Talk:Magic Johnson

Championships as a minority owner

I'm gonna post on the talkpages of NBA and NFL projects since this can potentially impact both projects to refer to this. For athletes like Magic, Aaron Rodgers, and Russell Wilson who have all purchased minority stakes in professional sports teams who won a championship during their minority ownership, should these championships be included in career highlights section of the infobox and/or the awards section along with championships won in their sports, MVPs, all-star games/pro bowls, etc.? I posted a discussion on NFL talk a while back and got no response and had a borderline edit war with another editor after another editor who added these things to Aaron Rodgers page after the Bucks won the finals and we didn't go anywhere trying to discuss this. I've seen other editors remove these things indicating some editors don't think they should be included. My argument against these inclusions is minority ownership in a sports team is literally no different than investing in stocks. You invest a little bit of money and can get some back based on profits. Minority owners rarely, if ever, have any say in roster, front office, and coaching staff decisions. It's also not even clear, from what I can find, if minority owners get championship rings. Should it be mentioned in the article period? Of course, but it should be left in sections talking about the investment, not in places discussing their playing or coaching accomplishments. Now this obviously doesn't apply to someone like Michael Jordan who is the primary owner and makes roster and personnel decisions, just specifically minority owners. I feel this should be established now as minority stakes seem to be a popular investment for athletes now.--Rockchalk717 22:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I support your removal. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. A championship as a minority owner is rarely defining. As part of the lead, its inclusion would also run contrary to MOS:LEADBIO: The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Rockchalk717 and Bagumba. The other athletes that come to my mind are Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba and Sabbatino: What about in the Awards and honors section? That was the bigger question to me.--Rockchalk717 23:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that titles won as a minority owner shouldn't go in infoboxes...I'm with all of you there. The issue seems to be that Rockchalk wants to just completely wipe them out of existence and not even mention them in an awards and honors section. In the cases of Magic, Rogers, and Wilson, there are sources verifying the claims they all have to titles won in their "side gigs". We're getting into a debate of editors' personal feelings over what makes a champion. If the statement is made that Aaron Rodgers is an NBA Champion via his ownership stakes in the Bucks, and there are a half dozen sources backing it up, then some random Wikipedia editor can't say he isn't just because it doesn't match his qualifications. In Magic's case, he himself counts his ownership rings amongst his lifetime accomplishments, again, with verification he does indeed do so. Rockchalk (or any other editor...not trying to pick on him specifically, but he is the one who brought it up) can't erase things because they don't match his criteria - that is WP:OR. If there are sources to back up the claim of minority owners getting credited as champions, then that's it, they're champions...not Wiki's job to decide who is and isn't a champion. Someone is credited as a champion, and there are good reliable sources backing it up, that should be ballgame, otherwise it comes down to the whims of editors based on what they think makes a champion ("Screw the sources...I say otherwise") - kind of an anti-Wiki way of thinking, no? Vjmlhds (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me address awards and honors sections specifically just so we're all clear. Those sections merely denote achievements and accolades one has attained throughout their life. Two things matter - is one credited with an accomplishment, and can it be verified? If the answer to both questions are yes, then the argument ends. Rockchalk's issue seems to be how Rogers, Magic, and Wilson got their titles with their "side projects". When it comes to merely listing awards or accolades, the how really is irrelevant, all that is relevant is does one have the hardware, and can you prove it. Look at Blaine Gabbert...he's the backup quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Last year he played in only 3 games and threw 6 passes in garbage time - yet he is credited with a Super Bowl ring just the same as Tom Brady is. Should Gabbert not be credited with a ring because he really didn't do anything to contribute to it? It's the same as these people who have small stakes in these teams. Because they have a piece of the team, they get a ring and get credited as being a champion when the team wins a title. As long as the claim can be verified, then they are champions, and no amount of personal spin some random Wikipedia editor says can change that. When the argument boils down to one's personal qualifications about what makes a champion, the argument ends, because it stops being about what references and sources say, and more about pushing their own beliefs. Can't have that. Like I said, keep them out of infoboxes all day long...fine and dandy, but in a broader awards and honor section, which merely denotes the hardware, it most certainly belongs - it's an accolade, it was achieved, and it can be verified. For Wiki, that should be it. Everything else is personal opinion. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And to tie up some other issues - MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE doesn't apply here because no one is trying to include anything in the infobox...keep it out, fine by me. MOS:LEADBIO is not an issue because leads should just be a quick primer anyway, so if you don't want to include certain things in the lead, then all good here. But to not include accolades in an awards and honors section in the meat of the article (usually towards the end) - the purpose of which IS to note accolades achieved in one's lifetime - just because one doesn't like how one achieves said accolade goes against WP:NPOV and has inklings of WP:OR ("Though the sources say X is credited as a champion I say he isn't because it doesn't meet my criteria of what makes a champion."). When you have arguments like "Well Michael Jordan should get credit because he's more involved, but Magic/Rodgers/Wilson shouldn't because they're less involved", then we get into the realm of personal opinions/criteria. Just look at the Brady/Gabbert analogy...one certainly did more than the other to win the ring, but both get credited with the ring equally. Just how life works - if you get credited with doing something, and have verifiable proof to back it up, then it's game over, you get the credit. Everything else is purely subjective, which last I checked is something which should be avoided around these parts. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Yet again you are failing to understand my objections. You keep talking about "dozens of sources calling him an NBA champion" but seem to completely and totally miss that I'm saying they had literally nothing to do with championships. Minority ownership is nothing more or nothing less than an investment, again just like the example I used on my talkpage as my owning stock with my employer. Bagumba even stated " A championship as a minority owner is rarely defining". That is an admin agreeing with my points. You're staying that I'm trying to "erase" the championships when I explicitly said multiple times I don't object them being mentioned in the article. My objections are being included like they're an equal accomplishment to the athlete's accomplishments as an athlete. Can you even verify they received a championship ring as a minority owner? As far as I know, they do not receive one and therefor should not receive equal mention as their accomplishments as a player.--Rockchalk717 06:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you were looking for verification, you must not have looked very far, because here's Russell Wilson's ring from the Seattle Sounders after winning the MLS Cup...BTW the reference is in Wilson's article. And if you actually look through Aaron Rodgers' and Magic Johnson's articles instead of just blindly deleting things, you'd see those references to verify the rings. You are just proving my point...the accolades achieved in their side jobs don't meet your standards of what a championship is. Not Wiki's job to decide what title is more important than others. Do they have the award, and can you prove it - everything else is irrelevant, because it's all subjective. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There might be other coverage, but the Sounders' website is not WP:INDEPENDENT.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba Ask, and ye shall receive - here's a story from USA Today talking about Wilson getting a ring from the Sounders Vjmlhds (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For Magic Johnson#Awards and honors, assuming the owner championships meet WP:DUE, it seems promotional to combine as "10-time NBA champion (five as a player, five as owner/executive", as oppose to solely individual listings by role.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba Here's a story from ABC News where they credit Magic as a 10-time NBA champion, so giving him credit for 10 is something that is in the stratosphere. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Are there others? A one-time reference is probably not WP:DUE, though at least it's not WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba Here it is straight out of the horse's mouth, and one other outside source for good measure. Also if you hadn't seen it, I added a USA Today article about Russell Wilson (in the part where the discussion focused on him) Vjmlhds (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The horse isn't independent, and I'm not familiar enough with Essentially Sports to call it an WP:RS. Basically, if there's another RS, I wouldn't oppose "10-time" for Magic, but others might think differently. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba How's this? Vjmlhds (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

another log on the fire Vjmlhds (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the high school site and Bar Down, the policy WP:REDFLAG advises caution for Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought I was ready to respond but I'm too annoyed by @Vjmlhds:'s constant misunderstanding of the points I'm trying to make and acting like I'm trying to remove any mention of the championships. I don't want to let my frustrations get in the way of having a productive discussion. I'll check back in on this tomorrow evening.--Rockchalk717 06:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your points perfectly - in your mind, championships won as a minority owner aren't equal to those won as a player because of the difference in hands on involvement, and shouldn't be listed in the same breath. My point is that none of that matters, because if they are credited with getting a ring, and the sources back it up, then it's game - set - match. Wikipedia as a whole and Wikpedians individually don't get to set the standard for the value of a championship - not our job, and not our place. Aaron Rodgers' contributions to the Bucks are chipping in a few bucks (pardon the pun) and buying a small piece of the team. I'm not arguing that. However, that is enough for him to be credited as being an NBA Champion with the Bucks, and the sources back it up. Likewise Russel Wilson and the Sounders, ditto Magic Johnson with the Dodgers and Sparks (and his Laker rings as an owner/exec). That's why these guys do this...to fluff up their resumes. They chip in a few bucks to buy small pieces of these teams, so they can put "Co-owner of the Walla-Walla Walruses" next to their name, and if the teams win a title, they can get a ring due to being a part owner. Great gig if you can get it, and God bless America. I never said these guys got their fingernails dirty and worked long hours making major decisions. But that is irrelevant - they do just enough to be able to get a ring if the team does something and the people who do matter (the team itself) makes the call, and it can be verified. Tom Brady did loads more to get the Buccaneers to the Super Bowl than Blaine Gabbert did, but they both equally get credited with a ring. Just how life works...some do more tangible work than others, but when the team wins a collective accolade, all get credited equally with a ring. No amount of getting up on a soapbox and questing for purity is gonna change that. Long story short - a ring is a ring...doesn't matter how you got it as long as you can flash the bling. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is Magic with his World Series ring from the Dodgers winning the 2020 World Series. You'll see that his wife Cookie also has a ring, and that is due her also having a sliver of ownership in her own right, but to the topic at hand, Magic did get a ring from the Dodgers as a part owner, so when he calls himself a World Series Champion, he has the hardware to prove it. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree on why athletes but into sports franchises. As I keep saying, it's an investment. It's like, just throwing a random name out there, Kyle Turley investing in a CBD business. It's a way for them to spend their millions and make more millions on top of it with something they are passionate about. That's why some sources actually refer to it as an investment. In fact, the mentions of Patrick Mahomes minority ownership in the Royals and Sporting KC are in a section entitled "sports investments" (I did not add that section myself). I'll tell you what, provide me a reliable source (not some of the ones you passed off as a source when Bagumba asked you for one) that includes minority ownership championships with their (Magic, Rodgers, Russ) playing accomplishments, and I'll concede and add the championships back myself personally. Because the sources provided in the articles don't include them with their accomplishments or the websites have questionable reliability. Yes the bar down website includes a tweet from Magic himself, but I think that makes it not independent if they are using his tweet for why they are saying that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Challenge accepted -

- Here's 4 regarding Aaron Rodgers (from Yahoo, CBS Sports, ESPN, and NESN - which by the way are all in his article). Here's one from USA Today regarding Russell Wilson and the Sounders, and here's one from ABC News where they credit Magic as a 10-time NBA Champion. Here is Wilson's ring he received from the Sounders... ... and Magic with his World Series ring he got from the Dodgers. All told, that makes 6 mainstream media outlets all recognizing Magic, Rodgers, and Wilson as champions in their side gigs, as well as physical proof that they did get actual rings with their names on them from the teams...outside of signing a contract in blood, what more could you want? Vjmlhds (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My general objection still is cases like Magic, summing up titles where an owner is in the same sport he played. No problem listing them by role (player, coach, exec, owner) separately, and not in the lead or infobox. Magic having 10 titles seems to only be in the same ABC source you've mentioned before, failing WP:DUE. Sorry, I don't know how to be clearer, but sources like Amomama.com are not an obvious WP:RS.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba Well, here's something interesting...Magic now has 11 rings from the Lakers, as he received one for the 2019-2020 title the team won in the bubble. It details that though Magic wasn't a part of the organization at the time the title was won, as he was the one who convinced LeBron to sign with the team (while still an exec at that point), he got a ring out of respect. So this article verifies the 10 we've been talking about, and the 11th he got as an "executive emeritus" (for lack of a better term) because he brought #23 to town. What does that do? Vjmlhds (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The concept of equating "rings" with "championships" gets complicated, because teams can give rings to whomever they want. This reminds me of the situation with Anderson Varejão, where people wanted to call him a 2016 champion even though he played against the winning team in that year's finals. The key thing to remember is that we can use some editorial judgement with what we choose to include here. Just because a source exists to support a certain statement doesn't mean we are bound to reflect that statement. The real world doesn't always lend itself to the neat classifications you see in Wikipedia articles. Zagalejo (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Editorial judgement" = putting one's own interpretation on things, which would contradict WP:NPOV - no? When you say (paraphrasing) "Just because the source says X, doesn't mean we have to abide by it", isn't that just a license to make it a free for all for people's own takes? The team is considered to have won the championship, and thus the team can then give the rings whoever they feel was part of them getting to the promised land - the old "to the victor goes the spoils" axiom as it were. So if the team gives you a ring, that signifies they consider you as part of the championship team (regardless of how much tangible work you actually did), and the ring is the physical hardware to represent it. The whole point of looking for and including sources is to verify claims and statements, so nobody can say you're just pulling stuff out of certain physical orifices. When you talk about "editorial judgement", that comes off as code for "screw the sources, I say different, because I know better than the sources." Forget worms, that opens up cans of anacondas that nobody needs (from admins on down), because then it becomes a big ol' pier six fustercluck. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is editorial judgement at all levels of Wikipedia. People routinely make decisions about the balance of information in an article, the reliability of sources, etc. There’s not a specific guideline for every situation. Lots of things ultimately get decided because of talk page discussions. Zagalejo (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Per the policy WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Consensus determines content.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole issue started because on editor didn't view championships credited via ownership (especially minority ownership) on the same level as those as credited via being a player. When you talk about ONUS, that is basically saying that no matter how many sources one provides to verify a claim, we (Wikipedians) decide what can and can't get included based on our own preferences. That in many ways leads to slippery slopes, because if consensus says the sky is yellow and the sun is blue, it doesn't mean it is. A lot of Wiki policies contradict each other, and users then cite whichever one best suits them, and uses it almost as a loophole to void an opposing policy. ONUS contradicts NPOV in that one can insert their own take under the guise of ONUS, NPOV means you are simply stating claims that are made with references to back them up. In many ways, Wikipedia has so many policies, they wind up canceling each other out, which then leaves it up to consensus where the users themselves make calls based on their own viewpoints - kinda like gaming the system. Just wondering...is that how Britannicia works? Truthfully, this didn't need THIS much discussion, because merely listing awards and honors is simply documenting accolades one has attained/been credited with throughout their lives (with the proof to verify it). Wikipedia and especially Wikipedians should not be the arbiters of which ones are more important than others, because it's not our job to do so. Wikpedians can't and shouldn't play judge, jury, executioner, doctor, or God. Our job is to simply find info, make sure it's verifiable, and include it to give the subject of the article the most accurate picture we can. Going into all these other directions is simply us going into lanes we shouldn't. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Add "Often compared with Stephen Curry" or not?

Should we add "Often compared with Stephen Curry" in the same sentence in the lead as "He is often regarded as the greatest point guard of all-time." or not? Here are some sources for the comparison.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/magic-johnson-vs-stephen-curry-warriors-lakers-stats/cafi69k0wpymkpoq1a0tsvam

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba/stephen-curry-vs-magic-johnson-career-highs-comparison

https://www.strictlybythenumbers.com/compare/stephen_curry_vs_magic_johnson

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/stephen-curry-is-on-track-to-pass-magic-johnson-as-the-greatest-point-guard-of-all-time

Thanks! MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"After protests from his fellow players..."

Ambiguous statement in the introduction. Were the players protesting against Johnson (for example, saying he didn't deserve the MVP award) or in support of him (for example, saying he was risking his health by returning to play)? Billfalls (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Added a brief clarification in the lead. There probably shouldn't be too much on it in the lead as it is supposed to be a summary of the body, but the extra addition should make it clearer. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

B&W photo of Pat Riley and Magic Johnson incorrectly identifies the third person in the photo as Jerry West. That individual is not Jerry West, and that citation should be removed. Goyato (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source the image was taken from says Pat Riley, Earvin "Magic" Johnson and Jerry West at the Century Plaza, Century City, 1989 ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming it's this photo, that is Jerry West with Pat Riley and Magic. The source the image comes from says so as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not Jerry West. – ².O.^Boxing 01:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The source is wrong. This was West in 1988, a year before the photo in question. – ².O.^Boxing 01:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Billionaire

Should be added that he is a billionaire according to Forbes.com & CNN ([1], [2]). 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It was already at Magic Johnson § Media figure and business interests—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)