Talk:Charles Barkley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCharles Barkley has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 26, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Random[edit]

Sir Charles is a Japanese national? Is this correct? 75.26.175.190 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

Things about Barkley that could be added: AN IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL THING IS MISSING: A LIST OF THE YEARS THAT HE PLAYED BASKETBALL AT AUBURN UNIVERSITY. HE ALSO LEAD THE SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE IN REBOUNDING ALL THREE OF THESE YEARS.

You don't think that this is important? For a Nobel Prize Winner, where he went to undergraduate school, and when, is an important fact, and lists have been compiled of which winners went to which universities and in which countries.

  • one of the best rebounders ever, despite his lack of height (listed as 6-6, but about 1-2 inches less in reality)
  • in the list of NBA's top 50 players
  • known for his quotable quotes and unquotable quotes, many of them politically incorrect (such as the one on role models etc)
  • he wrote a couple of books (can't remember the titles now).

--Colemanyee 03:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mug shot[edit]

the mug shot doesn't really look like him. is that really a reputable source?Xwoodandwater 06:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC) his mug shot also shows him to be a 6'8. Can this be edited?71.119.63.84 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message[edit]

I put that he has shown dislike for the Dallas Mavericks. This information is 100% true, for he has shown disdain for the Mavs many times during "Inside the NBA". Does everyone agree? 71.96.11.37 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not classify it as disdain. He has stated his opinion that the Mavericks do not play good defense and that they are not a championship team. In any case, even if this constitutes disdain, it is certainly not "for reasons unknown," as he has repeatedly stated his problems with the Mavericks. Also, such a minor detail is not important in the life of Charles Barkley, especially without any quote. He has, at one time or another, said that over half the teams in the NBA "stink." Dastle 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, but he seems to constantly pick on them, constantly single them out, despite the fact there are many teams in the league,"worse" than they are. It is disdain, because numbers show that the Mavericks are a good (not excellant) defensive team, and he refuses to admit that (that also proves it is for reasons unknown). Some say it is because of racism, but I think it goes beyond that. I do not desire to repost this info, I only wanted to make this statement, because it seemed true. As for a quote: (Reggie Miller) " I disagree, Charles, the Mavericks are a solid team. I never said they would beat the Spurs, I simply think they are a pretty good team." (Charles) " Tell me, Miller, who's side are you on?" (Reggie Miller) " I'm only saying that the Mavericks are a good team, I am not on their side!" (Charles) " Yeah, well you better not be!!!" --(December 1, 2006, during the Mavs/Spurs halftime report )(I have more quotes if you want them!) 71.96.11.37 23:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with your claim is that you said he didn't like Dallas for "apparently no reason." If you are going to say that he dislikes Dallas, at least be accurate and show a neutral, two sided account. This is a good read: http://journals.aol.com/sportzassassin/SPORTZASSASSINSSPORTSJOURNAL/entries/1248
Take this quote from the article:
"Hey first of all, I love Mark Cuban. He ain't never gonna know more about basketball than me. I ain't never gonna have as much money as him, I'll never know more about computers, but he'll live to be 1000, and he'll never know more than us two about basketball. If he knew that, he wouldn't have put that little "soft cake" team together."
I still feel there isn't evidence that he dislikes the Mavericks (he just thinks they aren't a good defensive team).
Also, my suggestion is that if you feel that this is important enough to go into an encyclopedia article, which is up for debate, you should at least put such a statement in a broader perspective. For example, the only reason that this is a story of interest is that Charles is now a popular NBA reporter on TNT. His current occupation, in my opinion, deserves more space on the article than it receives, as it is very important to basketball today (he has drawn more fans to the game with his charisma). The dispute between him and Cuban is a result of the fact that he is a no-nonsense reporter who speaks his mind (although such semi-speculative statements probably don't belong in an encyclopedia). Note also there is more to the story than meets the eye: Mark Cuban is well known for desiring heavy media attention. Many feel that Cuban's statements about Charles are to get more attention in the press.
Dastle 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no need to repost this, I was only thinking since he usually talks about the Mavericks in a negative light, that I should say something. Again the reason I said, "for reasons unknown" (I didn't mean, "for no apparent reason"!), is that he constantly blames the team for something they are not guilty of. Take defense, for example, though his "bad defense" statements made sense in previous years, the Mavericks are notably playing improved defense, and he will not admit even that. Also, he usually makes false statments, that contradicts the truth. For instance, he made the statement, "the reason the Mavericks do not blow out every bad team they play, is because they do not play defense, and that allows teams to stay in the game." He prides the Spurs and Pistons as being "good" defensive teams, but if you look at their games, the Pistons and Spurs, have lost to (most recently for the Pistons, the Atlanta Hawks), or marginally defeated sub-par teams. This in turn debuncts what Charles said, "good defensive teams blow out every bad team they play". It is like he uses the "bad defense" exuse, to shield his true beliefs about the Mavericks. Again, I have no desire to repost this, what you have told me, makes plenty of sense. Heck, I am not even a Mavericks fan, I only wonder why the guy gives the team such a hard time! Forgive me if I wasted your time! 71.96.11.37 15:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Politics" it has been noted that the Alabama state constitution requires candidates to be residents for seven years. Since Barkley is not now an Alabaman, he cannot run for Governor until 2014 at the earliest. See <http://www.madisoncountyrecord.com/articles/2006/08/10/opinion/oped2.txt>

Spitting on the girl[edit]

Nothing about him spitting on that 10 year old girl or whatever during a 76ers games??? That's gotta be one of the most historic examples of bad athetlicship short of running up to the stands to accost someone. --Jpawloski 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, that was a COMPLETE ACCIDENT!! I believe he was trying to spit on someone who deserved it. I mean, no one in their right mind would intentionally spit on a child!

Also, during the 1992-93 season he jumped over the scorers table to chase down a referee who was trying to head to the lockerroom without incident.

He's somewhat of a controversial figure and It would do this article justice for someone to make a small section on that.
--Dastle 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertently spit on a little girl, sitting courtside, when he meant to hit a heckler; later became friends with the child and her family (http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-barkley)

I'd be selling that spit on ebay. --Savethemooses 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to spit on hecklers? Barkley is a role-model, whether he likes it or not. He's a negative role model.

Chaos Dunk[edit]

There is rare footage on the flea market circuit that reportedly shows Barkley performing his patented technique, the forbidden Chaos Dunk. If anyone has further info on where I can obtain such tapes please post here. 65.33.170.190 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Barkley_Charles_#1_fan[reply]

Sir Charles[edit]

There is no reference in this article to 'Sir Charles' and the orrigin of this nick name. Seems to be a rather large piece of missing biographical information.

"Harkened" on rumors?[edit]

What does "he harkened on those rumors in Space Jam" mean? Dumpendebat 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barkley's Height[edit]

I know that he is listed as 6' 6" on nba.com but nba.com doesn't always tell the truth. There are many websites which say that Barkley is at 6' 5". Search it on google. So Please do not revert my edit. Thanks. MM 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took my time to search informations about Charles' height and I must say, there are different versions about his height. On the one hand, he is listened as 6' 5", on the other hand as 6' 6". His height is rather involved to verify. Are there any solutions? MM 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jordan is definitely one inch taller than Charles Barkley. Well, is there a way to contact nba.com? Because 6' 6" for Charles Barkley is not right. MM 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NBA has always listed players taller than they really are. Nate Robinson is listed as 5'9, but is closer to 5'6-5'7. It does not matter, nba.com receives their information from a players listed playing height, while in the NBA. You're assuming his height based on a picture, and uncreditable resources. Yes, many sites list him from 6'4 to 6'6. Barkley makes note of his controversial playing height in all his published books. Players, and announcers alike have always joked about a players supposed playing height or weight. The UserBox for all nba players on Wikipedia is designed to reflect their playing stats, and Barkley's playing stats, with regard to his height, has always been listed, in his 16 year career, 6'6'. A note on his height has been made in the subsection titled, early life and college career. If you want to make an added note in the introductory paragraph, then I believe that would be best. However, I do not think footnotes or skeptisms have priority over a players listed playing height/Billed Height, as noted by the NBA. The UserBox was designed to reflect a players Billed/Playing profile. Zodiiak 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If other NBA players would be listed one inch over their real height then I don't know why they have listed Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley as 6' 6". Michael is definitely one inch taller than Charles and I think that Wikipedia doesn't need to get compared with other websites. Wikipedia is an own website, what shows important informations and I think that 6' 5" should be right for Charles Barkley. Yeah, he is really that tall. Well, also celebheights.com says that Charles is about 6' 5". I could add 6' 5" as Charles current height. MM 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is it's own website, however, it relies on Sourced information. For NBA Players, besides published books and articles, it relies heavily on creditable sites; such as Nba.com. I'm not going to get into a Big Edit War for something as simple as Height, but if this Article is to ever achieve a better Grade than B, the "Real/Billed" note will have to be changed. I've been working on editing this article to bring it's grade up from B to FA status. It'll take sometime, but I think it's worth the effort. Anyone who wants to help, is greatly welcomed ;) Zodiiak 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morris Munroe, we are here for verifiability, not necessarily truth. And what is truth? Your version of the truth or someone else's? May I advise you read Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. It pretty much states that if you cannot back up your information, don't put it in - regardless of your convictions. --Downwards 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the picture above. Charles is definitely one inch shorter that Michael. Is there a way to solve this problem? MM 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes note of his actual height, probably being in the vicinity of 6'4". It's stated in his College career and Player Profile sections, and cited utilizing his old nba.com player bio. I hope this is satisfactory enough ;) Zodiiak 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listening Charles as 6' 5" again because once he was listed as 6' 4" and then as 6' 6". If you wanna hear my oppinion, Charles is exactly one inch shorter than Michael Jordan. And that's certainly not a vandalism. MM 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we meet a mutual consensus on the issue. I've already clearly explained why he is listed as 6'6" and so has Downwards. I've also pointed out that we have made several comments regarding his actual height throughout the article. If you cannot provide something which has precedence over nba.com (verifiability), then please do not edit his height. It is not considered vandalism, but it is considered Unintentional misinformation. From your talk page, it seems you have a history of making these type of edits, and I ask that you refrain from adding this misinformation, especially after we have so clearly explained our positions, according to the rules set forth by Wikipedia. Zodiiak 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The correct listing would be 6'6, as to keep things simple we go by NBA listings. Also we would never go by a photo of one person atanding next to another, that's just silly and absurd. Quadzilla99 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you, that Wikipedia doesn't need to get compared with other websites! You can see www.celebheights.com if you don't trust me! The old wwe.com listed Charles as 6' 4" and the new one as 6' 6". And 6' 5" is in the middle. Do not revert this edit one more time! MM112 10:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia's three-revert rule I have reported your name. You continue to revert and edit after discussion, and general consensus. In addition, you continue to create new user names in order to to revert to the same edit. You're annoying. Zodiiak 18:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, is the fact that Barkley himself wrote in one of his books that his height is closer to 6'4" not a verifiable source? I've just read this article for the first time and it seemed odd to have one section stating that his height as 6'6" with no further comment and then a section later in the article saying that his height is commonly wrongly stated as 6'6". I think there can be little dispute that he is NOT 6'6" tall, as this appears to be a matter of record (his own stated figure for his own height is surely more likely to be correct than NBA.com, especially when it is known that this source is consistently wrong on this type of information). Surely Wikipedia should choose its sources based on accuracy rather than popularity? I've not changed anything in the article tho, as this seems to be a sore spot with some people! If the value for Barkley's height in the sidebar is not changed then it should carry a note that this is not his real height, this is his NBA stat heght or it is disputed as his real height and should point readers to the text for further explanation - the Hulk Hogn article has his heght stat as "Billed Height: 6'7" " and mentions in the text that tho his height is reported as 6'7" his actual heght is 6'4" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan this seems like a good approach to take with this and all similar cases - 6'6" is his "billed" or "stated" heght by the NBA, tho by his own admision Barkley's actual height is slightly over 6'4" (he said its closer to 6'4" than 6'6", thus it will be closer to 6'4" than 6'5" so it is more correct to state it as 6'4" than 6'5".Dex 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my bad english, i learned it at school. Barkley is listed at 6'6" at NBA.com, but this is his height in shoes. Without shoes it is 6'5", the same like Jordan. The picture above mentioned is absolutely inappropriate to compare the height of C.B. and M.J. In a Dream Team roster picture you can clearly see that Barkley is not smaller than Jordan. This picture is much better than the one you talk about. http://www.sneakerfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/dreamteam.jpg So, if Jordan is 6'6" Barkley is 6'6" (or even 6'7").

It would be good that the sources [50][51] where Barkely admits being slightly under 6 feet 5 inches (1.95 mt) are cited in the info box next to his listed height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloncho11 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks cartoon series[edit]

Why is there no mention of his apperances on the Clerks cartoon series. He was in all but one of them and he voiced them as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.187.222 (talk)

Clerks cartoon? I've never heard of that. If it merits noteability, then obviously it should be included. Do you have a reference or something that'll help us better understand his part? Zodiiak 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing an underrated little series (netflix it): Clerks: The Animated Series. --Bobak 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check it out sometime. The article is still being revamped, so maybe it can be worked in somewhere. Zodiiak 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla Vs. Barkley (1992)[edit]

Nike made a big push for this ad campaign way back when. Is this notable? If so, where? As evidence, I proffer evidence from the repository of this sort of stuff, YouTube: Trailer (which aired as a commercial for the commercial, seriously) and Commercial. --Bobak 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source that discusses the value of the commercial, then yes it is noteable. Otherwise, it can be regarded as trivial, from an overall historical perspective. I'm still working on the article, and have virtually revamped it to eventually bring it up to Featured Article Status, so a few things have been removed because of a lack of source, lack of notability, or just not encyclopedic. Zodiiak 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made an article on the commercial a while ago: Godzilla vs. Charles Barkley Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yao Ming and TNT[edit]

Why was the Yao Ming incident removed? Overall I think the section for TNT is now too small, he's tremendously well known for his role there and as time goes on he'll be known for that more and more to a generation of people than his basketball career. I mean how many know John Madden as being a coach? This guys is becoming like that. Tayquan hollaMy work 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section does need to be expanded. I don't think his comments on Yao are specifically noteable. I've been working on the article and looking at everything from an overall career retrospective. In that sense it seems too trivial to highlight his yao comments, since he's known for making silly and usual blunt remarks about NBA players. Maybe a few examples can be given to back up the claims, but I think that should be limited (see Legacy section) so that it doesn't divert attention from his overall stake in TNT. I mainly cleaned up the section because it just seemed to be very unencyclopedic, and read more like a blog/fan site. I'm still working on the article, and haven't been able to center on the section yet (I'm up to Legacy), but you're more than welcome to help out =) Zodiiak 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the Yao incident as trivial at all. That section needs to be expanded, also some quotes and antidotes from him need to be added to illustrate his personality. I wouldn't recommend it in another article but with Barkley some quotes need to be worked into the text to illustrate his personbality. There's a difference between saying he's funny and showing it. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure became is past tense. For instance you wouldn't say "since starting his NBA career Kobe became a highly successful basketball player." Tayquan hollaMy work 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously became is past tense. But did he just become an analyst, or did he become one after he retired. If he came an analyst after he retired, then it's past tense. Either way, it's just semantics. I already stated that a few examples can be given to illustrate his comments, and stated that it does need to be expanded (and will), and even asked for help. People have a tendancy to just throw a bunch of fancruft into the article, rendering it into some sort of online blog. It becomes completely trivial and reads like a fan site. I don't think an entire paragraph about just Yao Ming or one specific player alone is required for Barkley's' article, and once again will reiterate that a few examples can be given to illustrate his frankness. Zodiiak 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bold things it's condescending and belongs in a forum or message board not here. Show me where I said a paragraph belongs here, 2 sentences would be fine. Tayquan hollaMy work 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew Bold was condescending. I think saying things like "I'm pretty sure became is past tense" is more condescending than it. Also, the Yao incident that was removed was relatively a paragraph. Zodiiak 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Upon its review on October 12, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars or is the subject of a future event

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I'm not sure that the weight thing is pure vandalism, but it looks like it's been going on for a while. I suggested re-nominating it one week after the edit warring stops, at which point I can give it a more full and proper review. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over one month of waiting for it to be reviewed and it fails because of a few days of some anon-ip editing Barkley's weight. That's extremely frustrating. I'll be sure to resubmit once things have died down a bit -- thanks Zodiiak 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is, without question, the worst GA review I've ever seen and heard of. Chensiyuan 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the GA Reviewer of the month no less! Cheers, CP 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WABD!! Chensiyuan 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Zodiiak 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review 2[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Just to end the complaining, not only did I review this article, but I gave you a full copy edit as well. Here's my review:

  1. Stuart smalley.JPG does not have an acceptable fair use rationale. It should be removed, unless there is a very good reason for its inclusion.
    1. I think given its grainy quality the quality of the article would not be diminished with its removal, but I'm not mooting for removal either, I'd leave it to Zodiiak. Chensiyuan 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Removed. It does have a poor fair use rationale and does not add much to the article. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The career statistics should be moved to the bottom, below all of the prose.
    1. I can imagine why you'd request that, but I think the article is divided into basketball (top half) and non-basketball. Hence the statistics appear at the conclusion of the basketball section. Chensiyuan 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Consider too a precedent in Tim Duncan, which is an FA, and which slots the stats at the bottom. I suppose it's an issue of aesthetics. Chensiyuan 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Correct. The article is divded into his career before and after basketball. I think this type of structure makes the most sense. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, it looks a lot better than I remember it looking when I first reviewed. Should be fine where it is. Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. All one-two sentences must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
    Question: Can you give an example? Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The last paragraph of the lead, the second paragraph of "Olympic career," the last paragraph of "Player profile" (the quote counts as one "sentence" in my mind, as it's only adding one bit of information) and the first paragraph of "Books" are the ones I spotted. Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Zodiiak (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The lead needs to be a little more NPOV: it should state only facts, not relative opinion (eg. Barkley established himself as one of the most dominating power forwards in the history of the National Basketball Association (NBA)) It's somewhat less acceptable to have these things in the lead, since there aren't citations and such things can be easily challenged.
    1. Standard gripe about greatness, and fair enough, but I would argue that given what a lead is supposed to be, citations need not be provided at that point in time. Still, I think the easier way to resolve this is to reduce unattributable opinion. Chensiyuan 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, bad phrasing. I meant to say that "It is somewhat less acceptable to have these things in the lead, since citations are not required in this section..." So yes, your solution is optimal. Cheers, CP 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The NBA named him one of the 50 greatest players in their history. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, which is a fact. I'll let the lead pass, but it should try to remain as objectively factual as possible. While statements such as the one I highlighted originally are verifiable, they're not exactly appropriate for the summary, which is supposed to give the uninitiated as objective a review as possible. Verifiable, but somewhat unnecessary. I won't hold it against the GA, but if you're thinking of going towards FA, it might be something to think about. Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some statements require citations:
    "The 76ers were swept in the first round of the playoffs by the New York Knicks." (Philadelphia 76ers) Obvious to you and I now, maybe not to someone 100 years from now.
    The third paragraph of "Role model controversy," especially since it's a direct quote. I know it comes from the show, but to get an exact quote, there must be a source somewhere.
    The first paragraph of "Turner Network Television (TNT)"
    "He went on to state, however, "No matter how much I win it ain't a lot. It's only a lot when I lose. And you always lose. I think it's fun, I think it's exciting. I'm gonna continue to do it but I have to get to a point where I don't try to break the casino 'cause you never can."" (Gambling) Again, direct quotes must always be cited
    The entire "Books" section
    Done: Added citations where necessary, pending one. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point made in the article (for example, it seems non-neutral because it doesn't mention his controversies) and not introduce anything that is not in the main body of the article (it doesn't do this explicitly, I don't think, but just the fact that it skips over so much make the summaries look like "new information" – addressing the first part should take care of this). This will make the lead significantly bigger of course, but that is to be expected for an article of this size.
    Pending: Will do, tomorrow. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Zodiiak (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Barkley's talents were perhaps best summarized by NBA Hall-of-Famer Bill Walton." (Player profile) This is very POV. Who says that they were best summarized by Walton? Easily challenged, should be removed.
    1. I think it's not so much POV but more of over-inference. In any case I've rephrased it. Chensiyuan 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "Barkley currently works as..." (Turner Network Television (TNT)) This statement will date poorly and should be replaced with something more temporally concrete (ie. Since 200X, Barkley has worked as...)
    1. I'm not entirely sure when he started the TNT job, so I'd leave it to Zodiiak to resolve this. Chensiyuan 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Added date with Source. Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed at any time. In addition, please note that this is only a preliminary review and that I will be conducting a secondary review, mainly focusing on the references. The hold will not be extended for this secondary review, so please ensure that the above concerns are dealt with in a timely manner. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you both Chensiyuan and CP for your input, edits, and review. I'll comb through your points and do my best to revise the areas you feel need work when I have some spare time. Thanks again for taking the time to review. Zodiiak 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated progress above. Please feel free to review. Will do more tomorrow, thanks! Zodiiak 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have commented where needed and updated the buttons. Looks likes it's going very well! Cheers, CP 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks very much for your time. I'll finish going through it tonight and will hopefully have it completed. Thanks again! Zodiiak 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's the progress? I have no problem extending the hold, since work has been done addressing these concerns. Cheers, CP 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being able to complete it sooner than later. Work has kept me busy lately. I'll try and finish up tonight, thanks again! Zodiiak 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will extend the hold for four days past the original end date then, which is three days from now. Cheers, CP 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your understanding and time. I think I've addressed everything. However, i'll give it another scan later on today to ensure it's the best results possible. Thanks again! Zodiiak (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think it's done. Feel free to review and inform me of any necessary changes. Thanks. Zodiiak (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over now. Cheers, CP 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #45 and #53 do not lead to where they are supposed to. References #14 and #53 do not have an access date. These will need to be fixed. Cheers, CP 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. =) Zodiiak (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I will now be passing this as a GA. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! Thanks very much for everything CP! Zodiiak (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles in Video Games.[edit]

There needs to be a mention of Sir Charles' SEGA Genesis Video Game and the fan made RPG which features him as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porovaara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


where is all his racist past?[edit]

This is a guy who says "he hates white people", he says "we don't need refs in the NBA, but I guess white people need something to do". He's also said that NASCAR commercials are "lies" and that the women that go to them all have bad hair and bad teeth? I'll be adding my own section on it when I get bored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about his racist past, but I see your racist present. You and these other "white" racist knuckleheads on here keep trying to change things to fit your points of view. Charles is no racist because he is black and is married to a white woman and has a white daughter. If anything, he is expressing pain of white racism and married a white woman to help escape it, but still has not gotten over the pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.41.238 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up and Jam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.6.84 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Swing[edit]

At this point, Charles Barkley's golf swing should be mentioned in the post basketball life section. Golf Channel has a show based solely on fixing his swing. Peter Jacobsen and even Tiger Woods do an impression of the infamous stop. Barkley plays a lot of charity golf and in atleast a word or two it should be mentioned.

Any sources to guide us? Chensiyuan (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LA Times - It has quote from Charles himself:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-random1-2009mar01,0,4390739.story?track=rss
SuperAnth (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not reinsert the previous poorly written edit without citing, removing the npov and personal commentary, as well as crystalball-gazing. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the section on golf is perceived as poorly written, then please help to rewrite it using the Wikipedia guidelines that you are obviously more familiar with. Please don't dismiss the section all together. A major part of Barkley's post-basketball life revolves around his journey and struggles as a golfer. Golf is a major part of Barkley's life that should not be overlooked based on someone's writing abilities. Help by editing, not by deleting. (DoubleEagle7 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
WP:SOCK i hope it's not. in any case, superanth has been invited to draft the edit here first, rather than breach WP:3RR. if you're serious about improving this article, then avoid the counterproductive approach of reinstating text that has been reverted for reasons already made plainly obvious to the user. this is a WP:GA after all and high standards have to be maintained. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing quality is a viable reason for removal, but previous issues stemmed from the info being considered "uncited", which has been corrected, and "not a life changing event", which is not a proper position to take for removal. Golfing is a part of Charles Barkley's public life (see above citation).
SuperAnth (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, his golf swing is one of the most entertaining things to happen to the whole of humanity. It needs to be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.124.65 (talk • contribs)

Why is this information relevant again? What kind of encyclopedic value does it add? I'm really trying to understand. If it's something that adds to the article, i'm all for it -- can you please explain the relevancy? It seems a bit trivial. At the very most it should be a one line sentence (cited) not an entire subsection. Zodiiak (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Haney Project[edit]

Charles has been in the news a lot lately because of his involvement in the new hit Golf Channel show, The Haney Project. A major part of Barkley's career after basketball is his golf game, or lack thereof. I think there should be a section on his golf game in this article.DoubleEagle7 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per preceding post. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source. But the section wasn't really written with the proper tone, so I think we need to start over. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone for some advice. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I added it to the article. Zodiiak (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College awards contradiction[edit]

As pointed out in the FAC, bsc is a dead link, but while searching for a replacement I found this. There appears to be a contradiction, with this source saying that he was in three All-SEC selections instead of two, and that he was a second-team All-American selection instead of third-team. sportsstats.com looks quite unprofessional and cstv.com redirects to CBS Sports, so I'm going to assume that the latter source is more reliable. —LOL T/C 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree—Chris! ct 03:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Jam[edit]

There's no mention of his appearance in WB's 1996 Space Jam movie. 71.201.99.214 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height Update[edit]

I think it's time for an update to his height. The sources from this wiki page stated slightly under 6 feet 5 inches (1.95 mt).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1999/12/09/barkley_boston_ap/

http://www.nba.com/sixers/history/retired_index.html

Barkely himself states his height also slightly under 6'5" at the 1:03 mark in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDz2yGoK_xk

And in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/sports/basketball/22score.html?_r=0

Aloncho11 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His "listed height" has consistently been 6'6"; see [1]. Maybe we could put a footnote into the infobox, but 6'6" is his correct "listed height". Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in this video it has Charles at 6’5” https://youtube.com/watch?v=Sgk81EEWVyQ Black roses124 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsive gambler[edit]

I tagged the material about being know for being a compulsive gambler. He certainly seems to fit the mold of a problem gambler, but he denys it, like a lot of problem gamblers do, not saying that he is one. Maybe this should be reworded, ie, he is known for his widely publicized gambling and assocoiated losses, ect, unless we have a source that says he is a compulsive gambler. This is no different that an alcoholic or drug abuser, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Reading the sources, he admits that he has a problem, but then classically says it isn't a problem since he can afford to lose. Its too bad that he doesn't understand that compulsive gambling in NOT about money, or winning vs losing, but about compulsive behavior similar to drinking or drugs. --Malerooster (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting percentage at Auburn[edit]

The section on his play at Auburn lists two very different career FG percentages. At most one of them can be correct! - GeneCallahan (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Barkley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebounds in stats?[edit]

Given both his nickname (Round Mound of Rebound) and the fact that he was known for being an incredible and dominant rebounder, how is his career rebound total (not just RPG) not in his stat box? I would add it, but I'm terrible with stat boxes (I always screw them up). It seems like an odd thing NOT to have in there. Vyselink (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add anything to the legacy?[edit]

Would it be ok to include the fact that he was associated with a meme on SiIvaGunner? Justanot (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers fan last game opinion[edit]

Hey Charles I just want to comment on yesterday’s game with Lakers o been of Lakers fan for 40 year and in love with Kobe Bryant and dislike labron James but still a die heart Lakers fan I just wish what happened on the game yesterday that they send i Isaac to mental anger management class because what he got to realize that we are showing this day to a lot of children and I think that the second part was unnecessary and that the NBA commissioner should show more respect of the game by showing the children that there are consequences the first part is just a reaction of anybody human but the second part it was ridiculous I hope that you can share my thoughts l on TNT and have the king no he not as good to hit nobody like that and be place on the 75 year game list he should be fine and money and volunteer time to sit in a abuse classroom and I commit to hear my statement because I feel that Isaac put into a mental anger program before being put back on court 104.244.26.177 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Honor[edit]

I honestly think this should stay 100%. I found this on Steve Nash's article infobox and upon research found out that this is similar to Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor and it is just as important if not more as jersey retirement for former suns players, there is an induction ceremony and everything just like jersey retirement and besides player infoboxes always contain NBA awards that are not mentioned in WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS anyway, J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award is a common one that comes to mind. TheFightGame (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very first sentence is awkward[edit]

The section,"an American former professional basketball player" should be changed to "a retired American professional basketball player". 173.79.240.107 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be confusing to say "retired" in the narrow perspective of his playing career when the same sentence says he's still working: "...who is a television analyst..." "former" is fairly standard WP format, and most former athlete are likely working in some capacity. —Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate section for his TV analyst career[edit]

Currently, his tv analyst career is a subsection of the Personal Life section. I think that he has gained enough notability as an analyst (he even has a weekly show on CNN, a non sports channel) to have this classified as a separate section. What are your thoughts? Ruttgc49 05:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected edit request[edit]

For the intro, in the last paragraph, where it mentions “his last 13 seasons”, please change this to “13 seasons until his retirement in 2000” as this encompasses the majority of his basketball career. 2600:100C:A115:208A:24B4:D9F2:13A4:9914 (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His retirement year is clarified three sentences before that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Section?[edit]

So apparently he's the host of a prime time TV show on CNN, but this article doesn't even have a section where that would fit. Olympics? NBA Records?--2003:EA:E714:4EE5:899:FD1C:F892:8011 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Barkley&oldid=1196807118"