect

"On several occasions, he mentioned a feeling of obligation to affect change using his status."

I believe affect should be changed to effect in this context. 73.82.198.221 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Ktmartell (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Having "the youngest player in league history to reach 30,000 career points" material in the lead

Hkliinfinityon9, regarding this? Why do you feel that it belongs in the lead? There are many milestones by players such as James, but we don't include all of that in the lead. I don't see why this is WP:Lead material, especially the Kobe Bryant mention. Mention of Bryant is certainly not needed there at all. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The article in general is getting a bit bloated. I just removed a sentence that was all by itself and said, "James likes to refer to himself in the third person."--Ktmartell (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Finals results table

FYI

There is a discussion related to this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Finals_results_table_in_player_bios regarding a table of Finals' results.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Changing listed position to include point guard

He’s been the Lakers starting point guard for all of this season. Should we should change his listed position to reflect that? B.Shreve (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the Lakers list him as a forward,[1] and other websites are not consistent about how much PG he plays (and he almost never guards PGs)[2]—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Decision

@Bzweebl: Your change seems to incorrectly state that the controversy is on the show itself, and not on the actual decision that was made. You made the comment that this was not reflected in the body. Perhaps the wording in the body needs improving. Note that at this point, his decision to change teams as well as the show itself are synonymously referred to as The Decision. Perhaps that is part of the confusion. Can you discuss your concerns here? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bzweebl, regarding this and this? Like I stated here, let's discuss this on the talk page and come up with some wording for it. It is quite clear from the section in the article about this that it's not only the show that was controversial. The show was just the vehicle for a topic that became controversial. We can reword the piece in the lead if needed, but it can surely be supported lower in the section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Here all the sourced sentences from the body that describe the controversy:

• "Many thought that the prolonged wait for James's choice was unprofessional as not even the teams courting him were aware of his decision until moments before the show."

• "Former NBA players, including Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson, were also critical of James, condemning him for joining with Bosh and Wade in Miami and not trying to win a championship as 'the man.'"

• "James drew further criticism in a September interview with CNN when he claimed that race might have been a factor in the fallout from The Decision."

• "As a result of his actions during the 2010 free agency period, he quickly gained a reputation as one of America's most disliked athletes, which was a radical change from prior years."

• "The phrase 'taking my talents to South Beach' became a punch line for critics."

1, 3, and 5 are clearly describing the television special. 2 is referring to the actual signing. 4 is ambiguous and may be referring to both. This evidence does not support Bagumba's claim that "the free agent decision was more controversial than the show." I stand by my suggested revision to the lede since it is more concise and better reflects this evidence. As someone who was closely following the lead-up and aftermath of The Decision, I think the body of the article is correct to suggest that most of the controversy was due to the television special, so I don't think that's the part that needs to be rewritten. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

One could argue that the show itself was as controversial, but the contention over the decision itself should not be removed from the lead either. Some examples about the move iteself for context:

• "Let’s be honest, no one was mad about "The Decision" until LeBron James didn’t say what they wanted him to" (SI)
• "And I think what LeBron did which shocked everybody was he recognized something, which is that talent, not team owners or GMs, drive the value of the NBA product and kind of asked rhetorically through this, you know, admittedly kind of gratuitous program - why shouldn't the players who provide that value determine the balance of power in the league? And if that means teaming up with friends around the league, other players you want to play with, irrespective of what the power brokers think, why not do it?" (NPR)
• "As unhappy as people were with the destination, just as much of the criticism was based on the method he used to announce it." (CBS Sports)

A possible reworded lead could be the addition of panned: "This move was announced in a panned ESPN special titled The Decision, and is one of the most controversial free agent decisions in American sports history."—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Because of discussions had at WP:Film and MOS:Film, I'm not for "panned." Let's go with "The move was announced in an ESPN special titled The Decision, which received generally negative reviews. It is one of the most controversial free agent decisions in American sports history." Or something like that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with other wording as long as we criticize the decision to move too. Less preferably, remove the "controversial" part altogether from the lead and leave the reaction for the body.—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The wording I proposed is essentially what you proposed. It's just that I didn't use the word panned...and I split the content into two sentences. Since we have a whole section on the matter and the matter (both the decision and show) was indeed controversial, I don't think we should remove that aspect from the lead. The current lead text regarding this topic lead aligns with WP:Lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the show or decision was more heavily criticized, as it currently stands it receives undue weight in the lede and should be consolidated down to one sentence, which is what I was trying to do. Even some of his championships don’t receive full sentences in the lede, let alone two. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Lead states, in part, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The move is one of the most important points, which is why we have a section on it. And it is clearly a prominent controversy. So mentioning it in the lead is entirely due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the current lead piece is one sentence: "This move was announced in an ESPN special titled The Decision, and is one of the most controversial free agent decisions in American sports history." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention it in the lede. And the sentence before the one you quote is “After failing to win a championship with Cleveland, James left in 2010 to sign as a free agent with Miami.” That makes two sentences, which is undue and could easily be consolidated into one sentence. As currently written it suggests that only the act of leaving Cleveland was controversial, which is not accurate or supported by the body of the article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered if you meant that sentence as well. But that sentence is for important information and context, and it isn't even about the controversy. It's just letting readers know that James left Cleveland in 2010 to sign as a free agent with Miami after he failed to win a championship with Cleveland. There is no need to try to combine all of this (meaning the controversy aspect as well) into one sentence. And given the attention this matter received, it makes sense that it would have two to three sentences in the lead. But as for the actual controversial part? It currently only has one sentence devoted to it. And as for "it suggests that only the act of leaving Cleveland was controversial, which is not accurate or supported by the body of the article"? Baguma already supplied sources above and suggested new wording for the lead. I also suggested new wording for the lead. Both proposals note that the show was not well-received. I think you should consider compromising. We can also ask for opinions at WP:NBA and/or WP:Basketball. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect stats listed for 2020 playoffs

https://stats.nba.com/player/2544/

The stats listed for the 2020 playoffs are not correct. His FG% should be changed to .560, his 3P% to .370, and his FT% to .720. His blocks need to also be changed to 0.9 and not 0.8. It's listed on the official NBA website so it's beyond me how someone could get this wrong. Alexliwiththe3 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

Lebron has 4 rings and 4FMVPS 199.30.72.63 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: By the time NotTheFakeJTP responded to the above, the game was already over and the article had been updated accordingly. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

Hi, I want to edit the career stat of Lebron becaose he break Darek Fisher record for most playoff games play. So I want to change the background-color for #EOCEF2 because it is a nba record. DonCorleone555 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is quite garbled, please attempt to be more clear in what you want changed. Background-color a parameter that specifies the color used. If you think the wrong color is used as background for specific text, please say what text that color applies to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Change television credits to include "The Cleveland Show" (2011) Season 2, Episode 13: "A Short Story and a Tall Tale" in which he voices himself. A page verifying this information is located at: https://cleveland.fandom.com/wiki/LeBron_James 2600:1005:B02E:907:C059:8B65:1B79:1D82 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

i have an update on his stat sheet and more of his awards and what he thinks about racism Cratefn (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

LeBron James Sr. was born in Noble Oklahoma not Akron Ohio Bhodges00 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)