Talk:Malice at the Palace

Untitled

Archives: 2005 to 2007, 2008

Other colloquial names

I remember the term "basket-brawl" was frequently used to refer to this incident. Is it still in use now? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, since there are no source indicating that.—Chris! _ct 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it! Source 13 on the article refers to this event as a "Basketbrawl". However, that term also refers to other basketball brawls. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Artest punching fan?

Hi! In regard to "Artest responded by running into the stands and punching a man who he mistakenly believed was responsible", which is currently in the article, is there a source which is clearer on this? The source currently being used states "He jumped up and charged into the stands, throwing punches as he climbed over seats.", but that's not quite the same thing as saying that he punched the fan. Thus the closest we get is the fan's testimony "He was on top of me, pummeling me", but being a primary source from the person who was somewhat involved I'm not sure it counts. :) The NYT article being used here only says that he was charged due to knocking over a fan, [1], and that seems to be consistent with the other sources, which describe him punching as he climbed the chairs, but only state that he confronted the fan or knocked him over, rather than hitting him. Anyway, perhaps there is an official account which clarifies this? - Bilby (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe change to "going after". I understand the confusion, because every source describes the incident a little different and it is hard to summarize based on multiple sources.—Chris!_c/t 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That article is probably the best description of the event. According to Artest's account, he was trying to grab the guy and was yelling at him "Did you do it?" over and over. I was watching this live as it happened and I have seen literally every available video that is available to the public and nothing out there disputes this version of events. Still, this was classified as an assault (correctly) and he was charged with it. Stephen Jackson followed him up into the stands to pull Artest back - and then snapped when another fan ran up and launched another drink point blank into Artest's face. Jackson beat on that guy (who turned out to be a violent felon). This link has a framegrab of that part of it (second picture down): http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/09/content_398674.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.249.23 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone else find it silly that we are discussing whether Artest punched the original fan and bemoaning the fact that reports differ - when there are multiple videos out there clearly showing that he did not punch the guy? He ran up to grab him, tripped and they both went down. Unless there is CLEAR visual evidence to the contrary, the article should not claim that Artest punched someone unless he clearly did. Beside the fact, he was CHARGED with grabbing the guy and it was the only thing that Artest did that was deemed to not be in self defense. I also object to Chrishmt0423 taking ownership of this article in clear violation of wikipedia policy. He has made several reverts and changes without discussion - subverting an attempt to clean-up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.126.217 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WP editors cannot rely exclusively on You Tube videos, etc. There could be angles and accounts we do not have access to. Avoid WP:OR. We write what we find from reliable secondary and tertiary sources, and we either leave out what is conflicting or neutrally present the conflicting accounts. —Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"WP editors cannot rely exclusively on You Tube videos, etc" - Where did anyone say "exclusively"? Of course that would be silly. But we are faced with conflicting sources. It seems to me that the ones saying Artest punched Michael Ryan are ones that were written the day or soon after the incident. The later ones do not say this. Also, Artest was not charged with punching Michael Ryan, whereas Stephen Jackson WAS charged for punching fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.126.217 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are conflicting sources (not video), then please list them out here.—Chris!_c/t 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well what were you talking about here: "Maybe change to "going after". I understand the confusion, because every source describes the incident a little different and it is hard to summarize based on multiple sources"

Seems like you are completely aware of the conflicting sources. Why don't you list them here? Why does someone else have to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.126.217 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are conflicting sources, just acknowledging the fact that different source has a different way of describing the same incident. And of course you need to list them out since you are the only person who has an issue with this article.—Chris!_c/t 22:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that we have all failed to find supporting evidence for the edit from 24.165.126.217, the burden is now on 24.165.126.217 to justify his/her edit through an explanation on this talk page with supporting excerpts from verifiable sources. Sorry, I am not a mind reader. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chrishmt0423 in regard to not being able to rely on teh video on its own - in looking for alternative sources, I tried that, but even if we could rely on the source, there were enough moments when the view was blocked to prevent anything definitive being said from that. However, all the sources did refer to charging the fan, so the current wording seems better - I don't think we can reasonably say he punched the fan, as that is unclear, but it seems reasonable to acknowledge that there was something going on - hence the assault charge raised in the NYT. - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it OK that Chrishmt0423 has taken ownership of this article? Isn't that specifically forbidden under wikipedia rules? He has reverted many many edits on this article - it seems he has made himself its protector? It seems that rules here are only valid when they fit ones agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.148.216.106 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't take ownership of the article. All I did was removing unreferenced info and that is completely valid. I don't understand why you are complaining. Should we let people write whatever they want here and ignore accuracy?—Chris!_c/t 22:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

YOU have taken ownership of this article. What part of the wikipedia system do you distrust so much that you feel that YOU and YOU alone must be this article's protector? How many reverts and changes have you made to this specific article? How many? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.126.217 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

More suggestions for future improvement

There must have been some civil litigation that resulted from this incident: innocent bystanders, fans suing players or Pistons, etc. There is a section summarizing the aftermath/criminal penalties etc., but no mention of civil.--Hokeman (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

near the end there is a i guess a single line sum rise of a really long recap of events and i read the whole thing and the line is backed up by the source it's
"Many Pacers from the 2004–05 season believe that the brawl and its consequences ruined a potential championship team, with Artest as the cause. The Pacers have attempted to rebuild by obtaining "character guys" as players.[2]"
i would change it but i'm still getting my feet wet on the codes for here (Latendresse76 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

The intro says 9 players were benched for a total of 146 games. Would it be better to call these "player-games" because they were all teammates so they were benched for some of the same games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A028:7AE:497E:5FFB:53CB:1C36 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Metta World Peace

Since he was still known as Ron Artest at the time, I don't think we should be referring to him as "Metta World Peace" throughout this article. A short note to his current name should be sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 23:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zagalejo on this point, and I agree with his reversion and revision of those changes. See the discussion at Talk:Ron Artest for additional discussion on this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, he was not Metta World Peace during the incident and there should be no mention of his name change, as it is irrelevant to the topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree on referring to him as Ron Artest, but I think it's a bit naive to suggest all articles should be 100% free of any information not directly related. What about a reader who has only known the player as "Metta World Peace?" If I have no idea the man ever had any other name, and read this article, I'm going to think "good thing this Ron Artest guy is out of the NBA..." and keep it moving. The confusion and ambiguity you prevent with a simple, single sentence is easily worth the small loss in "cleanliness" that the article suffers. Not to mention it's debatable if the information really is irrelevant; I consider the identity of the main perpetrator in the brawl to be quite pertinent. Ijmitchell (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

CM Punk comparison

I find Artest attacking the innocent fan (instead of Green) to be similar to a recent event that happened at the end of 2012 involving the longest-reigning WWE Champion backing up into the stands. He decked a fan but he also got the wrong one.

I am wondering if this is worth mentioning or if, in a broader scope, we could have an article (or section) regarding violence in professional sports and mistaken identities, especially regarding fan melees. Ranze (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not worth mentioning.—Chris!_c/t 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Borders on original research unless sources have discussed the general topic.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Ryan lawsuit

Just was wondering why there's no mention of the lawsuits that were filed after the brawl. A quick google pulls up this article about Michal Ryan suing as well as a settlement with one of the ushers: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2006-09-14-fan-palace-brawl-suit_x.htm Right off, I;ve not been able to find any mention of an outcome. --172.72.47.40 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Events after the brawl" section update

I think the section titled "Events after the brawl" should be updated to reflect the fact that only one of the nine players who were suspended after the brawl is still an active NBA player as of the current season (2015-16): The person now known as Metta World Peace, who had re-signed with the Los Angeles Lakers before the start of the current season after playing internationally during the previous season (2014-15). All of the other eight players suspended after the brawl have retired. In the case of Jermaine O'Neal, who last played for the Golden State Warriors, he sat out the entire 2014-15 NBA season (the season that the Warriors won the NBA Championship) and still hasn't delivered his retirement papers to the NBA as of this writing, and in the case of David Harrison, who left the NBA in 2008, he attempted to return to professional basketball last September for a new team in Las Vegas of the AmeriLeague, which folded before playing upon the discovery that the AmeriLeague's founder was a con artist. Jim856796 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is no consensus to move at this time. To the extent that readers search for the proposed name, a redirect will suffice to insure they reach the article they are looking for. bd2412 T 21:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Pacers–Pistons brawl → Malice at the Palace – Per WP:COMMONNAME, as it tends to be the name most use for the incident. "Malice at the Palace" nets 473,000 Google search results, whereas "Pacers-Pistons brawl" nets a mere 90,400. Tom Danson (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. KSFT ^(t|c) 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this colloquial description for a 2004 court punch up at a NBA is an "in-universe name" not the name an encyclopedia would use. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Erm, that's a pretty flimsy excuse, per WP:NOTPAPER-my argument is per WP:COMMONNAME. Tom Danson (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're unlikely to persuade when inputting "Pacers + Pistons + fight" produces a pool of mentions of which only 15% also use the in-universe term. See for yourself Tom, the majority of mentions in books of this brawl / fight don't include the nickname used in your proposal. By making this move you'd be excluding most readers from recognizing the title not helping them find it. That's why fan names for sport incidents are a bad idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Evertonfc13 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the current title is far more recognizable and precise for people not already familiar with the topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support.. Surely, to a person unfamiliar with the NBA, "Pacers-Pistons brawl" is as meaningless as "Malice at the Palace". Compare Immaculate Reception. 216.8.164.193 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Not wanting to be cooled down"

> ..., a fan in the stands threw a drink at Artest while he was lying on the scorer's table to cool him down. Artest, not wanting to be cooled down ...

I question the language and characterization used in this opening section, quoted above. The article later states: "A spectator, John Green, then threw a plastic cup of Diet Coke at Artest, hitting him in the chest." The original statement does not comport with the later description of the event and needs to be changed. I would go as far to question it for vandalism.

Suggested alternative (copied from above with redactions):

> After the fight was broken up, a fan in the stands threw a drink at Artest while he was lying on the scorer's table. Artest immediately charged after the fan, sparking a massive brawl between players and spectators that stretched from the seats down to the court and lasted several minutes.

Geoff (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Palace (now) demolished

"At the Palace (now demolished)", in the opening paragraph. Kinda reads like the brawl demolished the building. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2021

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. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Pacers–Pistons brawl → Malice at the Palace – I want to revisit the RM discussion from four years ago. Last night, I watched the Netflix documentary Untold: Malice at the Palace (it's very good, highly recommended). I do think from watching this documentary and searching on Google that "Malice in the Palace" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. The documentary came out in August 2021, but there are many sources from before that that indicate COMMONNAME: [2][3][4][5][6][7] Apparently, Artest's autobiography is titled No Malice. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support move. Seems like an obvious common name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I opposed this 4 years ago, but a search for "Ron Artest brawl" shows most of the coverage uses this name, even when excluding coverage related to the Netflix special. The threshold for this being the COMMONNAME has been met. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support "Malice at the Palace" is clearly the common name as evidenced by the above sources. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Csworldwide1 (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The proposed title is the common name. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:03, 3 November 2021 (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.

Article title

I realize this is a year later, but @MJL and Muboshgu: how come the article has a preceding "The"? It seems the RM was for simply "Malice at the Palace" and I don't see anybody advocating for a leading "the" in the discussion. Any objections to removing the "The"? SnowFire (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a good question. A year later, I hadn't noticed the leading "the". I think it should be removed from the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and SnowFire:  Fixed. I don't know why I didn't drop the "The" before. I must've not have noticed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Malice at the Palace

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Several completely uncited sentences and paragraphs, YouTube is used twice as a source. SirMemeGod  12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Why are there citations in the lead to begin with? mftp dan ^oops 23:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's a misconception that citations are banned from lead sections entirely, but frankly this article has much bigger problems than that. If the issues are not addressed in the near future I'd support a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am aware. There are exceptions. But I fail to see anything particularly exceptional which must be noted with a citation inside the lead, and that it is usually preferred without. I would think that an article like this should be easy to fix if it's just a few citations missing, yes? mftp dan ^oops 22:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  The official guidance is Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. In this article, the alternate name "Pacers–Pistons brawl" is only mentioned in the lead, and is therefore cited there. Assuming editorial judgement is that the alternate name doesn't need to be repeated in the body, then those citations would need to remain in place. I do agree most of the others appear redundant to the body and could be removed. Personally, I wouldn't fail someone's GAN over citations in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2024 (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.