Talk:Bill Russell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahhb11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Russell "shunned"?

I just find this a bit hard to believe... I have looked through tons of articles from The Sporting News discussing Russell, and they have not much other than praise for the difference maker he was.--Hoopsknowledge 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That sentence specifically refers to how Boston fans related to Russell during the 1960s. According to this article, he was treated rather poorly. Zagalejo 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Bill Russell (basketball) → Bill Russell – Rationale: Although there are many people known as "William Russell," and a few known as "Bill Russell," the basketball player is by far the best known person known as "Bill Russell." john k 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. As above. john k 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per john k. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I really wish someone had bothered to post about this at "Bill Russell" before making the move. -- Infrogmation

Clarification needed

"...he never failed to grab at least 20 rebounds per game in any of his 13 post-season campaigns." It sounds like he did this every single game, rather than averaging 20. It's possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely. Clarityfiend 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification has been supplied.Myasuda 04:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Undersized Center

From my understanding of frontcourt players in the fifties and sixties, I am not sure if Bill Russell was that undersized. While he was on the thin side (about 220 lbs), his height (between 6-9 and 6-10) seems to be average for centers around the time he played. Wes Unseld and Willis Reed are typical examples of centers during his time. In fact, it is not that uncommon today to see players around Russell's height playing center in the NBA. Alonzo Mourning and Ben Wallace (who is probably shorter)are such examples. Dinobrya 12 June 2006.

Centers in the sixties

I conducted a large sampling of the fives who were playing during Russell's time and discovered the darndest thing. I found far more players who were 6'8 and 6'9 than I did 7 footers. In fact 6'9 was the mode {the most common height I saw). Secondly, Russell did not seem to be that much of a bean pole when compared to the vast majority of his comtemporaries. Bill Russell seemed to be undersized only in rare instances--such as his matchups with Chamberlain. 215-230 seemed to be very common for a NBA center. He was not outsized on a nightly basis. [[1]]Dinobrya 12 November 2006 2006

You make a good point that Russell was not "undersized" compared to most of the other centers who played against him. However, Russell's game was a game based on speed and quickness, rather than size and power. Against Chamberlain, Walt Bellamy, and the handful of other centers at that time who were bigger than Russell, Russell used his great quickness to his advantage as he was outmatched physically against bigger centers but because of his quickness he was able to have a huge defensive impact on the other four opponents.

This is only my opinion, but I feel that of all current NBA players, Stromile Swift is the closest comparison to Bill Russell as far as a defensive oriented center whose game revolves around speed and quickness. Rag-time4 03:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You too make a good point. I just want to make sure that Russell's size is placed in proper context. Dinobrya 1 April 2007.

More Bill Russells need disambiguating on this page

I notice that 83rd United States Congress has a link here. As this article makes no mention of his career in the US Congress in the 1950s, I assume we have at least one more Bill Russell that needs disambiguating. -- Infrogmation 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Info box

Can we get an info box in here and maybe a PD image? I'll try, but i'd appreciate help with either of these.  Daniel_123  ►  14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite for GA candidature

I just rewrote a major part of the article, inserting much much more hard data, weeding out trivia, and some copyediting. I also had to delete two YouTube links according to WP:EL. I intend to make Bill Russell a good article as of WP:WIAGA and WP:BIO. —Onomatopoeia 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

• unwilling to pay Russell the $25,000 signing bonus he was asking for., needs a reference
• years alone, ex 1995 shouldn't be wikilinked, wikilinking to NBA seasons is fine
• and Russell had poured in 16 points, poured points?
• In previous years, the Celtics had been a high-scoring team, but had missed the defensive toughness to win it all., remove to-win at all and mention they lacked defense in some way
• References [6][2] should be [2][6], same with [16][5]
• references 29 has a space after the punctuation, remove it
• have joined with Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research , external link in the middle of the text
• TV appearances has one sentence, remove the section and mention the appearance when it happened (the year)
• Russell is the son of Katie and Charlie Russell; Katie died in 1946. Russell was married to Rose Swisher from 1956 – 1973, when they divorced, and remarried to Dorothy Anstett, whom he also divorced, no flow at all
• Trim down the names of external links

M3tal H3ad 09:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Worked on the points you asked for. Hope it looks GA-worthy now. —Onomatopoeia 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Only problem i see now is the short one sentence paragraphs. Try merge them with others making sure there is flow. Also with the awards it would look much better in a table, if you don't know how it wont matter. M3tal H3ad 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Worked on it, hope its better now... —Onomatopoeia 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The solo years are still wiki-linked and there is one or two one sentence paragraphs remaining. The image caption 'Russel today' you need to state a date and get rid of nba.com. There are still sections with no flow which need to be fixed with a copy-edit, get some fans of him to take a look, take this example, Russell is the son of Katie and Charlie Russell. He is the younger brother of playwright Charlie L. Russell. Russell was married to his college sweetheart Rose Swisher from 1956 – 1973, with whom he had three children: daughter Karen Russell, the television pundit and lawyer, and sons William Jr. and Jacob. And with the lead, take this ex from MJ, Michael Jeffrey Jordan (born February 17, 1963) is a retired American professional basketball player, or change it to something like, is a former American basketball player. M3tal H3ad 12:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, did yet more editing according to your guidelines. —Onomatopoeia 14:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll pass it, but you don't need to respond on the GA page or my talk, as i have my GA on holds on my watchlist ;P. Anyway goodjob on the article, looking better, sorry for the long wait. M3tal H3ad 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for input and help! —Onomatopoeia 08:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguations

Apparently we need an article on a congressman of the same name. "William F. Russell", a redirect to here, is linked to refering to a member of the US Congress, while this article on the basketball player neglects to say he ever served in congress nor disambiguates anyone with a similar name who has. -- Infrogmation 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Addressed the single-paragraph thing and the disambiguation, hope it is better now. Don't know how to put the awards into a table, but it was said it did not matter —Onomatopoeia 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We still have Congress related links to "William F. Russell" redirected to this article. Those should be cleaned up to point to the proper article. Perhaps "William F. Russell" should be made into a disambiguation. -- Infrogmation 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the "William F. Russell => Bill Russell" redirect into "William F. Russell => William Russell". Hope this is better. —Onomatopoeia 12:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made William F. Russell into a disambiguation, as most of the "William Russell"s are not "William F."s. BTW, I think having a "Bill Russell (disambiguation)" page (similar to what this page was before the current article was moved here from "Bill Russell (basketball)") might be useful. The point is to help users find the article they're looking for, and the number of people commonly known as "Bill Russell" is shorter than the combined list of Willaim and Bill Russells. -- Infrogmation 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ending

I tried to make it end on a more positive note as it seemed to have kind of a downer ending. Even though Russell went through a lot of completely ridiculous shit, he overcame it and his story is generally considered a positive one overall. If you feel differently please don't hesitate to comment. Quadzilla99 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor point

in the para about the "flea market of racism", should most valuable player be Most Valuable Player? Chensiyuan 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Good eye. Quadzilla99 23:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another minor point: "Russell was the centerpiece of the Celtics dynasty that won two NBA Championships during Russell's thirteen-year career." Isn't it eleven championships? User: TheCharlottesvilleJellyman —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCharlottesvilleJellyman (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption for Russel-Chamberlain pict

although we know who is who, should the caption tell us who is who? Chensiyuan 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reorganiztion

I noticed that the section on the Olympics comes before the discussion of the 1956 Draft. Do others agree that these two sections should be swapped so that they follow chronologically? Zagalejo 07:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to remove it from the professional biography section and that might create some confusion. How exactly would you do it? Would you create a new stand alone section entitled 1956 NBA Draft? It couldn't be under the college career section obviously. Maybe a stand alone section between college career and Olympic career section. By stand alone I mean a new section with no subsections obviously. Quadzilla99 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to have a stand-alone section for the Draft. The problem with the current set-up is that the Olympic section is already referring to Russell as a member of the Celtics before we have established how Russell joined the team. Zagalejo 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, the line about Russell being the no. 2 high jumper seems to come out of nowhere. Did he also compete in track and field events while in college? If so, we should probably mention that somewhere. Zagalejo 19:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, can I go through with the change? Zagalejo 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hold off because I am mildly against it, we really need more people to chime in. Having all the professional stuff together does have it's advantages in my opinion. If you feel strongly ask a few people who helped on the FAC to chime in. Quadzilla99 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that keeping the NBA-specific information together is useful, I would still support the suggestion of having a separate section for the NBA draft (with it positioned just before the Olympics) to maintain chronology. Regarding the high jump, yes, Russell did participate in the high jump while at USF. As an interesting little tidbit of trivia, his college record was broken by the famous singer Johnny Mathis. Myasuda 14:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This provides a little bit more information about Russell's track career. It says that he was ranked seventh in the world in 1956.Zagalejo 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would cautiously support the order NBA Draft 1956 (April 30) - Olympics 1956 (Nov 22) - Celtics 1956-xx (after Olympics; start "professional bio" here), but keep the flow plz. Be bold, but this is a FA, after all. Side note: plz insert Russell's brief amateur track and field career in the USF section, that is definitely something noteworthy. —Onomatopoeia 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

the proposed re-ordering is indeed a tricky task but my 2 cents is it probably won't be too disruptive. my other concern is as a FA, shouldn't we get rid of the two red links? or have they been left there for a reason. Chensiyuan 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As another mini-reorganization proposal, it might also be worth reducing the amount of redundant information between the "Awards and feats" and "Legacy" sections (2nd paragraphs in each).Myasuda 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it should be eliminated from the legacy section, I would agree. Quadzilla99 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Professional biography" should then be changed to "Professional career" in my opinion, that will keep the chronological order and be a more appropriate name. Quadzilla99 00:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at the reorganization, so check it out, if you wish. I'm going to do some more copy-editing throughout the article (mainly removing wordiness). Zagalejo 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful about changing too much. It was already looked over by 4-5 editors during the FAC process. Quadzilla99 05:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the prose can always use some fine-tuning. This provides a nice set of guidelines. If I see something that can be phrased more elegantly, I'll change it. Of course, if you think I'm making the article worse, feel free to revert my edits. Zagalejo 17:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am finding a lot of simple errors (eg, Lost Angeles Lakers), so let's not rest on our laurels just yet. It wouldn't hurt for everyone to read through the article another time. Zagalejo 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the next big thing now is to address the redundancies across the Awards and feats, Personal life, and Legacy sections. This'll require some discussion. Zagalejo 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with eliminating some of the redundancies in those sections, however a lot of the changes you're making are just personal preferences in my opinion. I guess they're fine if both your versions and the previous versions are acceptable. Quadzilla99 01:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing things for the sake of changing things. I really do think some of the prose can be better than it is now. I voted support at the FAC discussion, but I also added that there were still "a few minor things to address." Let's look at some isolated phrases from past versions of the article. Am I the only one who thinks these are awkward?

• This happening would be something that would repeatedly occur throughout his career.
• Russell contributed 12.9 points and 22.8 rebounds per game, finally not managing to average 23 boards a game after a seven-year streak.
• However, the Celtics split the first six games, and seemed winners when they got ahead by nine points with five minutes left in game 7 when Chamberlain hurt his leg and was substituted.

Zagalejo 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I didn't mean to offend you, I was just stating my opinion regarding a couple of cases. I would agree that all three of those are poor grammatically. Quadzilla99 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no offense taken. My comments are perhaps more terse than they should be. You may indeed be right about some of my edits. Zagalejo 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to topic . . . I think I'd like to see a merge performed on the Awards and feats and Legacy sections. There's no really natural division between the two sections, so why not have just one? The Oscar Robertson article, for example, doesn't have an "Awards and feats" section and I think it is perfectly fine as it is. As long as the merge doesn't lose any information contained in the current "Awards and feats" and "Legacy" sections I would be satisfied. Myasuda 18:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. Although the redundant info should be eliminated between the two sections. Legacy should not have as much statistical info but perhaps more comments from players and coaches regarding him. Quadzilla99 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are no comments/quotes are currently present, so there's no need for two sections at this time. As such, I went ahead and conducted the merge since no one has taken the initiative to remove the obvious redundancies between the two sections. We can split the Legacy section in the future as the situation warrants. Myasuda 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All due respect but I completely and strongly disagree let's see if some other people chime in. I don't have time to fix it right now, but in my opinion it's a bad idea that needs to be nuked. Quadzilla99 18:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually maybe it's the title that's annoying me a "Legacy" section that incoludes a long recounting of his awards is unintuitive. Renaming would help perhaps, it's now Accomplishments and legacy. Quadzilla99 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree. The majority of that section isn't really about his legacy (in terms of his impact on the game today), but mostly a recap of his accomplishments. However, there really wasn't much information about his legacy to begin with.

Couple of nit-picks: I think the summary of records and statistical accomplishments would actually look better in a bulleted list or a table. As it stands, the section is rather difficult to read. The amount of info is overwhelming, and every other sentence seems to begin with "Also," "In addition" "Furthermore," etc. I know this would be a major change, but I don't think it hurts to throw out the idea.

Also...does 15.1 ppg constitute a "mediocre" scoring average? That's still decent -- much better than most players in NBA history. Maybe we should rewrite that (or find a source calling Russell's offense mediocre). Zagalejo 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would characterize it as mediocre by Hall-of-Fame standards. Would you be satisfied if "by Hall of Fame standards" were appended to the description? Myasuda 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...That might be a little bit better, although perhaps use something softer than "mediocre." "Relatively low" by Hall of Fame standards? I'm not sure if that would flow... Zagalejo 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

Bill Russell is now a featured article. Good work everybody and congratulations. Quadzilla99 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking at it now I don't think it was promoted (yet) as the user who added FA tags to the article and talk page isn't an admin and the FAC hasn't been closed yet. What's going on here? Quadzilla99 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay the FAC was closed, good work everybody. Quadzilla99 13:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RE front page request

What specific date are we aiming for? March 12, 2008? Because Mini Moke already has March 12 of this year locked up.

Considering the discussions at the Michael Jordan FAC, I don't think it would hurt to run this article though a Featured Article Review. If the article is as good as its supposed to be, then we should have nothing to worry about. However, if people outside the NBA project still think it needs work, then we might as well give them a chance to speak now, so that we don't have to deal with a lot of complaining when the article has hit the front page. Zagalejo 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I think an FAR would be a good idea, since it might bring some non-basketball fans into the discussion. If no one objects within a week, I'm going for it. Zagalejo 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting a peer review more than FAR. I am fairly active in FAR and I've never seen someone nominate an article because they wanted to check and see if it met standards. I mean you're allowed to, but usually people nominating an article over there feel it should be delisted. If you feel that it doesn't meet FA standards, by all means go ahead. It just sounds like you're going for a peer review, in that case WP:BIOGRAPHY has a fairly well developed one. Also, SandyGeorgia looked it over and fixed a ton of MoS issues—she's extensively experienced in FACs and was the one who helped fix all the MoS issues in the Jordan article. Quadzilla99 07:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it definitely satisfies 1b, 1c, 1e, and all of 2, 3, and 4. I'll try to fix the 1c concerns below tomorrow. After the Jordan FAC and my other GACs I'm practically an expert in the MoS matters, so I'll look that over tomorrow it looks fine though. Like I said Sandy inspected it a month or so ago after she saw errors on Jordan and fixed a ton of things here. She left some comments below which have been addressed. 1a and 1d are the only potential issues I see. So I guess it depends if you think it has 1a or 1d issues. Quadzilla99 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference fixing is done. Quadzilla99 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the main thing I'm concerned about is the quality of prose, and whether a non-basketball fan could follow the article. I'll think about it... Zagalejo 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Work done, much more to do still

I've worked on the references for an hour an half. I'm summarizing the problems here so that Project members can incorporate these changes into future articles.

1. Named refs were not used anywhere in the article; all references were repeated every time they were used. In the few occasions that named refs were used, they weren't done correctly. Have a look at WP:FN on how to use named refs. (By the way, using named refs correctly—eliminating replication—trimmed 10KB off of the article size.)
2. Publishers were listed on the cite templates under Last (which is for author last name) with first name empty, resulting in incorrectly formatted references, with publisher before article title. I changed last to publisher on all refs, and deleted the empty "first" for first name.
3. Publication dates were missing on numerous sources, and since I didn't check every one, there are probably still more.
4. Authors were missing on many sources.
5. A few retrieval dates were missing.
6. Some of the sources given had completely wrong info, including inaccurate title, author and date. In other words, if these sites ever go dead, it would have been very hard to re-find them, without even an accurate article title.
7. There are no page numbers given on book sources; hopefully this will be corrected before this article goes to the main page.
8. Please read my edit summaries to double-check my work, and to notice the kinds of changes needed. Because I did so much work at once, it would be really good if someone else checked each diff and reviewed comments in my edit summaries (in particular, about refs that were wrong).
9. NONE of the hoophall.com sites work or are correct; in other words, the article is currently missing a VERY large number of cites. These should be corrected, replaced, or found before mainpage.
10. Still to be corrected, because I got tired and gave up—none of the dashes or hyphens are done correctly, which is a big issue in a sports article when every score contains a dash. En-dashes are used between numbers; this is not done in most of the article. Pls have a look at WP:DASH.

Congrats on the FA; it should be ready for prime-time with a bit more tweaking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note this is almost all done except for ref 13 needing a page number and hoophall still needs to be replaced. The dashes she is referring to are the one used for emphasis—such as this—and the one used to separate numerical ranges such as for "Boston went 41–41", they're in your drop down box next to insert (See WP:DASH for more). Note however that if you wikilink something it has to be in hyphens as titles always use hyphens or it could be piped. We discussed this here. Quadzilla99 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the old hoophall refs are removed, there's one ref to the new hoophall site. The new site's bio are considerably different so I had to find different refs. Quadzilla99 17:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston & Racism

Removed the line "even while in Boston". Boston has a reputation for extreme racism -- I've heard it called the most racist city in America --, especially in the 20th century, and even did it not, there's nothing to support this lines inclusion in the article. Czrisher 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

Some undoubtedly well intentioned anon went through and re-wrote practically the entire article adding a lot of redundant wording, and generally unecessary words. See here:[2] This is generally how FA's fall below standard. One or two examples, Here's before in one example:

In one particular instance, Russell's father was denied service at a gasoline station until the staff had taken care of all the white customers. When his father attempted to leave and find a different station, the attendant stuck a shotgun in his face, threatening to kill him unless he stayed and waited his turn.

and after:

To illustrate this view, in one particular instance, Russell's father was denied service at a gasoline station until the staff had finished providing for all of the white customers. When his father realized the service station attendant's racist practice, he attempted to leave and find a different station, but the attendant stuck a shotgun in his face and threatened to kill him unless he stayed and waited for service.

"To illustrate this view" is unnecessary extra wording, it's already obvious in the previous wording that you're giving an example.

"When his father realized the service station attendant's racist practice" extra redundant wording that adds nothing, it's already clearly obvious he left the station in the earlier version because of the racism. Also the last half of the sentence has similar superfluous wording. In general a ton of redundancies were added and some meanings were altered, which made sentences now incorrect. In general an absolute ton of unnecessary and redundant wording was added. I decided to just blank revert them after trying to keep some, there were just too many problems. Quadzilla99 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also you'll notice that descriptions of him as average offensively were removed which is incorrect also. Russell was almost universally regarded as average on offense. His low fg% and mediocre offensive numbers attest to that. In addition his numbers become even more unimpressive when you consider that he played in an era when teams averaged 130-140 points a game. Quadzilla99 12:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course your last attempt to provide context is flat-out wrong. No NBA team has averaged more than 126.5 points per game in a season, and this occurred in the 1981-82 season. I don't object to the "average" characterization of Russell's offense, however. Myasuda 13:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I was mistaken. My bad, the point was that teams averaged more points per game in Russell's era:[3] Quadzilla99 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I re-inserted some of the anon's edits. There were some things which were actually improved by the anon. Quadzilla99 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Source concern

Source #2 (nndb) is not a reliable source apparently, see the talk page of the article on the source. This shouldn't be a big problem we just have to find reliable sources for the info sourced by the site. This shouldn't be too hard given the info appears to be basic high school/college career info. Quadzilla99 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a couple more days before I just remove them and put in fact tags. Quadzilla99 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done I had to remove this: "However, his development as a rising sports star was overshadowed by classmate and eventual baseball Hall of Famer Frank Robinson." as though there are sources that they attended school together I can't find a relaible source that says Robinson overshadowed Russell although it's probably true. Quadzilla99 17:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at that time, baseball was a much bigger deal than basketball, so it seems likely. john k 17:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Filmography missing?

Just saw the Miami Vice episode "The Fix" on TV and found nothing about it here.[4]

Finals MVP?

Did Russell win the Finals MVP for his championship teams? It should be mentioned somewhere if he didn't. I used the find function, typing in Finals MVP and got no results, and then I typed in MVP and looked for a mention of the finals in relation to his MVP and didn't see anything. Maybe I missed it, but would someone like to edit that piece of valuable info? 129.120.244.97 05:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Finals MVP wasn't awarded until 1969, so Russell missed out on that one. See NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MVP Controversy

It doesn't seem like there's much of an MVP controversy any more. There was one before last season, and until mid-way of last season people knew what you were talking about when you said MVP controversy, but once the Mavs took over the league and Dirk ran away with the MVP award, it seems like any commentary on Nash's MVP awards are irrelevent and old and dated. Any thoughts? Billybobjoe786 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the section. It belongs in the Steve Nash article (where the content has already been added) and not this one. Myasuda 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

In the second paragraph of "Personal life", many sentences are reproduced verbatim from the sources cited.  Examples:

His would-be neighbors filed a petition trying to block the move, and when that failed, other neighbors banded together to try to purchase the home that Russell wanted to buy. [5]

Furthermore, once in Marion, Indiana, he had been given the key to the city only to be refused service that evening in his hotel's dining room. Russell went to the mayor's home, woke him up, and returned the key. [6]

Xeriphas1994 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1969 NBA Finals

In the section about the 1969 Finals, it talks about Chamberlain's injury in Game 7 of the Finals, and how he was not allowed back in the game. the source on that fact - source 22 - doesn't mention anything about Chamberlain's injury, but http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/finals/1969_finals.html does. I don't know how to change or add sources; somebody else wanna switch the sources? Billybobjoe786 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- as to how to add sources, well just copy the template and change the parameters accordingly. Chensiyuan 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you did it right. The part about the 1969 NBA Finals still cites source 22, although it shouldn't: it should be the one I listed above. Source 22 is correctly used in other parts of the article though. I'll learn how to change it later if no one else does it by then. Billybobjoe786 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Useful. Needed. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

We really need an image for Bill Russell - I'm surprised it doesn't have one. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to have several. I don't think any of them were free use, though. Zagalejo^^^ 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Flaws in the conversions...

I notice that the conversions from imperial scale to metric are performed by the conversion tool down to the first decimal only, which begets flawed conversions, such as Russell being listed as 2.1 m rather than 2.08 m, and Chamberlain being described as 2.2 m instead of 2.16. I corrected the article, but this conversion tool ought to be improved. Mrbluesky (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More info added

I just worked some clumps from the "The Rivalry" book into the article, which gives a very thorough warts-and-all report of Russell's career and personality. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First NBA Af-Am coach

...but not first "in any major American professional sports league." He was preceded by the first African-American coach in Major League Baseball: John Jordan "Buck" O'Neil (Chicago Cubs). See List of African-American firsts. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

O'Neil was a coach, true. But that's not a position akin to the role of head coach in basketball and other sports. The baseball equivalent of head coach is the position of "manager." O'Neil was not a manager, and thus Russell was the first African-American head coach in major league sports. That fact is significant and should be included.--HughGRex (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be fixed

This article has been vandalized, someone please restore it to its previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthraul (talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell's high school basketball accomplishments

Is anyone aware of what Bill Russell's basketball accomplishments were at McClymonds High School? Considering that he was a champion at the college, pro and Olympic levels, I was curious to see if he was ever involved in any state championships at the high school level. I have checked McClymonds web page, but I think the site is down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezwick74 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One can infer that Russell was involved in a high school championship of some sort from the following. In "Maclean's Interview: Bill Russell". 2009-06-18., Russell at one point states "I played organized basketball for 21 years, and I was on 18 championship teams." Presumably, one can break this down as thirteen years as a pro and another eight as a collegian / junior high school / high school player. Eleven championships as a pro, a gold medal in 1956, and NCAA championships in 1955 and 1956 comprise 14 championships. So, assuming the accuracy of the assertion, there are four more championships to account for, and these would have occurred in the years prior to 1955. Of course, a more direct source would be needed to update the article wrt his high school accomplishments.—Myasuda (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Russell stated in his quote to Lebron on All-Star weekend, 2014: "Thank you for leaving me off of your Mt. Rushmore. I'm glad you did. Basketball is a team game. It's not for individual honors. I won back to back state championships in HS, back to back NCAA championships in college; I won an NBA championship my first year in the league, an NBA championship my last year, 9 inbetween... and THAT, Mr. James, is etched in stone." As a direct quote, it confirms that he did win 2 state championships in high school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kl462 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal

The already hostile atmosphere between Russell and Boston hit its nadir a few weeks later, when vandals broke into his house, covered the walls with racist graffiti, damaged his trophies and defecated into the beds. A few weeks later than what? The context is not clear from the preceding sentences and paragraphs. I tried to Google the exact date or at least year but haven't found it yet. If anybody has the book source of this sentence, please add the date. --Yardie Lobo (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was able to view the pages from that source at Amazon, but I didn't see any specific date given. Zagalejo^^^ 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Height

Is it 6-9 or 6-10? NBA.com says 6-10 but basketball-reference says 6-9. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

another source... Chensiyuan (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The references

• The Official NBA Basketball Encyclopedia,. Villard Books. 1994. pp. p. 736. ISBN 0-679-43293-8. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
• Flatter, Ron (2007), "Russell was proud, fierce warrior", ESPN

both list Russell at 6-9½ . So, to some extent, this discussion appears to be hair-splitting.—Myasuda (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The text of his nba.com bio says that he "grew to be a shade over 6-9". Couldn't we simply say that Russell has been listed at 6'9" and 6'10", and be done with it? Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The edit warring over an inch is pointless. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Zagalejo's suggestion is accurate and reasonable. But which height will populate the infobox? I don't have a preference.—Myasuda (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, we could simply remove the height and weight from the infobox. That's what was done at Charles Barkley. Zagalejo^^^ 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to list both heights? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Am taking this article off my watchlist, good luck with keeping this FA in FA-shape. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page for a week or until you guys sort this out. From the above it sounds like at least some of you may be close to a resolution. Let me know when you have a consensus and I will unprotect sooner.--Slp1 (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FBI PoV

In the "Racist abuse, controversy and reconciliation" section, the following sentence appears: "This cemented the general opinion that Russell (who was the highest paid Celtic) was egotistical, paranoid and hypocritical, and even the FBI described Russell in his file as 'an arrogant Negro who won't sign autographs for white children.'" This seems to imply that the FBI was some sort of objective observer. However, J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was anything but. This was, after all, the organization that looked for dirt on people whose politics Hoover disagreed with, including M.L. King. Giving any credence to the opinion of the FBI would be inappropriate, especially considering that the organization had no rational justification for focusing on a basketball player. I'm not sure how to rewrite that sentence. Simply removing the word "even" would be a start, but I'm not sure the remaining sentence would work. If the FBI's opinion should be included (and it probably should, in IMHO), it might be better to include it in the context of harassment of Russell.--HughGRex (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

I see no mention of his hosting SNL in 1979. For somebody with little or no sense of humor, this was a remarkable act. I recall he did pretty well hosting. There was a skit parodying the show "White Shadow" that had Bill coaching an all-white team. Ok, you had to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmac31 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Added. Agree that he was a good host as athletes go! (whoops, forgot to log in) Susan Gleason (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

TFA nomination

Bill Russell is currently up for nomination as a future Today's Featured Article on the Main Page.--Chimino (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

American retired

I've just switched "an American retired professional basketball player" to "a retired American professional basketball player" in the lead. To me, the former sounds ungrammatical. A few minutes' searching turned up Adjective#Adjective order, which I think agrees with "retired American" rather than the inverse. I would place "retired" in the "age" category, which is number four, and "American" in the "origin" category, which is number six. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense Hot Stop 04:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "Retired" doesn't indicate a person's age. It's a qualifier (of his/her profession), which comes last.

This is important, as it denotes Russell's status as a professional basketball player (a retired one), not as an American. —David Levy 05:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"American retired" attracted my attention because it sounds wrong to me too. David's criticism of my Google Books search was a good one, but it applies to both phrases. How do you like this comparison? There are some false positives such as using "American" as a noun, but there are more false positives for "American retired" than "retired American" in that search. Art LaPella (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That may be so, but I don't assert that the results for either phrase are reliable.

I just clicked through to a random page of "retired American" results, on which seven out of eight were false positives: "Retired American Life Insurance Companies" (three instances), "retired American Board missionary", "retired American Foreign Service officers", "(Retired), American Can Co.", and a chart on which "Retired" and "American" appeared in the same row (but not in adjacent columns or even in that order, oddly). The true positive was "retired American businessman".

Do you agree that "retired" doesn't describe a person's age? Do you agree that it qualifies his/her profession? —David Levy 06:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The first new page I looked at today, Page 19, didn't say "retired American" at all, but page 29 had 6 good examples: "retired American workers", "Retired American Bishop", "retired American admiral", "retired American butcher", "retired American general", and "retired American football players". Even if I use your 1/8 figure, "retired American" is a slight favorite, even before accounting for "American retired" false positives. Page 19 had "Oregon-American retired the ... mortgage bonds" (referring to Oregon-American Lumber Co.), "The American retired eastward", "African-American retired" (it seems more natural with "African-American"), and 3 that didn't use the phrase at all.

Does "retired" describe a person's age? Indirectly, so what did the author mean? "Retired" fits the age category better than the others, but we're just guessing; grammar rules are not software compilers. The point is that "American retired" sounds almost as strange as "old little lady" instead of "little old lady". Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The first new page I looked at today, Page 19, didn't say "retired American" at all, but page 29 had 6 good examples: "retired American workers", "Retired American Bishop", "retired American admiral", "retired American butcher", "retired American general", and "retired American football players".

The sport is called "American football". "Retired American admiral" and "retired American general" convey that the persons were officers in the US Armed Forces. (As I mentioned below, "retired American professional basketball player" could refer to a retired player of American professional basketball, but that isn't what we mean.) Likewise, in the case of "retired American workers", their employment in the US presumably is relevant; the phrase describes a subset of American workers (those who have retired). Conversely, "American retired workers" would refer to a subset of retired workers (those who are American), which probably isn't contextually accurate.

"Retired American Bishop" and "retired American butcher" seem comparable to "retired American professional basketball player".

Even if I use your 1/8 figure, "retired American" is a slight favorite, even before accounting for "American retired" false positives.

I'm uncomfortable relying on these searches for this purpose. I don't fully understand how the results are generated or what might account for some of the apparent anomalies (such as pages on which I see no text matches at all and search terms that generate more results when enclosed in quotation marks).

Of course, I certainly don't dismiss the possibility that your preferred wording predominates.

Does "retired" describe a person's age? Indirectly,

It really doesn't. People retire for various reasons, of which advanced age is one. Other reasons include career changes, parenthood, injuries, illnesses, and financial independence. Professional sportspeople are especially likely to retire for some of those reasons.

so what did the author mean?

The author was referring to actual descriptions of age, whether general ("young", "old", "new", "ancient") or specific ("six-year-old").

The point is that "American retired" sounds almost as strange as "old little lady" instead of "little old lady".

Obviously, I won't argue about how it sounds to you. I can only note that it doesn't sound strange to me.

And I'll ask you what I asked Mr. Stradivarius below. Does switching from "retired" to "former" make a difference on your end? (Do you prefer "American former professional basketball player" or "former American professional basketball player"?) —David Levy 01:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If I grant each of your "American football" arguments, it doesn't reverse the overall result. The real issue is "I'm uncomfortable relying on these searches for this purpose." I'm similarly uncomfortable relying on less quantifiable, indefinitely debatable assertions.

What did the author mean? He was drawing some broad distinctions that were never intended to cover every situation. Can we all agree which category the word "possible" belongs to, for instance? Aren't categories 4, 5, 6, and 7 subsets of category 3? I don't think he was thinking of "retired" in category 8 (few nouns, not counting direct objects like "the baby", can come after "rocking" other than "chair", and even a rocking skyscraper wasn't intended for rocking like a rocking chair is), so category 4 comes as close as anything. And if that stretches the definition of age too far, then "retired" is "adjectives subject to objective measure (e.g., wealthy, large, round)" because there is usually no debate over whether someone is really retired or not.

"It doesn't sound strange to me." OK, I think that's the first time you said that. That is a relevant fact.

I prefer "former American professional basketball player" to "American former ...". I think it's because "American former" confuses me until I figure out that it's the basketball player that's American, not a former that's American. "retired American" doesn't similarly confuse me; if Russell had tired of paying for Obamacare, we would say something like "he renounced his citizenship", not "retired American". Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If I grant each of your "American football" arguments, it doesn't reverse the overall result.

Agreed. By my assessment of that page's results, two of the eight are applicable (and you noted that 1/8 would be enough to predominate, "even before accounting for 'American retired' false positives").

The real issue is "I'm uncomfortable relying on these searches for this purpose." I'm similarly uncomfortable relying on less quantifiable, indefinitely debatable assertions.

So am I. I'm expressing my personal views on the subject, but I don't expect others to defer to them. I'm not a reliable source, after all.

What did the author mean? He was drawing some broad distinctions that were never intended to cover every situation.

Agreed. That's why, as discussed below, it's impractical to treat such a list as an ironclad, definitive authority.

I don't think he was thinking of "retired" in category 8 (few nouns, not counting direct objects like "the baby", can come after "rocking" other than "chair", and even a rocking skyscraper wasn't intended for rocking like a rocking chair is),

I acknowledged below that my initial interpretation of that category was overly broad. I don't think that any of the categories is a particularly good fit.

so category 4 comes as close as anything. And if that stretches the definition of age too far, then "retired" is "adjectives subject to objective measure (e.g., wealthy, large, round)" because there is usually no debate over whether someone is really retired or not.

But then wouldn't "professional" fall into that category too? That leaves us with ether "retired professional American basketball player" or "professional retired American basketball player".

I think that this illustrates both a fatal flaw in relying on such a list (which doesn't account for context) and my objection to "retired American professional basketball player".

We say "professional basketball player" because "professional" is intended to modify "basketball player" (and nothing else). Likewise, "retired" is intended to modify "professional basketball player" (and nothing else), which is why I believe that it's logical for it to precede that phrase (and not "American", which it isn't intended to modify). But of course, that's merely my opinion (and I don't mean to suggest otherwise).

I prefer "former American professional basketball player" to "American former ...".

To me, it sounds downright jarring. Conversely, "retired American professional basketball player" merely seems suboptimal. The reason, I believe, is that it isn't incorrect to describe Bill Russell a retired American (switching to the noun form for a moment), but he absolutely isn't a former American.

So if the community shares your preference (which seems more likely than not), I hope that we can agree to favor "retired" in that context (assuming that it's at least as applicable to a particular individual as "former" is). —David Levy 04:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The comparison within Wikipedia [7] [8] has almost no false positives. Art LaPella (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Those searches clearly show that "retired American" predominates at Wikipedia by a wide margin. We agree, I hope, that we mustn't cite ourselves as a reliable source. Editors routinely copy the wording used in existing articles (and often create new ones en masse), so it tends to snowball. —David Levy 06:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, citing ourselves is deprecated. It's another good indication of what normal English sounds like; that's all. I don't believe the snowball theory because most such articles omit the word "retired" altogether. Anyway, snowballs can only grow downhill; that is, "American retired" sounds unnatural to me, and according to my statistics, to others. Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the snowball theory because most such articles omit the word "retired" altogether.

Are you referring to articles about retired professional sportspeople? —David Levy 01:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Eek! My examples keep disappearing when I examine them more closely. Category:Basketball players at the 1956 Summer Olympics doesn't work because most of them were never professional and thus weren't retired. Category:Boston Celtics has better examples, and shows a majority, but not an overwhelming majority, using the word "retired" when applicable. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy: I think the article intends "qualifier" in a different sense than that. Note that it says that the final qualifier is "often regarded as part of the noun". If you look at the examples given - "rocking chair", "hunting cabin", "passenger car", and "book cover" - I think it is clear that the preceding words can be considered a part of their respective compound nouns in a way that the "retired" in "retired basketball player" could not be. Indeed, I think the qualifier in "retired basketball player" is "basketball", not "retired". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I see what you mean. But I don't know where else on that list "retired" can fit, as it certainly doesn't denote age. (People retire due to advanced age, among numerous other reasons.)

Regarding the list itself, I can't say that I recall encountering it before. Perhaps it's from the book cited, as the online source provides a list that differs somewhat (and doesn't include that item at all).

Charts aside, my objection to "retired American professional basketball player" is that retired is intended to modify "basketball player", not "American". Russell is retired from playing basketball professionally, not from being American. To put it another way, we mean that he's a retired professional basketball player of American nationality, not that he's a retired player of American professional basketball. (The latter statement is true, but it isn't what we seek to convey.) The fact that he's American is independent of everything else. —David Levy 09:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that "retired" doesn't fit in with the age category as well as more common words like "old" and "young". These rules are descriptive, after all, and have been distilled down by observing how language works in practice. It isn't always easy, or possible, to use the rules prescriptively. As The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (p. 11) says, "It has proved difficult to formulate comprehensive and satisfactory rules as to the ordering".

Also, it's perfectly normal for us to have different intuitions about how grammar works in situations like these. Various factors could be at play: regional variation (I am at a disadvantage here, being from the UK), age variation, and variation based on social status are all possible. Having different intuitions doesn't make either of us wrong (after accounting for WP:ENGVAR), it just means that we are witnessing language variation at work.

As to finding a definitive "most common" answer, probably the best way would be to find someone who has access to a corpus of American English, and ask them nicely to do a search for "retired American noun" and "American retired noun" to see which is more common. But such people are not so easily found, and if we asked them to resolve every linguistic dispute on Wikipedia they would be very busy! So we might be forced to settle for Google Ngram and prescriptive rules for now. Also, I suspect asking other editors to give their intuitions on the subject would provide a decent informal sample if we managed to find enough people.

By the way, I do consider "retired" to be modifying "basketball player" in "retired American professional basketball player", at least indirectly. I would say "professional" is modifying "basketball player", "American" is modifying "professional basketball player", and "retired" is modifying "American professional basketball player". Also, I don't think we would be implying that Russell would be any more or less of a professional basketball player depending on the order we choose for "American" and "retired".

Anyway, this post has become far too long, so I'll stop now. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that "retired" doesn't fit in with the age category as well as more common words like "old" and "young". These rules are descriptive, after all, and have been distilled down by observing how language works in practice. It isn't always easy, or possible, to use the rules prescriptively. As The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (p. 11) says, "It has proved difficult to formulate comprehensive and satisfactory rules as to the ordering".
Also, it's perfectly normal for us to have different intuitions about how grammar works in situations like these. Various factors could be at play: regional variation (I am at a disadvantage here, being from the UK), age variation, and variation based on social status are all possible. Having different intuitions doesn't make either of us wrong (after accounting for WP:ENGVAR), it just means that we are witnessing language variation at work.

Agreed on all counts.

As to finding a definitive "most common" answer, probably the best way would be to find someone who has access to a corpus of American English, and ask them nicely to do a search for "retired American noun" and "American retired noun" to see which is more common. But such people are not so easily found, and if we asked them to resolve every linguistic dispute on Wikipedia they would be very busy!

Oh, it would be a full-time job (minus the salary). (:

By the way, I do consider "retired" to be modifying "basketball player" in "retired American professional basketball player", at least indirectly. I would say "professional" is modifying "basketball player", "American" is modifying "professional basketball player", and "retired" is modifying "American professional basketball player".

I agree, but I believe that the "American" portion shouldn't be modified (because it's separate from and unrelated to Russell's status as a basketball player). Russell is retired from professional basketball, but not from American citizenship.

Does switching from "retired" to "former" make a difference on your end? (Do you prefer "American former professional basketball player" or "former American professional basketball player"?)

Also, I don't think we would be implying that Russell would be any more or less of a professional basketball player depending on the order we choose for "American" and "retired".

Agreed again. —David Levy 15:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Out of "American former professional basketball player" and "former American professional basketball player" I would prefer "former American professional basketball player". I have the same intuitions about "former" as I do about "retired" in this situation. I also agree with Art LaPella's example of "old little lady" versus "little old lady", which I see as analagous to this case. By the way, I did the Google Ngram search, and it comes out quite conclusively for "retired American" over "American retired". Unfortunately, there wasn't enough data to compare things like "retired American doctor" with "American retired doctor", etc. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Ngram for "former American" vs. "American former" comes out strongly in favour of putting "former" first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, those samples are highly flawed (due to false positives and other possible anomalies). We're in agreement, however, that none of the statistics presented support my preference.

Can we also agree that "retired American professional basketball player" is preferable (or at least comparable) to "former American professional basketball player"? I find the latter far more jarring.

I wonder whether some formulation could sidestep the issue without seeming stilted. (I doubt it, but it's worth considering.) —David Levy 08:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think we actually have one too many adjectives in that phrase anyway. How about something like "a retired professional basketball player from West Monroe, Louisiana"? And yes, I think "retired" is better than "former" as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that removing an adjective (irrespective of the order used) improves the sentence's flow.

To me, the above wording seems excellent. My only concern is that omitting the nationality/country might be controversial. ("Once again, Wikipedia is treating the US as the default and expecting readers to know where Louisiana is."..."The editor who suggested that wording is from the UK."..."See? You've got everyone trained to do this!")

So how about "a retired professional basketball player from the U.S. city of West Monroe, Louisiana"? (I included the full stops because that styling appears in the article.) —David Levy 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"American retired professional basketball player" seems better to me, meaning "American who is a retired professional basketball player". "Retired American professional basketball player" could mean "Retired American who is a professional basketball player". Stop and think about it, and that does not make sense. But the reader should not have to stop and think about the first sentence. There are too many adjectives. I would define him as "... a retired professional basketball player who played ..." Then say something like, "He was born to a poor family in West Monroe, Louisiana, U.S." But I don't like "player who played". Aymatth2 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions:

William Felton "Bill" Russell (born February 12, 1934) is a retired professional basketball player from the U.S. city of West Monroe, Louisiana. Russell played center for the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association (NBA) from 1956 to 1969.

William Felton "Bill" Russell (born February 12, 1934) is a retired professional basketball player from the United States. Russell played center for the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association (NBA) from 1956 to 1969.

—David Levy 03:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Both are real improvements. I vote for the second, which is simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bill Russell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs to cite its sources plange 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Done, thanks to Onomatopoeia. Quadzilla99 15:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Russell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214121726/http://sportsline.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/multitalented to http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/multitalented
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622072004/http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-magazine/features/2009/06/the-new-top-50/ to http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-magazine/features/2009/06/the-new-top-50/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Russell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910035316/http://www.usabasketball.com/news.php?news_page=moly_1956 to http://www.usabasketball.com/news.php?news_page=moly_1956
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217121109/http://www.nba.com/2009/news/02/14/russell.trophy/index.html?rss=true to http://www.nba.com/2009/news/02/14/russell.trophy/index.html?rss=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231161759/http://www.atlantaalumnichapter.org/frat.html to http://www.atlantaalumnichapter.org/frat.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Russell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921025750/http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1963.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1963.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918160145/http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1964.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1964.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nba.com/2009/allstar2009/02/16/top10.20090215/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.billrusselllegacy.org/news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930171404/http://www.halloffame.fiba.com/pages/eng/hof/indu/play/2007/p/lid_17904_newsid/19961/bio.html to http://www.halloffame.fiba.com/pages/eng/hof/indu/play/2007/p/lid_17904_newsid/19961/bio.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

The organization of this article seems odd to me. The table of contents contains 18 sections, not including subsections. The current TOC is as follows:

   1 Early years
       1.1 Family and personal life
       1.2 Initial exposure to basketball
   2 College years
       2.1 Basketball
       2.2 Track and field
       2.3 Plans for a professional basketball career after college
   3 1956 NBA draft
   4 1956 Olympics
   5 Professional career
       5.1 1956–59
       5.2 1959–66
       5.3 1966–69
       5.4 NBA career statistics
           5.4.1 Regular season
           5.4.2 Playoffs
   6 Post-playing career
   7 Head coaching record
   8 Accomplishments and legacy
       8.1 Statue
   9 Personal life
   10 Earnings
   11 Personality
       11.1 As a competitor
       11.2 Off the court
   12 Russell–Chamberlain relations
   13 Racist abuse, controversy, and relationship with Boston fans
   14 See also
   15 Selected publications
   16 References
   17 Further reading
   18 External links

I would propose to change it to the following:

   1 Early years
       1.1 Family and personal life
       1.2 Initial exposure to basketball
   2 College years
       2.1 Basketball
       2.2 Track and field
       2.3 Plans for a professional basketball career
   3 1956 Olympics
   4 Professional basketball career
       4.1 1956 NBA draft
       4.2 1956–59
       4.3 1959–66
       4.4 1966–69
       4.5 Personality
           4.5.1 As a competitor
           4.5.2 Off the court
       4.6 Relationship with Wilt Chamberlain
       4.7 Earnings
   5 Post-playing career
   6 Experience with racism
   7 Accomplishments and legacy
       7.1 Statue
   8 Personal life
   9 NBA career statistics
       9.1 Regular season
       9.2 Playoffs
   10 NBA head coaching record
   11 Selected publications by Russell
   12 References
   13 Further reading and external links

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ice Capades

The text: "Red Auerbach offered the Ice Capades if they didn’t draft Russell number one. Rochester got their ice show." was inserted by an editor with almost no other edits on Feb 2018 [9] before the John Taylor reference. At the very least, it should not be before the Taylor citation. But also it is not supported by the Taylor book, in fact Taylor is very skeptical of it: footnote, p.68. Adpete (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)