Talk:Wilt Chamberlain

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2025 (2)

You should change his description from Grace Potter of all time to one of the greatest players of all time - calling him the greatest purple time outright is dishonest and incorrect in many NBA fans and experts opinions. Graves96 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

greatest player of all time to one of Graves96 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done It's consistent with Michael Jordan's article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay but that's f****** stupid too, there's no unanimously regarded goat player - I mean to be fair Jordan is favored by many is the goat, but some people would put Kareemd of them Graves96 (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Kareem ahead of him Graves96 (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Possibly... it often depends on a person's age. I never would. Greatest ever really belongs at a bar conversation, not an encyclopedia. But with it being thrown around with Jordan, James, and Chamberlain articles, it's the way wikipedia works. Same thing at Wikipedia in tennis with Federer, Laver, Djokovic, Nadal, Tilden. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this article is neutral. Wilt has been called the greatest player ever by many experts in basketball. Saying that many experts have called him the greatest is not the same as saying he is the greatest. That is neutral based on wikipedia guidelines. There is no way to know for sure because he didn't play against every era. But neither did other players that are in the goat debate. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about sources

What reliable sources are there that call Wilt the GOAT? The claim in the article is only supported by Fansided and Bleacher Report, which have been ruled unreliable by community discussions cited at WP:NBARSU. ESPN and The Athletic are among the WP:BESTSOURCES for the NBA topic area, and they rank him fifth or sixth. Left guide (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC) edited in response to recent restoration of content Left guide (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, we don't base editorial decisions on what other basketball player articles say; it's a null argument regardless of how many times it's repeated. We do it based on individual merit with regards to what the weight of reliable sources say about Wilt Chamberlain. Left guide (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Ranking a player is always subjective... it's always a he said she said... a water-cooler topic. None of them are worthy of an encyclopedia. But Wikipedia seems to like these things. Wording can be tweaked to say something along the lines of "Chamberlain has been called the greatest player in history" or something like that, as Jordan's should be. But I'd attempt to fix that article first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

We can't tweak wording to say something that reliable sources don't say; that is original research which is prohibited by WP:OR policy. Do you have reliable sources directly calling Chamberlain the "greatest player in history"? If so, please provide them so we can discuss them and consider them for inclusion, thank you. Left guide (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to be completely Frank and accurate, you should make the wording on Jordans page " often considered the greatest (if not one of) players of all time" , and then put wilts as" considered one of the greatest players of all time". Graves96 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've read enough books to say that both are often considered the greatest ever. But if you try to change that on Jordans article it will get reverted quickly. Compromises have been made through the years to accommodate those things. A more accurate and easily verified thing would be to have both say, "widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time." That would be fair for both of them. Heck now we have folks talking about Lebron James being better then each of them. or Kobi. It makes Wikipedia look more tabloid than encyclopedic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You know what if you were to make that change on all of them (and you should also put Kareem in the mix), I would have little issue with it - I personally lean towards Michael as the goat, but I can understand other people throwing in other names, it's just dramatically inaccurate to name two people as the singular greatest player of all time... Graves96 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):I've read enough books to say that both are often considered the greatest ever. Can you please provide references to said books? That would be very helpful in moving this discussion forward. Left guide (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I just plopped in a heap more refs to support. They are all over the place. Some even call him the "greatest athlete" ever, not just basketball. As far as all of them, I think it's a losing battle. We have managed to get them all out of the leads of tennis players, but some sports have more superfans, like basketball. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you have to consider where Wilt fits in the whole landscape of basketball commentary. I'm not surprised that you can find some sources that list Wilt as the best of all time, but some of those sources are relatively obscure (like an out of print DVD). There are plenty of other sources that don't even list him as one of the top 2 players. The Athletic had him at number 6. ESPN had him at number 5. I just don't think he's consistently listed at number 1 often enough for the lead to make the current statement. We can certainly consider softening the language in the Jordan article as well (but at least that statement in the lead is presented as a quote from the NBA, rather than something in Wikipedia's voice). Zagalejo (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You mean like the quote listed from the NBA from a 2025 website? "Asked to name the greatest players ever to play basketball, most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list." Or Oscar Robertson when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, “The books don’t lie.” These are sourced in the article. Even a recent ESPN article on GOAT, the people involved would pick 4 or 5 players to always be included in that conversation... Chamberlain was always there!. This is an easy call to include him in the debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you included that 2025 quote in the lead; "At or near the top of the list" is broad enough to cover all bases. The ESPN article isn't really as strong a source as you say. Look at how people respond to question three. Wilt isn't mentioned there. Zagalejo (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think that specific quote would resolve the contradictions between this article and the Jordan article, so I'm striking that part of the comment above. For the record, I think that that NBA.com legends profile is partially derived from a much older writeup which has received a few minor updates over the years. I see the "at or near the top of the list" line quoted in a forum post from 2003: https://forums.nba-live.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11007&start=25. I'm curious just how old the NBA's original writeup is. Unfortunately, I'm not having luck with the Wayback Machine right now. Zagalejo (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Turns out NBA.com was using that same line about Chamberlain in 1999: Zagalejo (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Presumably fewer now have him at the actual top. —Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, that Oscar Robertson quote appears in newspaper articles and books from the 90s, and may be even older than that, so I don't think we should use it as evidence of current opinion. I see it in one book from 1997 (The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's 100 Greatest Basketball Players of All Time by Alex Sachare), which would have been published before Jordan's career was over and before LeBron was even in high school. Zagalejo (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section currently reads that Wilt is is often suggested as the greatest NBA player of all time, ahead of Michael Jordan. The NBA.com quote doesn't say how often he is at the top of the list (likely rarely). And even if we lightened to call him one of the greatest, the source doesn't say anything about him being above Jordan.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I could find books that call Bo Jackson the greatest athlete of all time, now you're just getting too subjective/generalist... That's a stupid point Graves96 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Saying he is the GOAT is actually misleading and nonsensical. There may be some who rank him ahead of Jordan but thats a WP:FRINGE viewpoint --FMSky (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And the cited sources are at best borderline reliable. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy cautions against:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because you don't like them. We don't throw out sources because they are old. There are plenty that consider Chamberlain the greatest player ever.... so by definition that would be ahead of Jordan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Mainstream has nothing to do with whether one likes the content or not. Shepherd Express? Hoops Habit is "powered by Fansided", which is listed as unreliable. —Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The lead as written misleadingly implies that Chamberlain is still widely considered the best player of all-time. I think that's basically a minority view at this point (especially since younger generations are increasingly dismissive of Chamberlain's era). Older sources would give undue weight to outdated perceptions. Zagalejo (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not quite what it says. Unfortunately younger generation suffer from the general wikipedia concept the ceib. That is pov when plenty of sources say otherwise. We don't go with what younger generations say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from bruteforcing your preferred version into this article against clear consensus FMSky (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This has long-term consensus. It's still under discussion. If something is true 10 years ago it is still true... we don't dismiss it. And there are current sources that agree. Just wondering... how many sources would you like me to plop up here to confirm he is called the greatest? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It would have to be more than the hundreds listing Jordan as GOAT - FMSky (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That is POV pushing and against wikipedia policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

What is "the ceib"? If we're talking about the public perception of Chamberlain, then the opinions of younger generations are an important part of the big picture. Several decades have gone by since Chamberlain played. As new players enter the NBA, there is more competition for the "best of all time" label. Zagalejo (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

CEIB.... "current era is best." It's why the Baylors, Robertsons, and Chamberlains get tossed aside like manure. Then the next generation of Bird, Magic, and Kareems get thrown away. Soon it will be the Jordans and Kobis as players like LeBron take their place. But history doesn't lie. Of course kids opinions matter, but they tend to forget what came before. Luckily we have things like Wikipedia to keep things on the straight and narrow. Or at least we did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't get too caught up in the present. We have to respect the past also. Chamberlain has a bunch of records that have not been broken for 60 years. The only player to average 40 and the only player to average 50. Holds the 3 highest rebounding averages for a season and 7 of the 8 highest in a single season. There are experts that say he did that against weaker competition, but there is no proof of that because he didn't get to play against later eras. Also, if you look at the athleticism and physical attributes he had, it may have been as good or better than anyone today. I don't think that there is any problem with putting that he has been called the greatest in the lead. It is a respected minority opinion. However, the majority opinion is for Jordan because he was 6-0 in the finals and was extremely clutch. So for MJ, it should say he is widely considered to be the greatest, and for Wilt, it should say he has been called the greatest by various experts. Orlando Davis (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC at WP:NBA that is relevant to this article. See here. Ladtrack (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Earl Monroe source

It has no title. Cake (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Legacy Addition

Proposed Addition to the Legacy Section of the Article (or wherever place it is felt to be appropriate):

The character Wilt from the cartoon Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends was named for and inspired by Wilt Chamberlain.

Source:

I don't have the DeviantArt page, unfortunately, for a direct source, but hopefully someone else can find it.

And here is the Wikipedia page for Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends (I hope, it is just appearing as text on my side): Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

Ya'll can change up the words too. I don't mind. I just think it would be a really neat fun fact to add. I read the entire article because of my suspicion that Wilt was based on this guy, since it's such a unique name :)

Oh! And since ya'll have editing powers (I made an account just for this, so I cannot edit locked articles yet?) it would be awesome if the reverse information was added/linked to the Foster's Wikipedia page too! If you can/want to, please :) GreenHalfling (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

That's really cool that you've introduced that fact here. However, because of user-generated content concerns, we cannot add the pages of other Wikis, including the Incredible Characters Wiki, as citations on articles.

In my cursory research, I have come across this page at facts.net. I am hesitant to add that, though, because - while I cannot confirm this - the Facts.net page seems to have lots of AI text. I feel this way because the page is littered with platitudes combined with forced and ingenuine enthusiasm characteristic of AI.

The best source I can find is this X post *groan* from the "African & Black History" account. (The groan is there because I want to cite Twitter/X as little as possible, but there are select instances where such a citation would be welcome, such as when directly quoting what someone posted.)

Therefore, based on citation concerns, I will not be uploading the fact about the Foster character at present. But I appreciate you adding it to this talk page. If someone else wants to chime in on this talk page, or find a workable way to add the fact to Wilt Chamberlain's article that fits well with Wikipedia guidelines, then I actively any of you reading to do so. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Recently discovered block statistics

Is it worth mentioning that blocking statistics whilst not officially recorded have been discovered from this era, and are considered to be reputable according to sports reference: https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2026/03/several-dozen-newly-discovered-unofficial-totals-added-to-basketball-reference/

this seems to be only for a year, but it might be worth mentioning to provide the most up to date detail. Javan Rhino (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)