Talk:Wayne Gretzky/Greatest or One Of the Greatest 1

Mario Lemieux

I take exception with the notion that Gretzky is the "greatest player of all time". Simply not true. While no one can deny his playmaking and scoring ability, Mario Lemuiex is far and away better. Gretzky is simply too one demensional to be considered the greatest. Bobby Orr or Gordie Howe were the two greatest of all time, because they were complete players. I'd go so far as to say that Gretky doesn't even make the Top 5 all time. Just my two bits. vudu 19:12, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Exactly, and in order to remain NPOV and include views such as yours, we did not say "Gretzky is the greatest player of all time" but "Gretzky is considered by most to be the best hockey player of all time". You can't deny that this is a fact, and that's the idea here: facts.

Basil Fawlty 23:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

While I didn't make the change, I think a better NPOV would have been: "Gretzky is considered one of the greatest players of all time". While the fact is that most do consider him to be the greatest, it is also a fact that most of those people never had the honor of watching Howe or Orr, simply because they are recent converts to the game. Sadly, Gretzky's reputation preceded him when it comes to most fans, they were told by others that they were watching the greatest and therefore believed it. When the chips are down in a big game, he wouldn't even make my line up (too much of a defensive liability). Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. =-) vudu 00:32, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm interested in the caveat that's been added about the first quote ("Don't go where the puck is; go where the puck is going"), attributed to Walter Gretzky, i.e., "the elder Gretzky has claimed he never said this". I have seen film of Walter Gretzky on ESPN Classic describing how he told his son this and demonstrated it to him. Maybe Walter has had more than one story through the years, but I'm curious to know when he denied being the source of the quote.

Rdikeman 00:56, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've cited one source of the above mentioned quote.

Rdikeman 14:19, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I received an email response to my request above from User:Worc63 who said he has "neither the time nor the inclination" to document his source for the claim referred to above. He also asked me how to "cancel his membership" since he had "wasted enough time here already."

Rdikeman 13:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is the quote? "Don't go where the puck is; go where the puck is going" or Skate "to where the puck is going, not where it's been."  ??? I heard it as the first, and that makes much more sense. Tense is important. Great quote, and along with his 100% of shots quote, very applicable to life.

The quote has been repeated many times in many different forms. The version I included in the article is from the book, "Gretzky," as cited.

Rdikeman 17:29, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism and One Of

The user formerly known as Worc63, mentioned above, has apparently returned to "waste some more of his time" re-adding the same irrelevant and undermining digs to the article that he did under his username a few weeks ago. Now, however, he is doing it without logging in. I reverted the article today to the last version before his latest series of edits. In response to some questions and suggestions about his earlier edits, he started cursing at sysops, sending insulting emails to people who edited his work, and refusing to correspond rationally via any of the established methods. Does anyone else see this guy as a problem that needs to be dealt with? Maybe this is a small matter compared to other weightier topics, but it's been my only bad Wiki experience.

Rdikeman 17:43, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

"Considered by many to be the greatest Canadian player", please.

I beg to disagree even with the statement "considered by most the greatest...". Let's see. 30 mil Canadians or so, plus about 20 mil Americans who know what hockey means, say 5 mil people in Western Europe. Say 60 mil. I am counting infants and all of that for simplicity. 140 mil Russians+about 20 mil Ukrainians who care+10 mil Belorusian, which makes about 170 mil. That number would be probably split between Kharlamov, Mihailov i Tretyak. Probably something like 50%-20%-30%. Than 15 mil of Czechs and Slovaks would go with Hashek, but that's too little to count.

So in my "estimate" Kharlamov's claim to greatness would be backed up by 85 mil votes.

The intro has to say the "greatest Canadian player". Gaidash

In international play, Gretzky has come out on top virtually every time against the best players from around the world. I have travelled around parts of Eastern Europe, and being Canadian, people i meet love to talk hockey. I never push my views (being in a foreign country), but they all want to talk about "Gretzky" the greatest player. The fact that "Gretzky" as a name is clearly from Eastern Europe, Eastern Europeans seem to have no problem labelling him as the greatest. Of course, this is coming from personal experience and I have no facts or websites to back this up. Masterhatch July 6th, 2005

I don't argue here who is better, when, where, why. I am just saying that Kharlamov would be considered the best "by most people". Whether he was, or he was not - irrelevent. Just because of simple national preferences "most Russians, Ukrainians, Belorusians" would call him "the best". Which immidiately means "by most people" since there are simply more Russians, Ukrainians and Belorusians. Full stop. Has to be changed into "Canadian" or "considered by most Canadians". Gaidash 6 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

I don't see what your gripe is. The opening paragraph simply says, "considered by many to be the best player of all time." It doesn't say most, it says many. It is fine the way it is. Masterhatch july 6th, 2005

Agreed. I was reading the begining of this talk page and there the words were "by most". I should have read the article better. "By many" is perfectly fine. Gaidash 6 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

some vs most vs many

been watching this little disagreement for a couple of days. All party's have a decent arguement to support their own case. I took my own stab at it which is as general and informative as I can think of.(without any POV I might add) Hopefully it will end all the back and forth on this. Speaking a former player(from long ago) I find it pointless to argue over who's best, who's bigger. Today's NHL is a different game from what it was 35 years ago. And it was a different game then from what it was 35 years before that. Just pick a line a go with it people. It's not that big of a deal.

experts

sorry Danny Grant, i should have been clearer. the "experts" i was referring to are the 50 experts from hockey news who voted him #1 all time, not just the past 25 years. Masterhatch 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

experts????

I have the book you're referring to and I'll ask the same question he did. Number 1 Stan Fischler was one of panel so that immediately narrows your number down to 49.(his hockey opinions are, for th most part, better left unsaid) Number 2, there were a couple of guys from the CTV SportsNet Hockey panel in there too and their hockey knowledge combined wouldn't fill a specimen cup. All those so called 'experts' said they had second thoughts about who they voted for(regardless of who it was) because they had such a hard time debating the skills of a player from 1 era against the skills of a player from another.

One magazine does NOT a deity make. If they were to vote again I expect you'd see a drastically altered Top 50 from the one in the first publcation. ~Mr Pyles

The whole point of NPOV is to keep the frothing at the mouth screaming down, and that's what we're seeing here. The obvious fact that you don't like the fairly overwhelming majority opinion amongst hockey experts and commentators on Gretzky's stature is apparent, but the fact is that they hold to that view. Without commenting on our personal views, it is a verifiable fact that the majority of hockey authorities rate Gretzky at the top. But I'll tell you what; find us verifiable, current references backing your own views up, and you might get a consensus around them. RGTraynor 12:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Pyles, are you also forgetting that he was voted as the 5th greatest athlete as well? Take note that the next "greatest" athlete that's a hockey player is sitting at the 66th spot. Masterhatch 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides which, let's take a look at some of those experts you disparage: Steve Dryden, Ernie Fitzsimmons, Eric Zweig, Roger Godin, Paul Kitchen, Bob McKenzie, Harry Sinden, Glen Sather, Karl-Eric Reif, Lou Nanne, Gordie Howe ... we're talking some of the most respected hockey men and researchers out there, and I would be deeply hesitant to call them all idiots and scoundrels because they didn't pick the fellow I wanted for the top of the poll, or imply they're unqualified because I didn't get a say in their selection. (As to that, they picked Orr #2. If they're unqualified, what does that say about Orr?) RGTraynor 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Most vs Many

The previous edit seemed to be OK? I wasn't going to argue with a guy with a Stanley Cup ring an a Calder Trophy to his credit. 'Most' still implies POV while 'many' was a more valid, and more wiki, way of wording what needed to be said. I took a quick poll of some of my employees who are spread across the country(and includes several former Major Junior stand outs, a couple of former AHL players, and 1 former NHL player) just to see who they thought was the 'greatest' Of the 68 responses I got it was split 30% to Wayne, 30% to Mario, 30% to Bobby and 10% to various other players. These aren't just couch potato coaches. The bulk of them are lifelong NHL season ticket holders in their various cities. Some going back over 40 years. It just showed that opinions do vary and sometimes in ways which we don't believe were the obvious ones. 'Many' feel Gretzky was 'one' of the greatest(as do I) 'Many' feel Mario was 'one' of the greatest(as do I) 'Many' feel Bobby was 'one' of the greatest(as do I)...and so on. My brother-in law(a former scout) thinks Bob Gainey was the best hockey he ever saw and wished he could've cloned him into a whole team.

I won't bother trying to alter your idol worship anymore. I probably won't have to. It's Wiki. Someone else will eventually change it in a way neither you or I agree with. As it should be. You don't own it...and neither do I.

Someone editted it earlier to say he was a 2 year old scoring 390 goals against 17 year olds. Which is ridiculous and I'm glad it was corrected quickly. But I'm glad I got to read it because, you have to admit it.....it was pretty funny.

Oh, of the 'experts' you listed earler, Steve Dryden's is the worst HN editor they've ever had. Bobby Mac is one of the best.(except he got a smack from Esposito from runnin' his mouth a little too much) And I've known Ernie for many many years and I know who he voted for. And it wasn't who you think it was. ~Mr Pyles

Mr. Pyles, I know where you are coming from as the 3 you mentioned as well as Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard are usually ranked as the 5 greatest players, although there is bias as very few living people has seen greats like Howie Morenz and Frank McGee. The only way their legacy lives on is through stories and statistics. However, it is quite apt to say Gretzky is believed by most people to be the greatest player of all-time. My vote is for Mario, personally, but, I can admit that Gretzky is viewed by most to be the best player of all-time.

P.S., for curiosity's sake what's your problem with The Hockey News guy Steve Dryden? Croat Canuck 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat myself: "But I'll tell you what; find us verifiable, current references backing your own views up, and you might get a consensus around them." I'm afraid that Wikipedia is still not a soapbox. RGTraynor 07:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Trulytory's post moved from top of page

Let's see:

Bobby Orr is NOT arguably the greatest Hockey Player of All-time;

yet;

Wayne Gretzky is considered by MOST to be the greatest Hockey Player of All-Time.

I find this highly inconsistent (and disingenious) on your part.

What is your proof that WG is considered by MOST (an highly inaccurate sum I might add ...) to be the Greatest ?

I will delete this POV until you provide proof TrulyTory 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are having trouble wrapping your head around this. Whether or not Orr (or Gretzky, for that matter) was the greatest player of all time is a subjective POV we can't actually say on Wikipedia. Whether Orr (or Gretzky, as to that) is considered the greatest player of all time isn't subjective at all; it is a quantifiable, verifiable fact. I'm likewise surprised you need proof of this: stop for a moment and forget that you think Orr is the greatest ever. Ask yourself, honestly ask yourself, who does the hockey world consider the greatest ever? THN's panel of fifty experts -- broadcasters, ex-players, journalists, general managers, coaches, statisticians -- picked Gretzky first. The NHL gave Gretzky honors no one else -- Orr included -- has received (has #4 been retired league-wide, for instance?). If I actually felt like doing it, I could give you citations and quotes until the cows came home. By contrast, how many verifiable, current quotes could you obtain citing Orr over Gretzky or Howe?

The funny thing is that while you toss around phrases like "wikinazi", you don't actually know my position on the subject, because as a Wikipedia editor that position is irrelevant and counterproductive. In the meantime, since you and Mr Pyles are new to Wikipedia, take a gander at the following: Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox RGTraynor 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, we bottom post here on wikipedia. Anyways, i removed the word "most" and kept out "some". While i believe that most is more accurate than some, no word seems better. What do others think? Masterhatch 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. No qualifier at all suggests that all hockey authorities regard Gretzky as the best, which of course isn't true. I'd much prefer "most" to no word at all. In any event, "most" is legitimately verifiable, and it's getting irksome that Mr Pyles and TrulyTory keep demanding proof while refusing to give any of their own. RGTraynor 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. But no less irksome than your advocacy - because that is what you are engaged in - of Gretzky over Orr. THN is a journalistic publication; their surveys are no less aboslute than any other. They are hardly a DEFINITIVE Source. TrulyTory 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

RGT: If you cannot quantify it - don't state it ! I have caught you engaging in advocacy. You must stop this. If Gretzky is considered by "most" to be the greatest, then I could claim the same for Orr. Since neither one of us can prove it, it is a POV TrulyTory 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you cannot provide any evidence to back up your assertion that most authorities consider Orr the greatest. That being said:

ESPN SportsCentury 48-man panel rated Gretzky the 5th greatest athlete of the 20th century and the greatest hockey player. (Gordie Howe ranked 21st, Bobby Orr 31st)

On Jan. 9, 1998, Gretzky is named the Greatest Hockey Player of All-Time as selected by The Hockey News.

"He's made the record book obsolete," said former Minnesota general manager Lou Nanne. "His only point of reference is himself."

"How great is Gretzky?" said committee member and Edmonton Oilers president and g.m. Glen Sather, who coached Gretzky for 10 seasons. "There aren't enough adjectives. Just look at his records and longevity."

"He's the greatest player I've ever seen," said former NHL goaltending great Glenn Hall.

"Gretzky sees a picture out there that no one else sees. It's difficult to describe because I've never seen the game he's looking at," said Boston Bruins president Harry Sinden.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman - "I think he's brought to this game a level of excellence both on and off the ice that no athlete in any other sport can match."

Mario Lemieux upon Gretzky's retirement: ""I wanted to be here. It's a very special day. I certainly have mixed emotions. I'm happy for Wayne because I think he's making the right decision. He's accomplished so much throughout his career. The other side is hockey's losing the greatest player ever."

The NHL's website touts him as the greatest ever: [1]

I'll post more later on, but in the meantime, if you'd care to come up with some current authorities who cite Orr over Gretzky, feel free. RGTraynor 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of Orr's supporters wrote their homilies prior to the Internet; nevertheless, what you provide as "evidence" is still opinion or a POV. This cannot be quantified, so do not claim it in the reference/article on WG, unless you are willing to accept that some OTHERS who saw both play, rate Orr #1 and Gretzky #2. You cannot state that he IS the greatest when your evidence is a range of opinion. Opinions are not facts - which is the whole point of my battle with you. That many people share an opinion, does not make the opinion a fact. My edits on both articles seem the fairest and most objective. TrulyTory 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The simple turn of phrase "most hockey authorities regard Gretzky as the greatest player ever" is fact. Most of them do. Why you are hellbent on insisting anyone is making an assertion beyond that I cannot figure out. Do you intend to bring any evidence of your own to the contrary to the table? RGTraynor 05:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just say that it is suggested by most that Gretzky is the best forward of all-time and that Orr is considered by most to be the best defenceman of all-time? Croat Canuck 03:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'bone of contention' is that the word 'most' implies 'FACT' which in this case(or any other 'great' sports celebrity) can never be proven. To state 'X" is considered by many to be the greatest, is a much more accurate description.(because it can be applied truthfully to more than 1 subject without being anyone POV) RGTraynor and a few others cite a few 'select' sources to back up there 'most' arguement, but it just doesn't hold any water. Example: to remove POV from the opening pragraph of the Wayne Gretzky Bio accurate...and STILL hold to the point which they're trying to get across...the line would say. In 1998, Gretzky was picked by a group of hockey experts(as selected by the Hockey News) as the greatest NHL Player of all time. Were it written tht way, it would narrow down the origin of the statement and express the 'FACT' that they're trying to get across. I, myself would not have a problem with that wording at all because the point given to to the reader is more direct. To say "considered by most hockey experts to be the greatest" is simply too ambiguous and implies 'fact' where fact cannot be proven. 50 opinions or even 100 opinions do not express the opinions of all, unless all are asked. All in this case perhaps being all sports journalists...all NHL coaches(active and retired), all international coaches(active and retired) all professional scouts(active and retired) etc etc. To gather such a panel would be impossible. But then and only then could the word 'most' be used and still be accurate. Nowhere in the Hockey Hall Of Fame bio on Gretzky, Orr, Howe or anyone else for that matter does it say 'greatest of all time' most, many, some or whatever. At least they know how to word a biography without including any bias. Sooner or later that same vein of thought will eventually make it's way here....I hope. Mr Pyles

I agree with RGTraynor, this should go to mediation before it gets any more venomous. Croat Canuck 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite Masterhatch's protestations, the fact remains that despite RGT's "evidence" he cannot claim that the term "most" is verifiably accurate. "Many" is the most appropriate term. Bring on mediation. You will find that I am correct. In order for RGT to be correct he must identify the quantifiable type and amount of "authorities" to cite, and prove that theirs is a majoirty opinion within an agreed-to list of worldwide authorities on Ice Hockey and the NHL. Good Luck though, as you will need the rest of your waking life to acomplish this - if ever you could. TrulyTory 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to TrulyTory

As for you saying your winning the battle. I don't look at it as a battle. Simply a differing opinion on the use of the words 'most' vs 'many' My whole arguement(as stated before) 50(or even 100) do not speak for all. S.I. voted Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time. Thats not a global opinion...just S.I.'s. And in this case 'most' means most of the panel selected by The Hockey News. I don't mind it going to mediation. I've made that suggestion a couple of times already. The words 'greatest of all' do not appear in any bio in the Hockey Hall of Fame. The truth of it all is that 'all' the elected members of that shrine are 'the greatest of all'. Each in their own way have built the game into the most exciting sport in the world. 50 years from now...The Hockey Hall Of Fame will still be there and the Wiki-Encyclopedia....will be a long forgotten memory. I myself find this whole concept of a public access encyclopedia a very fascinating experiment. BUT...I question everything I read and would never use it as a source if I had to argue a point...'in the real world'. Lots of people have put a lot of time into creating it. But eventually, unfortunately...it'll just disappear.

~Mr Pyles

Ridiculous

First of all, the excuse that I have heard over and over from people who say that Orr and Howe were better than Gretzky is that we never got a chance to see them play.

V-I-D-E-O. I have been a fan of hockey since 1984 and grew up watching Lemieux and Gretzky compete. I did not watch Orr and Howe live, but there are videos of them. Neither would survive in today's NHL at the level they competed in their primes. The game is much rougher and faster now, Orr would have collapsed to injury much sooner. The game is much harder to score in, Howe would not have been as prolific even playing almost 30 years like he did.

Consider also that Gretzky, a small and non-physical player proved eveyrone wrong over and over again. He was too small; but he scored more points than anyone. He was too fragile; he was a money player that could up his game when the team needed it. If you want to see the single most amazing display of hockey prowess ever recored, watch the entire 1987 Canada Cup and you will see just how amazing Wayne Gretzky really is. 21 points in 9 games against the worlds greatest goaltenders, defencemen and coaches. Ask Mark Messier, he said the same thing. In a finale that required 6 goals to win in ALL three games, points meant EVERYTHING and Gretzky delivered.

However, I also agree that when all things are considered on the ice, the best player in the NHL is Mario Lemieux. He has the most talent of any player I have seen in the NHL ever. Players will tell you the same thing. After the 1996 World Cup, when asked how he felt about the win, Chris Chelios only said: "Thank God Mario wasn't playing." Gretzky was on that team, as was the case on the 98 losing team in Nagano (Lemieux was absent again here). Since Mario's return, Canada has easily won both the Olympics and World Cup tournaments.

• Not that Lemieux didn't contribute, but can you pin the success of Team Canada on him? He wasn't as valuable a Lecavalier, Brodeur, Sakic, Smyth, Brewer, or the entire DDT line in '04. Meanwhile in '96, Canada's no-shows were a story unto themselves, and not only were they without Lemieux, but without Patrick Roy, Kariya, Bourque, MacInnis. Going in to the series with the USA team Gretzky had strained his back and Messier had a pulled groin then got the flu, and Lindros had minor injuries as well. Canada was old, with Gretz and Mess making just 2 of the 7 players over 30. And, of course, Curtis Joseph imploded. Afterwards a 35 year old Gretzky said it would take a miracle for him to still be playing in '98. And, when he got to play the Czech team in '98, Kariya and Lemieux mised the tournament, and Sakic was missing too. He wasn't even in the shootout though he had just beaten Hasek in an NHL game weeks before.

You fellows need to grow-up. Anyone who has spent time around Hockey accepts that the NHL was watered down (beyond the talent pool) all through the 1980's. WG WAS A GREAT PLAYER, but he would NOT have scored 90 goals in the 6 team league, or the 12 team league. He would not have lasted in that rougher era. TrulyTory 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's amusing you think that era was rougher, which it was not, having seen it for myself. Gretzky played his entire career in a league where every team had one-dimensional goons whose sole job was assault, which wasn't the case in the Fifties and Sixties; with just a very few exceptions (Lou Fontinato comes to mind) policemen of the era were expected to be able to put points on the board and play defense -- the spectacle of cementheads with 3 points and 300 PIM on the season is a phenomenon of the past thirty years. That aside, why do you feel the need to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as immature? RGTraynor 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No - what is amusing is the fact that someone makes an aboslute judgement because he has watched VIDEOS. That is what I what challenging here. I played high-level amateur Hockey in Canada for years, and have watched the game since the late 1960's. The 1980's and 1990's NHL had/has too many teams, and the game has suffered. There was time when a hockey player had to be able to have a range of skills to succeed in the NHL (like John Ferguson, and unlike Dave Schultz). WG was a great player, but you cannot make absolutist statements without abolute proof - which you, or anyone, cannot provide. You have a POV, and that is all. TrulyTory 16:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

if the league is so watered down, why aren't there other players putting up gretzky-like numbers? If it is so watered down, how come only Mario and Wayne are the only two players in the history of the modern NHL to average two points a game? Gretzky was so much better than everyone else that he won the scoring title on his assists alone 4 times. In an era that was offensive, gretzky still went above and beyond everyone else,and not just by a little bit. He blew away the competition. This season saw a huge number of rule changes to increase goal scoring. Even though goal scoring is up in this watered down leauge, no one is on pace to even approach gretzky's numbers. Image if there was no redline and imagine if they called every stick to the shoulder a penalty in Gretzky's era? Imagine gretzky in his prime playing with these new rules... Think about that. He might have had a hundred goals or more.

Here's another point to ponder. In Orr's era, the league was probably even more watered down that it is now. In Orr's era, there were two leagues (NHL and WHA) splitting the players and there were very few European players to fill up the rosters like there is now. By the time Gretzky came, there were more europeans in the league and there were fewer teams as the WHA had folded so one could argue that the league was even less watered down in Gretzky's era than Orr's era. One could even argue that Orr's era was even more watered down that it is now. The late 60s and 70s were a time of massive expansion in the NHL and the formation of an entire new league. In the mid 70s there were almost as many professional teams as there are now with one huge glaring difference: the european invasion hadn't happened yet. Now THAT is watered down. Masterhatch 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Waste of time, Masterhatch. The fellow persists in shrieking POV at every opportunity, while losing none to express his own subjective views. For me, I apply the Gordie Howe test, whereby the test of Howe's greatness was in the wide margins of victory he had many seasons in the scoring race over lesser players. If this guy claims Gretzky was solely the product of expansion, surely there must be Eddie Shores and Gordie Howes and Maurice Richards and Toe Blakes today who are ever so much better, and can score 300 pts a season. Where are they, please? RGTraynor 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Considered by many...

Whoever keeps deleting the comment that Gretzky is "considered by many to be the greatest hockey player ever" -- STOP. That is a NPOV statement of fact. It does not assert that Gretzky is the greatest hockey player ever, but that he is considered by many to be the greatest. That that is the case, there can be no doubt. [2][3] [4] [5] [6] So stop deleting factual statements under the pretense that they are POV. Rather, deleting such statements is POV in its suppression.-66.254.232.219 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's not deleted because it's a POV statement. It's deleted because it's redundant and makes the overall opening paragraph sound like it was written a 7th grade student. The previous sentence/ already makes a reference to his possible title as "greatest player". Repeating it in the very next sentence is just a waste of space in the article. Indeed it is a very useless waste of space. ~Mr Pyles
• As Mr Pyles said above, it's redundant. We've said that several times. Please don't add it back. Trying to call it POV or NPOV is irrelevant. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• No, it's not redundant (perhaps you should look that word up). The statement to which you refer says he is regarded as "one of the best" ever. The statement in question says the he is regarded as many as the best ever. I've provided citations, including encyclopedic citations and citations from the NHL itself, to back up that FACT (that he is considered by many to be the greatest ever). It's NPOV. It's FACT. And it stays until you can provide citations proving that it is incorrect, i.e. that he is not considered the greatest hockey player ever by many. I won't hold my breath.-66.254.232.219 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have to agree. Similar statements are made on the Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Bobby Orr, and Sandy Koufax pages, just to name a few. They are not made for the truth of the matter asserted -- that Gretzky is in fact the best ever -- just to show that that is the opinion of many, which is a matter of fact. Anyways, the redundancy argument is pretty weak, as it can simply be remedied by rewording the previous sentence to say, "he is regarded as the best player of his era and many consider him the greatest hockey player ever." There's no NPOV problem here.-Onward ND 23:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to comment. I find this entire thing incredibly silly (yet mildly amusing). Yes, Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest hockey player ever, as the links provided by the anon above amply show. If you dispute that, then you have you-know-what for brains. Whether you agree that he is or he isn't, it is a view held by (here's the key word again)...MANY, and therefore deserves mention. Afterall, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if Bartleby and Encarta see fit to include such statements in their bios of Gretzky, so should Wikipedia. This is such an unbelievably easy issue I feel cheated for even having to take the time to write this.-R Esche 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oy, not this argument again. Please try not to take this out of hand people, this argument has been done before and last I heard of it it was put on mediation, but then something happened that stopped the argument. Although I come from the angle that many people regard Gretzky as the best ever, please do not let this turn into another redundant edit war. Keep the peace, guys. Croat Canuck 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was kind of humourous to watch Croat Canuck....the little band of sockpuppets ended up with a page that was...more or less...what RasputinAXP had rv'd to in the first place. And I'm still for the word 'some' but 'many' isn't too bad. ~Mr Pyles

Just another point, TrulyTory, weren't you fighting last time to have it changed from "Most people view Gretzky as the greatest ya-da ya-da ya-da" to "Many people view Gretzky as the greatest...". Now you are trying to say that "Many people view Gretzky to be one of the greatest players of all time." I think that might be taking it a little too far, because anybody who knows anything about hockey views Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all-time, they'd be silly not to. Just a point. And good point Mr Pyles, I actually agree with you on this one. Croat Canuck 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It ended with that reversion because just about everyone else declined to get into edit warring. As far as the mediation, the request was rejected because one of the sides (hint hint) declined mediation. The obstinacy of Pyles' and Tory's position has long since become farcical, and IMHO has a lot more to do with their belief that Orr was the greatest ever than any adherence to NPOV. Quote after quote from contemporary authority has been presented to bolster the assertion; the very next quote (or any other scrap of evidence, come to that) which Pyles or Tory presents to support their case will be the very first.

Who actually was the greatest player ever is a debate rightly unsuitable for Wikipedia. That contemporary hockey authorities generally cite Gretzky as being so is fact, and that many more back Gretzky than back any other single contender is likewise. RfC didn't work, RfM didn't work ... I expect this will go to a fairly persistent edit war until the admins get off their duffs. RGTraynor 07:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts are of course, completely different. RGTraynor continues to use the opinions of many journalists, player's anecdotes, and Hockey News references to say that he has all the "proof" needed to make abolutist statements. You cannot PROVE that Gretzky was the Greatest of them all, just because his contemporaries say it in great numbers. It is a collective POV that cannot be substantiated. My logic in the "Most vs. Many" debate is airtight and logical in terms of the semantics. Older Players, Friends, and Family I know still say that Maurie Richard was the Greatest they ever saw. Others still say it was Gordie Howe. Others Bobby Orr. Others Gretzky. What, or who is the "Next One?" Sidney Crosby? For I am sure he will have his advocates in 25 more years. The point is that RGT is fully advocating POV and then tries to bully everyone off the page with his Edit Wars and his "Proof." On my first Edit on this Page, RGT warned me not to touch the article again, as he was the authority on all matters pertaining to Hockey. What a load of arrogant hogwash. I will state - yet again - my opinion: "Gretzky was one of the greatest players of all-time, and especially of his generation - but early in his career he was not much of a back-checker and was never really comfortable in the corners. Certainly the most prolific scorer of all time, and certainly the best passer I have ever seen, he does certainly rate a high position in the top five of all-time greats - in my opinion." There, I am a Gretzky Fan. I am just not an absolutist, and reject on a logical basis the contention that anyone can prove without a shadow of doubt, that anyone is "the greatest of them all" across all eras and across all of the globe. I have been watching hockey since 1970, and played at highly competitive levels between 1971 and 1985. I also have a pretty good handle on both semantics and epistemology. TrulyTory 12:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Enough, TrulyTory, but RGTraynor is not trying for it to say that "Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all-time" on the actual article. More or less, I can't speak for him, but what I'm looking for is that most, or many if that's your fancy, do view him as the greatest player of all-time. Many people also view Orr, Howe, Richard, Lemieux, and if you want to go really far back, Morenz, as the greatest player of all-time. My main objection is that if we are trying to change the line to say "Many (or most) people view Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all time." Like I said earlier, all people who know anything about hockey view Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all-time. It has to say "(Most or Many) view Gretzky as the greatest player of all time." I don't want to get into the most or many argument, it doesn't really matter to me it's just a word, but the main part I don't like is the mention of "one of" after "most" or "many. Croat Canuck 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Pyles: Thanks for lying about the biography for Gretzky in the HHOF. It most certainly DOES include a statement that he is "consistently ranked as the greatest hockey player of all time." [7] Thanks for playing, though.-66.254.232.219 05:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Back from your block so soon. I wasn't talking about the webpage when I made my statement. I was talking about the actual shrine itself. And that web bio still doesn't award him title...it says some end of the century polls ranked him as the greatest.(and seeing as how he had just retired at the time it's understanding that sentimentality would win out over reason) The HHOF web bios also use 'greatest of all' in several other bios...but again...they don't award the title outright, they simply make reference to a group of special individuals who MAY deserving of that extra merit. And as I've said before, declaring one player, in any sport, as the greatest of all time...is impossible.~Mr Pyles.

Uh, no. It doesn't say "some." It says he has "consistently" been ranked as the greatest hockey player of all-time. I suggest you learn to read.-66.254.232.219 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on that statement I am going to try and guess a few things....A)You're young(by that I mean under 40)...B)You've never been to the HHOF in person...C)You've never actually played hockey(at least not at any advanced skill level)....D)You've never been to many NHL games(more importantly, NHL games prior to 1980...and E)You're an American, aren't you? How did I do? Not sure about A and E , but I am betting B C and D are pretty close to the mark. Correct me on any that I am wrong on ~Mr Pyles.

Man. Is it too much to ask to leave an NPOV statement in an article that just got featured? It's like a bunch of kids in a corner store fighting over one stick of candy when there's thousands of candies around them. Stop arguing over one line in this article and go work on Stanley Cup, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr or any of the other myriad of hockey articles that really need help. 66.254.232.219, if you care that much, register a username, join WP:HOCKEY and start pitching in. Jeez. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. It's absurd to see how the objections of this tiny cabal of Rasputin and Pyles (and his sock Tory) have oscillated from POV (which was refuted when multiple references, including two encylopedias, the NHL web site, and Gretzky's Hockey Hall of Fame bio, were provided proving beyond any doubt that Gretzky is considered by "many" to be the greatest hockey player of all-time) to "redundancy" (which was then remedied by removing the earlier allegedly redundant statement) and now back to POV. The fact of the matter is there is no basis for objection, so we have these two users throwing up desperate Hail Marys in an attempt to censor properly cited facts from the article. They've taken obstinancy (and downright stupidity) to absurd heights.-Onward ND 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with RasputinAXP, there are much more hockey articles that really need help for in Wikipedia then this one little plum. Croat Canuck 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I had was identical to the wording in Bobby Orr. TINC. Thanks for insulting me and inserting yourself into an edit war that didn't concern you and certainly didn't need any help. The wording has been the same for the past few months before I even got my hooks into the article. Dredging this back up is simply ridiculous. Pick something and stick with it. As long as it's cited, I could care less. Let's move on to other articles, this one's already a FA. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 10:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have a pretty good handle on both semantics and epistemology. Try using it sometime, Tory, because I'm fed up. Not once, not ONCE, have I said that the statement "Wayne Gretzky is the greatest player of all time" should be on Wikipedia, and your consistent attempts over a few months now to claim that I have either signify that you're deliberately misrepresenting my position or that you're just militantly clueless. What I have said is really simple, and do pay very close attention this time: "The great majority of hockey authorities cite Gretzky as being the greatest player of all time." The first is a statement of opinion. The second is a statement of fact. Perhaps you really can't tell the difference, but if you can't, please don't feed us any more garbage on how much you know about semantics already, and leave the discussion to those who do. RGTraynor 02:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone who watched Gretzky defeat my Jets many times, almost single handed, I thing he is the greatest ever. MCSE 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way its irrelevant, as that's POV. Although I do think your Jets in 80's had a great team with the players they had, and would have made it to the finals any other decade if they didn't play in the same division as those Flames and Oilers. Croat Canuck 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As yes, RGT back at it I see. Please submit the following evidence:

(1) A clearly quantified list of ALL hockey authorities who currently exist across the Globe; (2) A definitive listing of same, AND a fully quantified and clearly stated and proven ratio of those authorities who will unequivocally, and in the majority - with evidence - state that WG is the the greatest player of all-time. Citing SOME references is not the same as citing ALL references. Do you have references from a definitive list of such authorities that all of us can accept as fully & fairly comprehensive? Can you point to a scientific study that purports to demonstrate proof of your assertion? Other than the Hockey News? (a journalistic publication that is neither authoritative, nor all-knowing ...) Or Polls of People who grew-up in the 1980's? If you have scientific proof of your assertion, what was the research methodology employed? What controls were used to isolate potential bias? If you cannot provide any of this, your assertion is unfortunately POV - as all "rankings" surely must be, and in fact, are. TrulyTory 14:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. By contrast, I've challenged you more than once to come up with any evidence opposing the views. You have failed to even come up with ONE contemporary authority advancing any other name. Now if you want a blizzard of quotes, I can provide it, and have already done so. Harry Sinden didn't grow up in the 1980s. Bobby Clarke didn't grow up in the 1980s. Glen Sather didn't grow up in the 1980s. Lou Nanne didn't grow up in the 1980s. And so on and so forth, veteran and respected commentators who not only saw the players involved, many played against those involved. What are your credentials, if you're going to play that game? As far as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility until and unless you're willing to back up your argument. To date you haven't. RGTraynor 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to. I am advocating the poper use of language in the interests of deterring aboslute statements in the face of less-than-absolute proof. You don't have it, you can't get, and you are struggling to justify POV. TrulyTory 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I am not surprised, but then you couldn't have backed your POV up if you wanted to do so anyway. RGTraynor 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK folks. Hash it out here. The page is protected. Are we going to leave it identical to Bobby Orr's statement, or are people going to be that irritating about it?  RasputinAXP  c 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

my own thoughts on that have already been expressed. I don't like seeing 'greatest of all time' on any bios...in any sport because A) it's impossible to prove any candidate truly deserves it and B)it's just an invitation to emotional debate and edit wars. If its going to be out there I can think of about 25-30 'greatest of all time' players going all the way back to the 40's. Traynor will disagree because he has a book ultimate proof as decreed by 50 sanctioned individuals. And Tory will negate that because 50 out of several thousand doesn't equal a majority. And then a bunch of anon. IP's will drift in and change it all around to whatever they think. And then RV war will begin all over again. And then Croat Canuck will ask politely that everyone just try to get along. And then the page will be locked again. And we'll all be back here. I've seen fistacuffs break out between 2 brothers in downtown Montreal over a heated hockey arguement. I doubt a concensus will ever be found. My 2 cents anyways. Mr Pyles 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Quicky gaining a reputation as a pacifist I see. My POV is that the article should "Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest player of all-time" and if for some strange reason people have a problem with that, than my second vote is for "Wayne Gretzky is considered by most to be one of the greatest players of all-time." Both are truthful in everyway shape or form, and are the most truthful out of any other statements that come out. I am not a fan of the "Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be one of the greatest players of all-time" because since it is not mentioned as most, that means that 25% of the population who know anything about hockey don't view Gretzky as one of the greatest players of all-time, and that's simply not the case. That's my two cents. Croat Canuck 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How do YOU know what 25% of the hockey-knowing population thinks? It is this kind of POV masquerading as fact that is the problem. Pyles has been correct all along. "Gretzky is considered by many to be one of the greatest hockey players of all-time." No one can dispute that. However, one can very credibly dispute that "Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest hockey player of all-time." What are the actual statistics backing-up this majoritarian claim? There are none, only RGT's POV. Glad to see that the article is locked - it's about time. TrulyTory 12:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your getting too upset over this, there is no proof neccessary for either of those comments. With the evidence of Gretzky's career, all the records he holds and his scoring dominance, etc. No one in their right minds wouldn't at least put him in their top-ten or top-twenty greatest players of all time. Being in someone's top twenty could mean that he is in that person's list as "one of the greatest of all-time". The burden of proof TrulyTory, is on you to prove me, RGT, or anyone else wrong in this regard, because your baseless in your grounds of downgrading Gretzky to just another great hockey player, along the lines of a Ron Francis-typeesque legacy... great, but not spectacular... His accomplishes provide more evidence that most people view him as one of the greatest of all-time, or in my opinion, that many people view him as THE greatest player of all-time. Give me the evidence to refute the fact that many (not most), view Gretzky as the greatest player of all-time? Its not a majoritarian claim, if we inserted "MOST" in there, then I agree with you, it would be a majoritarian claim. Many could be considered 5%, 10%, 25%, 40%, of the population, and you cannot argue that even 5% of the hockey population (which amounts to thousands of people, and dozens of hockey experts... however minute compared to the ever-growing hockey populous) do not view Gretzky as the greatest player of all-time? Croat Canuck 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My words keep being misunderstood. It's not the 'greatest' I disagree with. It's the 'of all time' part that just doesn't hold any water. Gretzky(and all his modern day counterparts) played the 'business' of hockey...not the 'game'. With big salaries...lots of teams to pick(or get picked) from...Medical support for every single injury no matter how minor...and so on. Put any one of them back in the 40's and see if they would be as productive. I expect they would still be above average players...skill is skill no matter what era you played in. But 150 pt, 200 pt seasons would not likely have occured from any of them. Likewise, if one could take a Milt Schmidt and warp him to today's modern league. And provide him with today's NHL medical staff...how knows. Him and many like him played entire seasons with sprained wrists and ankles...banged up knees...stitches, stitches and more stitches. All because if they said they couldn't play because they were hurt...they'd lose their jobs to some up and coming youngster. "Of all time" is an impossible crown to award to anybody. 2 more cents(and sense). Mr Pyles 16:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things. For one, NO ONE IS ACTUALLY ARGUING THAT GRETZKY IS GREATEST OF ALL TIME. That would involve justifiably objectionable POV. Now do you object to the position held by the vast majority of hockey pundits that he is? Fair enough, argue it out with them, in whatever forums are applicable and appropriate. I haven't attempted to do so at any stage of this longwinded debate. (There are certainly many assertions I'd refute were it appropriate to do so here, which it isn't.)

Secondly, I'd be a lot more sanguine about your position if it struck me as agenda-free. Only ... somehow Bobby Orr's name keeps coming up. Now to any Bostonian in the 1960s, as with me, Orr was God, no question. But that's POV too. If we're genuinely setting up Greatest Of All Time, where's Gordie Howe? Where's Eddie Shore? Where's Joe Malone or Newsy Lalonde? Rocket Richard? Doug Harvey? Russell Bowie or Dom Hasek or Clint Benedict? There are a lot of claimants out there, after all. This strikes me as far less an anti-Gretzky or a pro-neutral campaign as a pro-Orr campaign.

That being said, I've put this article up for both RfC and RfM. The first went without comment, the second was refused. It's nice that you protected it, Rasputin, but there is no way in hell this is going to be worked out on the Talk Page, least of all because there will always be a newbie, once a week, who pulls up this article, reads that Gretzky "may" be regarded by "some" commentators as "one" of the greatest players ever, thinks "What, are these Wiki yohos high?" and edits the offending passages anew whatever the wishes of the vocal minority. There needs to be some serious, formal mediation going on here. RGTraynor 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What RG said. I don't know why they won't mediate this. At this point, it's up to Pyles to leave it the hell alone.  RasputinAXP  c 19:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Before your panties get bunched up, review the page history. Other than my 2 reverts on the disputed sentence yesterday(which was an rv attack from an anon IP)...rv'ing Captain I.P.Redundant last week(and his sockpuppet)...and a few rv's for vandalism....I haven't touched the page for quite some time. And most of those rv's were back to previous versions...by....ahh....you RasputinAXP. I pointed out your Olympic box error yesterday but did not actually alter the page myself. I've kept all my debates to this page. So please come back in from the playground before you play "I know you are but what am I" Mr Pyles 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

zomg. lots of indents. Yes, I know they were mostly back to my versions, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone involved needs to learn to disagree. Personally, I don't care which way it goes if the edit warring stops. I think the semantic fight between "many/most say he is (one of) the greatest of all time" needs to end. Again, I don't care which way it goes as long as these billy goats gruff stop clip-clopping on my bridge. Oh, and the Olympic box wasn't my creation, I just moved it for the sake of appearance. When you pointed out that Canada lost, I whacked it.  RasputinAXP  c 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Again. Once again. You cannot say that WG is the considered by all or most to be the greatest player of all-time without accepting the burden of statistical proof. RGT is not providing unequivocal statistical proof for the assertion. FOR THE RECORD: My top six of all-time are as follows, and in no particular order: Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Richard, Hull, and Dionne. I cannot say who was the greatest IMO because I have no way to prove the assertion. As to holding a lot of records - well, both Howe and Esposito owned many scoring records at their retirement, and both Coffey and Potvin carded more points than Orr (short career) but is this really the way to prove the assertion? What happens if someone eclipses WG's records? What then? I can accept that "many consider Gretzky to be one of the greatest players of all-time." I cannot accept (a la Mr. Pyles ...) any assertion that anyone can prove that any of the Top Six is the "greatest of all-time." RGT cannot logically make this claim. TrulyTory 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I try and suggest a compromise, or are we beyond that here? I haven't commented in this discussion up to now, but I've been following it daily.

First, I think we can keep the sentiment of "considered by many" in the intro paragraph without using those exact words. If left in the article, they will continue to be taken out by editors on the lookout for weasel words. A sentence such as "Gretzky has been consistently named as the greatest hockey player ever by other players and coaches, as well as in a number of surveys." That sentence is specific and verifiable. I don't want to lose the idea entirely, because I think it provides an accurate context to non-hockey fans of Gretzky's place in the pantheon of the game's greats.

Second, there should be a short section near the end of the article detailing surveys, magazine rankings, etc. that have named Gretzky as the greatest ever. Without getting out of hand, a couple select quotes from players or coaches could be included as well. That way, the previous statement won't simply stand on its own.

Michael Jordan contains a section like the one I have in mind, although I don't think it's perfect. In my opinion, the descriptions of other players' credentials are out of place. However, the idea behind it is sound. In the course of the discussion, a number of sources have been added to this talk page, but as of now they don't have a place on the main page.

Does this seem acceptable to anyone? --djrobgordon 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a well written article the way stands right now.(it has been for several weeks) Expanding the introductory paragraph into an essay unto itself would just make the article more cumbersome. I still believe 'of all time' will just invite similar disputes in the future from other contributors. But the way it reads right now is OK(and HAS been OK) with me. Some of the other Hall Of Famers could have their bio opening paragraphs 'fleshed out' in much the same manner. Without using the exact same wording.(specifically the word 'greatest') Maybe more specific to decade or era or position played. But that's a discussion for a different talk page. Wayne's been through enough Mr Pyles 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a way of creating "weasel facts" that are still POV. I am with Mr. Pyles - the current edit seems the most fair and recognises WG's place as one of the best of all-time, without dengirating other players of other eras by incorporating partial testimony & references as the basis for the POV that he is undisputedly the "Greatest." Including such methodology is highly problematic because it does not address the central issue - namely, that you cannot PROVE who is the greatest of all-time. You can only INCLUDE a player in a Group Listing of those players who are broadly accepted as among the best. That is, if you are truly interested in being fair and objective. TrulyTory 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's Lemieux in that top-6 of yours? Anyhow I still don't understand how you see "Wayne Gretzky is considered by many to be the greatest player of all-time" as POV. Croat Canuck 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts would be weasel facts only if they were supposed to prove that Gretzky is' the greatest of all time. However, the objective here is to prove that he is considered among the greatest. My main problem isn't the wording so much as that the statement, as it is, stands unsupported. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's shortcomings, who is coming at this from the background of a non-hockey fan, would find the statement suspect.

For instance, I know very little about figure skating. If there was a similar sentence, without any documentation, in Michelle Kwan I'd discount it as biased fancruft. It may be true and it may not. The point is, I don't know.

An editor mentioned above that Encarta and Britanica have similar statements. They have that luxury because people trust them. It's our job to make people trust Wikipedia. As they say on talk radio, I'll talk my answer off the air. I don't want to add fire to the flame here; I'm just trying to keep from having a new edit war every time some anon with an agenda happens across this page. --djrobgordon 17:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the user 'R Eshe' who quoted the other encyclopedias was likely a sockpuppet to 'Onward ND' who, in turn probably wore the sock of the 'anon with an agenda'...who started this whole new fiasco in the first place.(I requested a checkuser on them) He/they seemed to assume that RasputinAXP and I were some sort of rv cabal and that TrulyTory is somehow my sockpuppet. My guess is that A)they don't read User pages/contribution lists or B)they can't read a map of Canada. Not saying that the 2 encyclopedia references aren't valid, just that the source was suspect. I was actually hoping someone would have access to them to confirm their accuracy Mr Pyles 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Encarta's on my wife's computer, Brittanica's on mine, and I'll check them both when I get home unless someone else beats me to it. That being said, a sentence such as Djrobgordon proposed suits me fine. RGTraynor 18:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version is good enough and fair and objective. I vote for the status-quo. Anything else puts us back at war, IMHO. TrulyTory 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, lets end this silly edit war/argument/discussion, whatever, and focus on contributing to more meaningful things in Wikipedia than one (add your favourite expletive here) sentence. And let us all pray that we never have to do jury duty together. Croat Canuck 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version is not good enough, quite aside from being inaccurate. This isn't ending with a draw, this is ending with a vocal minority winning.

By the bye, this is a verbatim quote from the Encylopedia Brittanica 2001 edition: "WAYNE DOUGLAS GRETZKY: Canadian ice-hockey player who was considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League (NHL)." Funny how the most respected encylopedia in history has no qualms about making that statement. RGTraynor 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not agreeing that the current one is good enough. I'm agreeing withdjrobgordon, on the sentence he proposed. Just to make that clear. Croat Canuck 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

These debates about Gretz, are great & very intelligent. I've been reading the arguments & have been enjoying them. However, here's a new fire-cracker to throw into the fire: Wayne Gretzky himself, says/claims that Gordie Howe is the greatest hockey player of all time, (I know, WG is just being modest, and he's a Howe fan). GoodDay 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed statement, with reference

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

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

with this sentence:

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

and use the following reference for the new sentence:

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

as well as refactoring the talk page.

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

Editors endorsing the proposed statement, sign below:

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

Editors opposing the proposed statement, sign below:

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

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

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

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

How about this ...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making up other people's arguments, of course.

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

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

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

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

Outside Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unprotecting

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

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

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