Talk:Ben Wallace (basketball)

Untitled
I took out the part about Wallace's doing a great job against Shaq in the 2004 finals because the numbers bear out that Shaq actually dominated him. Also, I fixed some of the grammar and sentence structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.228.170 (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed Wallace's page praising him, yet at the same time I stated that he is over-rated (the fact is, there are much better centers out there such as Shaq). I added that "walrus" part for humor, after all we all need comedic relief!-edited by the "B" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxbrown (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Box" Time, Time to settle some issues! This is an open discussion!
Ben Wallace is definetly one of the "coolest" centers in the game, period. He deserves to be defensive player of the year...... or does he? Ben Wallace is an overated center, as there are much better centers out there. His height is the main issue, and centers such as Yao could eaisly overpower him. Any disagreements? Boxbrown 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)boxbrown "the box"

your kidding me right? Yao Ming is a stick figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.74.104 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually stick figures don't average 20 points and 10 rebounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.165.143 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

c'mon yoa ming is 7'6....he should be leading the nba in block shots,rebounds and houston should lead the nba with points in the paint....but yet he is getting he is shooting the ball from free throw distance and also getting blocked and dunked on (lol nate robinson blocked him good.) he is overated!!! he should gain some weight and play like a true center. (grim reaper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.24.98 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tremendous Athlete
Ben Wallace was an all-state baseball, basketball, and football player in high school. Did you know that? 66.166.172.178 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that he is the ONLY undrafted player ever to start and all-star game (I do believe) and I know that he was the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.189.165 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Error on article page
There is a mistake in Article section for Ben Wallace. 6'9" is exactly 205.74cms (roughly 206cms) while 6'8" is 203.2cms not 199cms. 199cms will be about 6'6"1/3. "'He is listed at 206 cm (6 ft 9in), although as he has stated probably stands closer to 199 cm (6 ft 8in) and weighs 109 kg (240 lb).'" Should be fixed, and adjusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.43.174 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 May 2006
 * Is there a reliable source that state Ben Wallace stated he is more of a 6 ft 7 player? (which is 201 cm and 199 cm is 6 ft 6 in. Not 6 ft 8). If the previous person said that he or she had source saying "Ben is 199 cm and is 6 ft 8 in" that article is probably inaccurate. I have seen Wallace in real life back when he was Piston and was standing beside Darko Miličić (which is 7 ft, currently playing in Orlando) Wallace was about half a head shorter than Darko Miličić. So that about 6 ft 8 or 6 ft 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.15.175 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 May 2007
 * Unfortunately, we cannot write articles in Wikipedia based on what we personally have observed, see WP:NOR. Articles should use reliable sources. According to the official NBA website, he is 6-9 (2.06) and 240 lbs. (108.9 kg.) See also Basketball-Reference.com.
 * Bash Kash (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He says it himself "I'm 6'9" without the fro, 7'1" with the fro." See: http://www.bigbenwallace.com/video.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijhutch (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the NBA Records section, Ben Wallace is listed as 1 of 4 players to lead the NBA in rebound and block averages in the same season. At this point that has become untrue because Dwight Howard has become the 5th person to do that same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantLucas (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben Wallace & The Chicago Bulls
if players who are drafted but not yet signed are considered members of their team, so should free agents who have agreed to verbal terms. there have been several edits by users changing Wallace's team back to the Pistons. He is a Chicago Bull. I will aggressively revert any edits that say otherwise (unless he agrees to sign with another team besides the Bulls). Drmagic 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Shows you know jack about basketball. Players who are drafted BELONG to the team that drafted them.  Free agents who have not signed are NOT part of that team.  Verbal agreements mean nothing...read up about Carlos Boozer.  Until July 12, 2006, Ben Wallace can ONLY be a Detroit Piston ACCORDING TO THE NBA (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_wallace/).  This is an encyclopedia, not your Chicago Bulls fanpage blog.  Go home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.219.239 (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides here but just letting everyone know that NBA.com don't always keep their pages up to date, it may take a full day for them to update their rosters to reflect real life happenings. But that's not to say Ben Wallace is with the Bulls. Officially, he's not.--Downwards 04:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is pathetic that a fan boy has some sort of power here. Drmagic you are an embarassment to Wikipedia. Let it go until July 12 when it becomes official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.174.161 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Downwards, Wallace is officially not with the Bulls. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that rookies are considered members of the teams that drafted them because the sole negotiating rights belong to the teams unless they trade or otherwise relinquish the rights. Likewise with free agents, they are considered members of their old team and count against the salary cap until the player signs with another team or the team renounces the player. So Drmagic is comparing apples and oranges. Ytny 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(2007) This discussion section is now over since Ben Wallace is now a Chicago Bull player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.15.175 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's put fan loyalities aside
Ok, we all need to chill out about the current status of what team Wallace is on. There needs to be a thought out argument here that doesn't attack other users. Yank sox  01:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I briefly protected the page rather than block both users. Talk this out. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben Wallace has played for the Bulls?
Can we please remove Chicago Bulls players? This article is to reflect real life, not the future. This is an encyclopedia. For unofficial roster changes, go and play NBA Live. --Downwards 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Prehaps it could be reworded to reflect the fact that he was recently acquired to play for the Bulls. It appears with all possible signs that he is now a Bull. It's a bit of speculation, but based mainly on logic and sources. Things like these are never released officially till much after the fact, but it is accepted as a fact by pretty much all notable sources. It creates a real nightmare for any player's article during the offseason. Another alternative is to mention that official he is a free agent and add a section on apparent signing by the Bulls. Yank  sox  04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the latter of these options. One point being that, until a contract has officially been signed, there's always the remote chance that Ben could have a change of heart (It's rare, but it has happened). Technically, he has not been acquired by anyone, and is not currently a member of any team. The latter of the options you present (labeling him a free agent, having a section regarding his agreeing to terms with the Bulls), accurately describe Ben's current situaton. Venknat 05:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, how dumb is this, if Ben changes his mind all you have to do is take the info about Ben on Chicago, thats it short and simple! --Phbasketball6 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok Ok, good point and I agree. --Phbasketball6 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that he actually isn't a member of the Bulls yet. He can't be until the 12th. Thus, it's factually wrong to put him in as a Bull until then. The fact that you can remove premature statements isn't an excuse for making them in the first place. Venknat 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better off to still leave him with the Pistons and add a ref about the singing with the Bulls in the lead and in a paragraph, then when the deal is official, the lead can be changed. I'm going to do that right now and a currentsport tag. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some fact tags for PoV and WP:NOR, remove spam and some trivia and placed a current sports, I'm still want more discussion on the Bulls thing before I or another admin unprotect. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

guys, lets just put the following on the main page: ben wallace has verbally agreed to play for the bulls in the 2006-07 season like on the nazr mohammed page and the peja stojakovic page says. he hasnt signed a contract with the bulls, therefore is not a bulls player, but he has agreed so thats the fact and lets put that on the page. all those in agreement say so below. --Bucsrsafe 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected it knowing the Wallace is basiclly a bull now. Jaranda wat's sup 06:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben Wallace is razy. He was never very goood and was overrated because he was on a championship team. He was only an allstar starter because Nba fans are clueless and just chose the craziest dude out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.149.31 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

what about Nazr Mohammed?
his page was edited to list him as a member of the Pistons. yet i don't see anyone bitching about that. 12.100.11.146 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change that, I'd be in agreement too... suffice to say this is a function of fewer people caring (and those that do care care less) about Nazr Mohammed than about Ben Wallace. Venknat 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben's New Name
Ben Wallace's name has officially been changed to Benedict Wallace. All right, well maybe that is not completely accurate, but his name may as well have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrapp (talk • contribs) 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

all this over some rich guy?
seeing so many people arguing & jockeying over a multi-MILLIONAIRE that could care less what we write about him on some site called Wikipedia. watching all of this is so pathetically funny. *LOL* 24.148.74.156 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

valid point...but hey there are tons of rich people with articles on Wikipedia. and at some point there has or will be edit-wars over each of them. it's just Wikipedia nature my friend. Drmagic 13:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

More controversy
Ok, I've stepped in and made this edit regarding Wallace's status. It's pretty much the status quo to immedially change the team name when a player switches over, however, I guess there is a chance that something will happen. Personally, as a Celtic fan, I wish he was here. Anyways, let's try to settle issues like this here on the talk and not in a 3RR war. Yank sox  00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this is the status quo. And plus, since this IS wikipedia, we can change the article as new events happen.  But for now, he is a Chicago Bull.  I'm still having a hard time figuring out why this has become a big issue. Dknights411 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've relisted the category
My resons for relisting the Chicago Bulls players category is that: 1. The wikipedia article refers to Ben Wallace as a Chicago Bull in the first paragraph. Not listing an appropriate category is makes the article inconsistant. 2. The NBA officially recognizes Ben Wallace as a Chicago Bull. 3. The category is Chicago Bulls players, which I interpret as players associated with the Chicago Bulls (as players obviously). Ben Wallace is associated with the Chicago Bulls at this moment, so he should be in the category. 4. If something happens between now and the start of the season, then we can make the necessary changes then. But for now, we have to keep this up to date. I mean, this IS Wikipedia after all. Anyway that's my offical stand on this issue, and I think we should leave the article like this for consistancy purposes. Dknights411 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Union is no coincidence
The article says "Coincidentally, Oakley also attended Virginia Union as well". Wallace turned to Oakley after graduating, and he referred him to VU.

Here's the relevant fact: (http://www.truehoop.com/chicago-bulls-27651-from-the-archives-a-ben-wallace-feature-article.html)

"Oakley steered Wallace to Cuyahoga Community College, near Oakley’s childhood home in Cleveland, Ohio. As a sophomore, he averaged 24 points, 17 rebounds and seven blocks per game. When his two years there were complete, Oakley helped Wallace transfer to his own alma mater, Virginia Union. "

Could someone correct this fact as I'm not a native English speaker? --Duopixel 05:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Harold Lee
I have deleted a subject about Harold Lee. I think that is the action of a fan of Ben Wallace. I hope that I have done the right thing :P Towerman86 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Trade deadline
I've semi-protected the page for 24 hours so that there won't be any speculative edits while the trade is being officially approved by the league. --Madchester (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben Wallace to Phoenix Suns for Shaq O'Neal
Just reported by ESPN - he's going to the Suns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.210.144 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben Wallace has now been bought out
So he's now a free agent. --Reezy (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Detroit Pistons
On August 7, 2009, The Detroit Pistons brought Ben Wallace back to Detroit on a one year contract.Rdemick (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ben Wallace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120301203222/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ18LRQFgYM&gl=US&hl=en to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ18LRQFgYM

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Ben Wallace. 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.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513162123/http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_wallace/bio.html to http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_wallace/bio.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
The reference added claiming Wallace is in the Hall of Fame is based on breaking news from an unnamed source: "a source told ESPN's The Undefeated on Saturday." The guideline WP:RSBREAKING suggests distrusting anonymous sources and unconfirmed reports. It also reads: It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors.

ESPN wrote that this will be announced the HOF on Sunday: "Wallace and the entire 2021 class will be announced on Sunday at the museum in Springfield, Massachusetts." Wikipedia can wait another day.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKay (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

– The article does not meet WP:PTOPIC as the politician has long-term significance and high usage as well. Sahaib (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ben Wallace → Ben Wallace (basketball)
 * Ben Wallace (disambiguation) → Ben Wallace
 * Support per nomination and likewise support creation of the Ben Wallace disambiguation page that would list Ben Wallace (politician) as well as Ben Wallace (basketball) . —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the Ben Wallace (disambiguation) page had already been created 12 hours earlier, I am striking the unnecessary text within my vote in support of its creation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 *  Strong oppose on both counts (“long-term significance” and “high usage”)
 * After poking around a little bit on Google from the perspective of other regions of the world, I have adjusted my position on the matter to firm oppose, which is a slightly weaker stance of opposition than “strong oppose”. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The basketball player was the universal undebatable unequivocal dominant primary topic “Ben Wallace” from when his career really took off around 2000 after joining the Pistons until about 2019; up to that point the politician was a lower-level officer and very obscure on the grand scale compared to the basketball player.

Looking at historical page views, up until April 2019 the basketball player was consistently getting 40k views per month vs the politician’s 2k views. That’s roughly two decades of complete domination.

It is my understanding that the politician wasn’t even notable enough for a WP page until 2005, and had absolutely zero argument to even “fight” the basketball player for primary topic or “un-primary” the basketball player until 2019.


 * (*Intermediate EDIT* for further clarity and context regarding the historical background of their notability: The basketball player became “Wikipedia-notable” when he entered the NBA in 1996, and the politician became “Wikipedia-notable” when he entered the British Parliament in 2005. Prior to those two respective times, neither of the two Ben Wallaces were anywhere near the radar of notability by WP standards.)

The basketball player retired in 2012, after which he didn’t really do anything that had standalone WP notability (meaning there isn’t really anything post-career that could qualify him for being notable enough for an article) and he STILL maintained that topical dominance for seven more years. The only two post-career things of significance are his Hall of Fame induction in 2021, which is a fairly big deal, and Pistons retiring his jersey in 2016 which isn’t quite as big from a notability standpoint, but those accomplishments are tied to his NBA career, which ended in 2012.

So he’s essentially hasn’t done any “new” notable things since 2012. The main new things are that he became an ownership partner for a minor-league team in 2018, and was involved in a hit-and-run crash in 2014. And both of those things alone or combined are not notable enough to build a standalone WP article on.

Meanwhile, the politician was still in that lower level of obscurity even while in office, and just barely emerged into this discussion in 2019. So he has only been “not entirely obliterated” by the basketball player for three years.

The “political career” section is more than half from 2019 onwards with his secretary of defence position, and about half of that writing is since December 2021. If you search Google for Ben Wallace, 80-90% or more of the top results are the basketball player. I don’t think the politician was even on the first page or two before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February. The politician has suddenly popped up in the news and media a LOT over the past few months because of the Russia-Ukraine War. There is very heavy recentism going on.

Based on the current trajectory of the politician, the basketball player would be “un-primaried” in about 3-5 years from now and it would be a clear “no primary topic” then, if the politician continues to ascend in his role. But that is speculative at best, and Wikipedia decisions are NOT based on future speculation.

Essentially, if both Ben Wallaces completely disappeared and vanished, and there was no subsequent commentary, reports, or articles about either of them, the basketball player would still be a clear primary topic. The politician hasn’t “done” enough yet from an independent notability standpoint to dethrone the basketball player from primary topic.

And that doesn’t even include the accomplishment perspective. The NBA is by far the strongest basketball league in the world, watched by fans around the world, and Ben Wallace led his team to win the NBA Finals championship, has several records and statistically significant performances in the NBA pertaining to blocks and rebounds, won Defensive Player of the Year Award four times which is tied for an NBA record, and was entered into the NBA Hall of Fame. Even among longtime NBA players with similar seasons/games/minutes, the amount and scope of his awards is not common.

And from a legacy/impact perspective, he also revolutionized the game of basketball. He made defense exciting to watch for fans, commentators, and others. Before him, defense was boring for people to watch and play. I don’t think the politician has changed the way that politics is done, and had a legacy on the political landscape the way the basketball player has had on the game of basketball, the politician hasn’t revolutionized politics or left a unique legacy. With his defense, Ben Wallace introduced new ways to be a basketball great, instead of the usual scoring and dunks and 3-pointers, both from a direct game impact, and also a cultural/fan impact.

There’s also name recognition, when people see basketball games that Ben Wallace played in, when he does something on the court of 10 players, his impact is unique enough that they’ll think “oh that’s Ben Wallace”. If there’s something similar going on with the politician speaking among a group of politicians, people are more likely to think “oh that’s a British politician/leader” as opposed to “oh that’s Ben Wallace”. With the basketball player, it’s more likely to be “oh that’s Ben Wallace”.

Disclaimer: I may make minor edits to this comment later to improve formatting and clarify as necessary, but new ideological edits will be in separate new comments

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, consider the 10-year test. The basketball player already withstood 7 post-retired years of being the “unequivocally dominant” Ben Wallace while the politician was still an active politician. Even 3 years in from the politician moving to a higher level, the basketball player has still withstood those three years of this newer “competition” or “contest” against the politician and maintaining what I would say is a “fairly dominant” status as opposed to the previous “unequivocally dominant”

Again, it’s too early to unseat the basketball player from primary topic. The current trajectory of the politician says it’s bound to happen in the near future, but not right now. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. |Ben_Wallace|Ben_Wallace_(politician)|Ben_Wallace_(basketball) Pageviews for this year show that there is no clear primary topic currently. It may well be true that the basketball player was primary topic for many years, but things change and right now, when a reader searches for "Ben Wallace", we can't be sure of whose article that reader expects to find. Station1 (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , your “right now” is an indication of a recent trend that can very plausibly be recentism. Again, we’re looking at roughly 20 years total of unequivocal indisputable primary topic status of the basketball player, compared to a relatively recent emergence of even the slightest hint of a potential debate (3 years at an absolute maximum), which seems to have grown further since Russia-Ukraine conflict began in February 2022. The fact of the matter is that if this move was attempted before February, this move would’ve had zero chance. If these past 3 years in secretary of Defence were enough to bump the basketball player out from primary topic, this move attempt would’ve been discussed or requested probably sometime last year. Ukraine/Russia conflict and topics  associated with it are getting a disproportionately high amount of press coverage. Much of the recent coverage of Ben Wallace the politician is riding on the wave of the 2022 Ukraine/Russia conflict coverage. So the politician’s independent overarching “big picture” notability may be significantly overstated right now.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the page views, there’s definitely a noticeable spike in views for the politician tied with the timing of the Ukraine war.

Using this year’s pageviews is a poor mechanism for supporting or even judging the politician’s overall “big picture” notability.

If you look at the calendar years of 2019, 2020, and 2021, the basketball player has a strong 3:1 to 4:1 ratio. And mind you this is a period of time when the politician is at his highest (and current) political position of Secretary of Defence, and the basketball player has been “out of office” (retired) for 7-10 years already. So the politician has all of the “advantages” when doing this comparison, but is still decidedly behind in page views by 3-4x Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree re Mrbeastmodeallday's latest comment, also it should be considered that Americans know the basketball one better than the politician and the Britons vice-versa and there are more Americans who are likely to have heard of the basketball one even though the politician one may be involved in the ongoing war with what he is referring to. fyi: for the nomintator - you would want to see WP:ONEOTHER before creating the disambiguation page again which I see it is in for speedy deletion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The NBA has had global reach and impact, and Ben Wallace was prominent in events, performances, and activities broadcasted around the world, most notably the 2004 NBA Finals victory against the Lakers, among other things such as All-Star appearances, Hall of Fame induction, and other things based on his own individual merit and talent.

I’m not seeing that with the politician. I’m struggling to see any signs of significant recognition of him outside Britain rooted in independent notability, and not merely piggybacking and riding the wave of the Ukraine/Russia war coverage. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Much of what I see described in the latest sections of the politician’s current career seems rooted in association with “bigger” events and people that are magnets for news and media: Donald Trump, Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, US withdrawal from Afghanistan, 2022 Russia/Ukraine war, Cold War, and Boris Johnson. Like, “hey he’s notable these last few years because of his association with those topics.” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless or until we see the politician doing more notable things completely unrelated to 2022 Ukraine/Russia, we really have to wait until the “dust settles” from that UK/RU conflict (i.e. the conflict is over and there’s not excessive disproportionate coverage anymore) to have a good read on the politician’s long-standing notability in comparison to the basketball player. Again, the basketball player has already been away from his main source of attention/notability (being an NBA player) for 10 years and is still holding up very strongly in page views.
 * Oppose per Mrbeastmodeallday and Iggy. I wasn't even aware there was a politician named Ben Wallace until just now, guess I fall into that American group! When a user searches for "Ben Wallace", they will see Ben Wallace, and then Ben Wallace (politician). Perhaps in the future, the politician might be the primary, but WP:CRYSTAL comes to mind. First page Google search of Ben Wallace, the third hit was the politician's wiki page, and that was the only one of the eight sites that google showed that pointed to him. Found no articles that pointed to him again until one hit for an interview on page 4. Pageviews for wiki showed a temporary spike in the politician's page in Feb 2022 that fell back to normal just a month later. Adding Ben Wallace AND the Ben Wallace (basketball) pageviews are back to being ahead of the politician. Brian (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY is based on usage in English-language reliable sources. Blogs, social media sites etc are irrelevant.
 * Per WP:SEARCHENGINETEST, the claims above data are irrelevant. A general Google web search includes lots of unreliable sources, so a comparison should be made on a search of reliable sources such as Google Books or Google Scholar.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The politician has several artificial advantages in this comparison that are skewing the true neutral perceptions.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. In addition to supporting Ben Wallace (disambiguation) → Ben Wallace, I would also support Ben Wallace (disambiguation) → Benjamin Wallace since, among the seven men listed upon the disambiguation page, four are named "Benjamin", two are named "Ben" and one is named "Bennie". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed title is better. The four named Benjamin do not have articles, and the three who have articles are not named Benjamin. Station1 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All the "Benjamin Wallace" entries appear to be MOS:DABMENTIONs, so it seems undue title the page with "Benjamin", even moreso if the highly notable Ben's end up being a WP:NOPRIMARY. —Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems that a Benjamin Wallace article has since been created.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, just yesterday in fact, by the user who started this move request. Brian (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Brian says. That’s why I’m saying this all really seems fishy to me, even though I’m trying to assume good faith, it’s very very hard for me to right now. OP hasn’t attempted to explain those changes adequately in this talk discussion.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the politician gets more views (20,134) than the basketball player (6,382)[].  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale That link you provided is skewed, because the dab page links to the current Ben Wallace, while the basketball player was at Ben Wallace (basketball) until a few days ago. The basketball player has more views (see |Ben_Wallace_(basketball)|Ben_Wallace_(politician) here), but no comment from me yet re: a PTOPIC or not. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, recentism tied to the ongoing Ukraine/Russia confict, because it’s the new big hottest thing in the mass media now that COVID-19 is getting old and Trump is out of office. You point to statistics from an incredibly narrow range of 5/2/22 to 5/22/22. Of course you can make statistics support almost any agenda or opinion you have when you’re picking from the cherry tree. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Station1 it doesn't look like there has been a primary topic at least this year and there are several other uses so lets just put the DAB at the base name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the current “Ben Wallace” DAB page is actually supposed to be deleted, it’s not supposed to exist and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It’s a leftover incidental remnant from the original undiscussed move attempt being reverted, because the original move attempt wasn’t supposed to be done like that in the first place, it was supposed to have been discussed here first. It literally only exists because of “sloppy” or “improper” WP procedure of the first move attempt. It has no reason to exist, and if proper procedure was followed from the get-go, the DAB page would 100% not exist until AFTER a concensus was reached regarding the move. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone has just been suddenly adding all these other trivial usages of “Ben Wallace” with notability only existing by tangentiality or association. Before I opened this move request, it was just the basketball player and the politician, there was no other “Ben Wallace” in the Wikipedia space. For now, until there’s actually a final concensus decision between the b-ball player and politician, to keep the discussion neutral and within proper procedure, the DAB either needs to be deleted, or it needs to be redirected to the only established concensus “Ben Wallace” so far, which is the basketball player. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For now...to keep the discussion neutral and within proper procedure, the DAB either needs to be deleted...: The existence of a DAB page seems unrelated to whether a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists or not for Ben Wallace. AFAICS, that discussion has revolved around the basketball player and the policitican only, not the other less notable entries.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This whole thing is getting very sloppy with a bunch of new WP article pages popping up as a result of the incidental technical remnant that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin Wallace and Benjamin Wallace (disambiguation) were not even around as relevant topics until after the technical error was called out and this move request began. It seems like people are taking advantage of the error, and adding those new pages and stretching the relevance to support their case for bumping the basketball player out of primary topic. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s such a cheap shot Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Using the technical error to artificially make the “Ben Wallace” term look busier and more crowded than it naturally is. Wow, I can’t believe it. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Let’s avoid any possibility of policy shopping, by parking any debates that involving all other potential uses of “Ben Wallace”, and keep it ONLY between the basketball player and politician. The other uses are for another discussion at another time.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But a key question to ask about search results that appear for the politician, regardless of geographical location, is how recent are the entries? And furthermore, how closely tied is the timing of said entries with the Ukraine War (Feb 2022-present)? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Stated above that few google hits refer to the politician, but this will depend on geographical location. Brian "First page Google search of Ben Wallace, the third hit was the politician's wiki page, and that was the only one of the eight sites that google showed that pointed to him." That could be the case in the US, but in the UK all top page result are the minister not the basketball player.1234567jack (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except the one that is #5 in Google UK, espn.co.uk/nba/player/_/id/885/ben-wallace right? Google isn't country based unless you have a region set, thus it's set for global default. Area and location shouldn't be the deciding factor. A user searches for Ben Wallace in a wiki search and sees Ben Wallace then Ben Wallace (politician). User should know which one they need to click, and if they click the first one looking for the other, there is a hatnote available. Brian (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Google will tailor results based on your IP's geolocation. —Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't post something if I hadn't read it myself. A search for "Why does Google continually show me search results for US when I'm in, and settings set to, UK" in which it is stated that Google defaults to global. Brian (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems we're both perhaps talking from our own specific usage, as it's dependent on how you use Google. I don't login and don't allow location sharing. So it uses my IP.  I sometimes VPN from other countries, and see different results. See here  It'd be interesting what they do if user-provided location and IP location didn't match.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to do an artificial “sample” Google search from more “neutral” geographic locations around such as Africa, South America, and Asia (excluding China)? Australia? Middle East? Mexico and Central America? Middle East?

Those countries aren’t big on basketball, nor do they seem to have important military alliances with any of the key European players involved in the UK/RU conflict. That’s why I suggest those geographical locations. Because they’re pretty much neutral or nonexistent regarding this cultural battle of “NBA vs 2022 European war” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that other areas around the world with ongoing longstanding war conflicts (Southeast Asia, Africa, Middle East) that are going on for multiple years and decades give zero shits about Ukraine/Russia right now, and certainly haven’t cared much for the NBA either. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

For discussion about any usage of “Ben Wallace” beyond the basketball player and the politician, see Talk:Ben Wallace (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbeastmodeallday (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, in very loose, rough, and simple terms:

– the “noticeably more exposed to the politician audience” is Great Britain (60-70 million people).

- the “noticeably more exposed to the basketball player audience” is the US (about 300 million people) + probably much of Canada (about 30 million people) – the basketball player’s notability is geographically centered in Detroit which literally borders Canada, the NBA is considered a league for both the US and Canada (there’s a Toronto NBA team and in the early part of the player’s career there was also a Vancouver NBA team). The American pro sports impact is also prominent to Canada other sports, the top pro hockey league for Canada is based in the US and has six Canadian teams. They have their own Canadian Football League which derives from American football. And like the NBA, the US-based Major League Baseball has one current team in Canada and one former team in Canada.

I just searched “Ben Wallace” a bit on Google, there’s a setting where you can choose any country to “search from”, and also turn off “trending” results.

However, I will add this caveat, what we really need to look at is if the basketball player is primary topic in the English-speaking world.

I don’t know how to read Russian or Ukrainian languages, but it would totally make sense for the basketball player to NOT be primary topic for those WP language platforms, and possibly even have the politician as primary over the basketball player (although to go that far, I’d highly suspect recentism)

So where is the English-speaking world? We have to look at where people live who have English as their first/main reading language they’d use when browsing Wikipedia.

For starters, aside from the obvious US and UK, off the top of my head there’s most of Canada, Nigeria, India, Australia, New Zealand, and Philippines. Other countries like Japan and Saudi Arabia don’t have it as an official or main language, but it’s still very widespread, and Wikipedia and other Internet infrastructure tends to be less developed overall in those native languages, so people from countries like that with passable English may tend to use English for WP browsing. So again, it’s not the country’s total population we need to weigh, it’s the English-speaking and English-reading populations we need to weigh, possibly among other more nuanced factors. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware, a significant portion of the population of Africa uses English at a passable level, whereas most of the population of South America does not. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, a similar example to this was the discussion involving Chris Evans (actor) and Chris Evans (presenter) where despite the actor getting more page views and arguably being more notable it was decided that there was no primary topic. Also I do not think that Benjamin Wallace (an article which I created) is relevant to this discussion as I have not found any sources yet that refer to him as “Ben”. Sahaib (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Though Benjamin is relevant to the discussion about the disambiguation page. Sahaib (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support move. The politician will probably be of far greater longer significance than the ball-thrower, and even on pageviews they are roughly equal this year. The verbose attempts to proclaim the eternal prominence of the ball-thrower are a stark illustration of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the phrase “will probably be” is completely rooted in speculating about the future. It seems that the strongest and most convincing arguments in support of the proposed page move all have prominent themes tied to future predictions and recent events, which carry little to no weight in an encyclopedia such as WP.Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel I'm being bias, or am any part of some systemic bias on Wikipedia at all. I'm basing my thought on facts. Keep in mind, the "ball-thrower" retired from active play in 2012, while the politician was still going strong and moving up. While not a basis for notability, pageviews can still show who is primarily being viewed. May 2016-17, ball-thrower had almost 1/2 million views, politician almost cracked 30k. 2017-18 and 2018-19 was about the same. 2019-20 saw the politician spike when he was appointed Secretary of State for Defence in July 2019. It saw a sharp drop the following month, and stayed on average with the past 2 years. 2019-20 was still 1/2 million for the ball-thrower, and 192k for the politician. 2020-21 was the same numbers. May 2021-currently still has the ball-thrower ahead in views by over 200k. Again, the ball-thrower retired about ten years ago, but you can see which Ben Wallace is still more viewed. If the numbers and arguments were reversed, there would be no bias, and I would agree with the request 100%. Brian (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Brian, the bias lies in your choice to apply a test of significance which is designed to favour popular culture topics such as ball-throwers.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Brian’s mind may be biased, but Brian’s argument here sure as hell isn’t biased. I see statistics that hit on all the main perspectives important to the spirit of Wikipedia neutrality, and ALSO even OFFERING the politician the benefit of the doubt by emphasizing that the basketball player’s role that is the main wellspring of his notability has disappeared 10 years ago, while the politician has all the card’s stacked in his favor to “win” this comparison because he has been “ascending” and getting “promoted” since 2019, and the basketball player is STILL holding up relatively strong.

Brian makes an interesting case about how if the role’s were flipped and the politician had been out of his highest office for 10 years and the basketball player was freshly ascending in the professional basketball world within the past 3 years, we’d keep the politician locked as primary.

That points to a potential systemic bias in favor of “official” government leaders over people with more is an entertainment/cultural impact. Perhaps by simple virtue because they are in a designated line of succession, but that’s also tied to WP:CRYSTALBALL because that’s adding notability for the “possibility” or “potential” of them reaching that top spot, while not actually in that role.

I’ve mentioned a similar paradigm in the talk page of the United States article about why an image of Kamala Harris is featured equally alongside Biden instead of Nancy Pelosi or John Roberts.

But anyways, I’ll stay on topic, that’s just a side note/parallel Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment My mind isn't biased either. I'm not basing my feelings on where I'm from, nor what interests I have. I'm basing it upon what I have seen, is that more users are searching for Ben Wallace the basketball than are searching for Ben Wallace the politician. I don't feel there is a need to change the name, and leaving the hatnote on this articles main page should be enough. Brian (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mrbeastmodeallday: your extraordinarily verbose (and disruptive) campaign against disambiguation is based entirely on pageviews.  That test is essentially the same as the clickbait criteria of an online tabloid.
 * Are you f***** kidding me??? That’s not my criteria. If anything it’s the opposite; the politician has a shit ton of recent views and media attention because he’s incidentally tied to secondary topics pertaining to the 2022 Ukraine War, and he’s benefiting from all the clickbait stuff. The basketball player hasn’t shown up on a TV screen in 10 years! And look at how the Ukraine/Russia war is all over every news thing since February. Ever since the basketball player retired in 2012, the politician has had all the advantages in the world to gain ground in this “notability race” if you will, and the basketball player has had ZERO advantages. And yet I STILL have yet to see the politician breaking off and building his own version of impact, legacy, and notability. Because the Ben Wallace politician can only do so much riding on the wave off of huge topics like the Ukraine War and Boris Johnson, which is the same exact reason why there is NO standalone article for Malia Obama or Sasha Obama, those WP targets have been move-protected and locked by admins for years and years with all the Wikipedia locks and protections in the Wikipedia universe, and people keep trying to “build” those pages to no avail! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * However, we are here to build a global encyclopaedia rather than a pop culture fanzine aimed at the North American male teens and twentysomethings who also dominate the editor base.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing I don't fit into the male teens or twentysomethings editor base. I actually take offense at being stereotyped into an apparently negative group according to you. If not a "test", what then? I suppose everyone should just speculate about the future and how popular an article "might" become. First test for a primary topic, although it does say "not considered absolute determining factors", is article traffic statistics. We've covered the reliable sources in No. 2, let's try No. 3; Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere. Ben Wallace (politician)- 413, ball-thrower- 954. Long-term significance is also a small factor. Again, let me remind you, I am not making this case just because I am from North America, or like sports. I'm basing it on facts of the two, which none of the supports seem to have done adequately. Brian (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't claim that is a "negative group". However, it is a group which is deeply unrepresentative of the world as a whole (about 1% of the global population), which is why the dominance on en.wp of that group's worldview is a systemic bias problem.  The over-representation leads to skewed selections.
 * Counting incoming wikilinks is another absurd test. That is a self-reference which merely measures the extent to which editors have linked to particular topics; it is not in any way a measure of real world significance.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and linkcounts on Wikipedia are not a reliable source.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like a "positive" group to be in by any means. Perhaps WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY should be changed to reflect that view. Stats aside, it's my view that Ben Wallace of the NBA has had substantially greater enduring notability, even after 10 years in retirement. Brian (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Brian, it's a pity that you persist in reading into my comment a prejudice which is not there there.
 * The problem with systemic bias is the over-representation, not the group. We would also have a systemic imbalance problem if, for example 85% of editors were female, rather than the reality of 85% male. Similarly if editors were predominantly Chinese, or overwhelmingly African.
 * The current imbalance skews a huge range of policy and content decisions towards the perspectives of the dominant group, which is disproportionately skewed towards topic such as the mass-media sports businesses of North America.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The British Secretary of State for Defence is clearly not less notable than the basketball player. American basketball fans will doubtless think the latter is more notable and will likely never have heard of the former. But they're not the prime audience for Wikipedia. British people are far more likely to know the politician and will probably have never heard of the basketball player (isn't basketball that weird game where stretched people in silly outfits chuck balls into hoops?). Most other people will probably never have heard of either of them. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I admittedly have more familiarity with the basketball player, but I am trying really really hard to find hard to find the politician having independent notability outside of Britain, outside of politics, and outside of the 2022 Ukraine War which he isn’t even a main player in like Putin, Velensky, or Biden. And I just can’t seem to find that. The basketball player led his team to knock off the globally popular NBA dynastic giants called the early 2000s Lakers Kobe and Shaq. Have we seen the politician masterminding and leading a coalition that keeps Putin and Russia out of Ukraine? I don’t think so. He’s not even close to that level of notability and significance in his political realm the way Ben Wallace was in his basketball realm. Perhaps you can also consider how many people Ben Wallace had cultural influence over, by looking at the vast amount of people who watched the NBA games and NBA Finals in the 2000s decade, and compare that to the amount of people the politician has governmental influence over, which is the population of Britain, which is much lower than the global NBA viewership population. Oh, and mind you, the politician is sixth in line for the prime minister position. If Ben Wallace was the sixth-ranked player on his team he wouldn’t even be starting. But no, he was the face of his team, the leader, and for a short period of time arguably the face of the NBA. Can you argue that the politician has ever been the face of Britain? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Here’s another comparison, I know for sure that anyone with even the most casual following of the NBA in the mid-2000s KNOWS who Ben Wallace the basketball player is.

Can we say the same about the politician? How much percent of people right now who have a casual interest in Britain as a country or world politics knows who Ben Wallace the politician is?

Do most people in the world know who the hell the 6th-ranking government leader of their country is??? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not the "6th-ranking government leader"! He's the holder of one of the most important offices of the British government. As opposed to someone who chucks balls through hoops. Let's get some perspective here please and stop comparing the seniority of someone in a major national government with someone in a sports team! If there was a basketball player called Lloyd Austin who was pretty well-known in basketball circles would you automatically assume he was more notable than the United States Secretary of Defense because, as you seem to be alleging, nobody knows anything about the holder of such a minor office? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and he got pretty damn famous for chucking the ball through hoops. You can also see Kobe Bryant who was famous for chucking a ball through hoops who’s death alone is independently notable enough for a WP page. Oh and the Ben Wallace who chucks the ball through hoops, actually led his team to beat Kobe. Oh and by the way the basketball player Ben Wallace is actually notoriously shitty at chucking the ball through hoops, so how did he have so much impact in the basketball world when the inherent goal of basketball is supposedly chucking the ball through hoops? Why don’t you tell me? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Ministerial ranking page shows the politician as 6th Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Janet Yellen, 6th rank in the United States Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Does the average American know who she is? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In Brazil there’s only 5 total people. The 5th rank is Luiz Fux. Does the average Brazilian know who he is?

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not saying that the politician is primary. I am saying that the basketball player is not primary. There is a difference. You're obviously a basketball fan. But you need to realise that most people, especially outside the USA, are not and have no idea who this chap is. He is not so overwhelmingly famous that he trumps every other person by this name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If I’m obviously a basketball fan, then you’re obviously a basketball hater with the way you’re talking 😂

At least I’m trying to make equivalent fair neutral comprehensive holistic comparisons between the two people, meanwhile you’re just shitting on the basketball player by virtue of his reason for notability. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't hate it. I just have no interest in it. I'm British. I have a reasonably good knowledge of current affairs. I know who Ben Wallace the politician is. I have, however, never heard of the basketball player. You just cannot assume that everyone's experience of the world is the same. That's why it's not easy to make something a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s fine. For the purpose of this conversation I have equal interest in both Ben Wallaces which is why I’m judging them by the exact same standards as closely as I can

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then by that token, it’s also not easy to unseat the basketball primary topic. Because the basketball player came around around to WP eligibility in 1996, politician in 2005. And nobody ever discussed otherwise until I stopped an undiscussed move (both events were this month - attempted move and my reversion) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The default is that basketball player is primary topic because that’s how it always was, so it’s equally hard to unprimary the basketball as it would be to primary the basketball topic if they were both “born” into WP around the same tile and were “equals” all along Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * around the same time Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So based on that standard it’s an equally hard standard to unseat the basketball player from 26 years of undebated primary topic status.

But I’m ok with that, and the possibility of it happening, so long as it aligns with WP guidelines and policies on a holistic and comprehensive level as much as possible.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant when somebody became notable. Would that make the President of the USA less notable than someone else called Joe Biden who became a sports star in, say, the 1960s? Just because he became famous when nobody had ever heard of the politician? No, of course it wouldn't. And someone does not have to remain primary just because they were primary when the article was first written. That's not how primacy works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Basketball never “became” primary over the politician. He always was the primary by default since 1996 because nobody else has bothered to challenge that until now. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Literally zero. People are chiming in now. But there’s talk page threads further up that date back to the early 2000s and literally no hint of any discussion about knocking the basketball player off primary topic Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So 2+ decades of regular traffic and activity on both the main article and talk page, with not one hint of any challenge at b-ball players primary status Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s why I’m like “wait a minute, Ukraine War just started in February, and now within just three months of that suddenly there’s interest in challenging the basketball player, even though the basketball player had been “out of office” and retired for an entire decade already”

That’s one of my big hangups about this requested move Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Because we could come back 2, 3, 4 years from now if the politician is out of office and the Ukraine War is long over and realize “oh we should move this back now” if this increase in views for the politician is just a fad Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Basketball player has already proven his long-term encyclopedic significance with a track record, politician hasn’t. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And the politician’s near-future “likely” track record doesn’t cut it, because that violates the WP:CRYSTALBALL principle, but I’ve been seeing that argument a lot. The OP said “long-term significance”, on what standard? If the politician resigns tomorrow and dissolves into obscurity and stays away from public media, is this conversation even gonna be relevant 2-3 years from now? The basketball player has mostly stayed out of the limelight since he retired in 2012. Any media or news coverage he gets pales in comparisons to the mid 2000s, and page views are still holding strong to this day. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is more or less the timeline of the politician in a nutshell:

• 2005-2019 – obscurity, you wouldn’t know about him unless you actually knew him or were looking for him

• 2019-late 2021/early 2022 – some niche attention

• The past 6ish months or so - finally breaking into the scene of mainstream attention from people with only very tangential relevance or casual connection

The basketball player reached that second level in 1996, and that third level in 2000, and probably 2002-2008 was the highest points with 2004 as the ultimate peak.

He’s had no reason to be famous or popular for the past 10 years, but he’s still holding a significant portion of his original mass attention Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If you compare “2022 politician” views to “2004 basketball” views you have to take it with a grain of salt, because Internet wasn’t mainstream. A much smaller percentage of people were accessing Wikipedia compared to the percentage of people nowadays. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 if someone hears about the politician, they might be 90% likely to hit Wikipedia for more info, 5% book, 5% newspaper.

Back then, for the attention of Ben Wallace, it would’ve been far less than half going to WP. Way more people turning to newspaper, book, print magazines, etc for more info Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I just feel like there maybe a previously unknown bias of judging mid 2000s basketball Ben Wallace by 2020s technology Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We gotta look at all the time-based contexts from the lenses of the times that they were in, and not be biased in favor of the present time context.

The way people communicated and looked up info back then was markedly different. Much less of it had a paper trail. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Mid 2000s we’re the infant years of Wikipedia. I get a sense that most of the people in those days interacting with WP were super nerdy, or really knowledgeable about computers, or read stuff at the library a lot or had some direct connection with people who founded WP. But now, it’s in tandem with Google. It’s the default go-to source for information for the masses. In the mid-2000s, it was TV news and radio, and libraries, and newspapers. Smartphones weren’t a thing until the tail end of the basketball player’s career, after his big peak.

I said this earlier, the politician really has a lot of big advantages in this “head-to-head” race. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The only way you can make a tangible comparison of the legacy and impact of 2004 basketball Ben vs 2022 politician Ben from the attention standpoint, you have to compare them by using 2004 technology and media vs 2022 technology and media Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The mass internet vitality that could be accessed nowadays didn’t exist or it had a much higher threshold. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If 2004 media and communication patterns were what they are today, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, it wouldn’t even be close.

Because there was such a significant amount of attention that wasn’t paper trailed into WP and other internet sources, because instead it was going to sources like print magazines, newspapers, books, TV, and radio. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

AM talk sports radio was the thing then, now the equivalent is sports blogs. The amount of people who listened to the talk isn’t tabulated in Google search results. But sports blogs are. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mass internet virality Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

To the other comment up higher, well politician’s role or position isn’t notable enough to be undebatably more notable than Ben Wallace. He’s not president or prime minister. Aside from a few of the biggest basketball names like Kobe, Shaq, and Michael Jordan, president of the US would most likely not stay “secondary” to NBA player by virtue of time. But that’s an extreme. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: politician’s role or position isn’t notable enough to be undebatably more notable than basketball Ben Wallace Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Even in the US, any other political positions besides president would undergo serious and the name wouldn’t be popular enough.

If a new Vice President or speaker of the house in the US emerged and was named Shaquille O’Neal, would they unseat the basketball from primary? Most likely not. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Even US president would take a while to unseat the biggest sports names like Wayne Gretzky, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Usain Bolt, Pele etc. so sports vs politics saying one is more important than the other is not a reasonable debate, it only reveals bias Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you if a new US President that emerged had a name that was Gretzky or Pele it would not be that clear right away and probably not until years after president is out of office. So let’s close that argument now since it doesn’t add any value to the conversation. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this debate is not about whether we should make basketball Ben Wallace the primary topic, he was already made primary topic. He is primary topic for now. That debate is off the table. That conversation belong in the basketball player’s rookie season in 1996, if you were able to go find the politician in the complete anonymity and obscurity he had in 1996. That conversation was 26 years ago, nobody ever hinted or bothered to challenge it for 26 years, so that’s an obvious concensus.

The conversation we’re having now is whether or not the politician has enough to unseat basketball player from primary topic; that is the only thing that is on the table right now. That is the only topic available for discussion.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You also can’t challenge the initial concensus, because politician wasn’t even WP-eligible until 2005, and that was a year after the peak of basketball Ben’s notability. So there’s nothing to retroactively debate about. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The biggest of the biggest of basketball Ben’s notability was already implanted before politician Ben was eligible to exist in Wikipedia at all Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Politician Ben Wallace is not on a crazy-high Biden or Trump level of notability, so he’s not gonna be coming around Wikipedia bumping other people off their primary topics left and right like that, and completely bypassing the strength of time. Probably 95% of WP biographical articles are extremely limited by the strength of time, 5% are partially limited, and then you got 0.1% like Biden and Trump and Lee Harvey Oswald and Mohamed Atta who can just get up one day and do something that lets them swipe hundreds of other people’s WP primary topics in one fell swoop.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If politician Ben does something as crazy and unthinkable as Oswald or Atta today or tomorrow or any other day, then he definitely deserves primary topic, and I’d be more than happy to say I was wrong. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, anyone who thinks that only people in America pay attention to the NBA, here’s this:

Outside the U.S., the NBA's biggest international market is in China, where an estimated 800 million viewers watched the 2017–18 season. NBA China is worth approximately $4 billion. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s way more global than people give it credit for. Just because certain individual people or individual communities or individual countries haven’t heard of it, that doesn’t mean it’s only commonly heard of the United States Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

To put that China figure into perspective. The amount of people in China watching the NBA is almost triple the population of the entire United States and the entire United States doesn’t even watch the NBA. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It may not be as globally ubiquitous as association football, but basketball is around. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add this about page views. I looked at politician’s page views over time, until right in the middle of January like 15-18th-ish both Bens had a fairly smooth line day-to-day overall, with basketball around 800-1000 and politician around 250-300.

However, right around that time, although politician has overall had more average views, the way the line graph moves looks extremely inconsistent and volatile. Like one day he’ll have 800, the next day he’ll have 5000, the next day he’ll have 1500. So it’s hard to see what the politician’s baseline is. With basketball Ben it’s pretty obvious where his consistent baseline is, it’s always right around 1000-1500. But I’m really thinking politician is tied to “hot” stories in the news with Russia/Ukraine which doesn’t really give him that strong baseline. It’s really impossible to tell what his baseline is, the last one he had was 300ish per day. I think it’s best to do a “wait and see” approach to see if the spikes and dips will tame a bit for the politician and maybe reveal a strong consistent baseline at the bottom that we can all be like “yes that politician’s baseline is competitive enough with basketball Ben’s baseline” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Because there’s a period of time in February when politician had about 400 every day for a week, and then suddenly one day he went from 400 to 7000, and then 5000. It just looks really inconsistent, and it’s hard to tell where his baseline is. I think the best way to tell is seeing their “worst” or “lowest” scores in a recent time period with an “only as strong as your weakest link” mindset. Because that’s probably close to where the baseline of notability is. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Since May 12, politician has had a very consistent 350-550 every day. Basketball Ben has generally been getting at least 1000 at a minimum. Interestingly, it was actually doing stronger when it was briefly titled “Ben Wallace (basketball)” and had about 1500-1700 on several days in a row while politician Ben was around 400.

I think the baseline average daily views they have right now is basketball about 1000-1200 and politician about 400-500. It needs more time, more “flattening” and “averaging” of politician’s highs and lows day by day, and probably some growth of his baseline. Because it’s still about 2.5-3x less pageviews per day, which isn’t really universally clear enough to bump someone out of primary topic. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support - Per nom,, can we get this move done already? Mrbeastmodeallday, the most vehement opposition, has been blocked on grounds of incivility, personal attacks, bludgeoning etc. Thanks. And maybe do a cleanup of the talk page too. Also, Wikipedia is banned in China. Any points about China are null. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 00:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)