National Basketball Association Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Basketball Association, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NBA on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Basketball AssociationWikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball AssociationTemplate:WikiProject National Basketball AssociationNBA articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oklahoma Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This needs to be removed. Saying "the move was given conditional approval by the NBA" gives false implications that the NBA itself put conditions on the move. Simply saying "The NBA approved the move, which is pending on litigation..." is sufficient, accurate, and not redundant. I'd like to go through and change it on this and all the related articles (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Seattle SuperSonics). Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the strictest sense of the wording, the NBA did put conditions on the move. The team has to pay a $30 million relocation fee and wait until it's legal problems are resolved. Pretty big conditions.;) But all in all, don't care which wording is used. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't like the wording. It's redundant and there's simply no need to say "conditional" if we are going to elaborate immediately in the same sentence or the sentence after. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the $30 million makes it conditional, given that the fee is always required for moving a team. What I'm wondering is if the NBA owners approved the move only if Bennett escapes his legal situation, or if they approved the move and it's implied that the approval is moot if Bennett doesn't escape his legal situations. The articles I've seen do not make the distinction very clear, so a source confirming the exact situation would be good. I've removed the word "conditional" from the Clayton Bennett article because the sources cited in the article never use the word "conditional". Chicken Wing (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the word "conditional" is in there is because all they gave was conditional approval. #1 it is limited to this upcoming season only. If the team is not able to relocate this year they have to re-apply at some future date. This is why they said "this coming year or after the lease expires". The biggest condition was that Clay must free himself of the legal challenges. The league does not want to go to court on his behalf so they are giving him a chance to work this out. Because they don't want to go to court it is likely they told him that if he can't buy his way out of the lease (which isn't going to happen) he will have to agree to honor the lease which would end the court action locking him in for two years and getting the league off the hook for the legal nightmare. That doesn't mean he will be able to automaticly move if he waits to the end of the lease as he would still need league approval for the move. --Coz (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but it's redundant to say "conditional approval, pending...". The trailing part of the sentence is enough to make it clear that there are indeed conditions that need to be met before moving, but doesn't imply that the NBA itself put the conditions on the move. It's the legal situation that makes the move conditional; the NBA didn't label it a "conditional approval," that's all we're saying. Still, in all practicality, the move is indeed conditional, and that's why we need to keep the "...pending the legal situation..." stuff afterwards. Again, there's an issue with repetition and technicality by saying "the NBA granted conditional approval..." Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the best possible name for the article. It's cumbersome, for one. For two, it seems like the move is a little more than "possible" at this point. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the cumbersome. I would think "Possible move of the Seattle SuperSonics" might be better. As far as the use of "possible", the move isn't completed yet, so dropping "Possible" from the title might be a bit of crystal balling at this point. Of course, if you have a different proposal, I'd be interested in hearing it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another option I just thought of would be to forgo the whole move in the title and just go with "2006 ownership change of the Seattle SuperSonics"? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually like the current name better than those two. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the league gave approval to move ONLY for this upcoming season and ONLY if they can get free of the lease "possible" is about as good as it gets. Since the city will not accept a cash buyout, and if the case goes to trial there is no way it is settled in time, it is unlikely that the team will move this upcoming season. At that point it is only assumed that the team would ask again for relocation after the lease expires but despite the posturing it would be impossible for the owners, or the league, to ride out two years of financial and legal nightmare. I think Bobblehead might have the right idea since this is all part of the ongoing soap opera and scandal that this deal has become. Time will tell how this ends up but most likely it will involve leaving the Sonics in Seattle and getting OKC another team (most likely expansion). --Coz (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your prediction, but that's alright, as long as we agree what to do with the article at this moment :) I suppose we can keep the title as is. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, and I thought about different names. However, as said above, saying just "relocation of Sonics" would inaccurate, as it hasn't happened (yet). But if and/or when it does, then this article will be moved to not have the "possible" in it. Noble Story (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have to congratulate the people working on this. In 24 hours, this article has gone from a shapeless bunch of text to a pretty good article. I think this could go to GA (after the status is finalized, that is). Noble Story (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coz deleted a comment from Stern that summarized his quote that the Sonics will stay in Seattle only as long as mandated by the courts, but no longer. This seems similar to an earlier disagreement: Like back then, Coz said Stern's comment is rhetoric, while I believe such strong statements by the NBA's most important official are notable in this article, regardless. I'd like to see what others think, but I'd also like to hear a bit more from Coz. I'm sure we can agree on something. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric: "Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress." I don't think that the quote is "meaningless language" or "intended to impress". It's a comment from the commisioner of the NBA, who's directly involved in the events. Noble Story (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that a comment by the NBA Commissioner (who is also an attorney or former attorney) on an NBA legal situation is exactly the kind of comment that would be appropriate in this situation. He didn't use any profanity or call anyone names, so I don't know why the comment would be considered inappropriate. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like "rhetoric" you can call his inflamitory language any thing you like but my understanding is that encyclopedic content should be about things that actually happen not about things people speculate on. Yes Stern has his hard negotiating stance, as does the Seattle Mayor, but we have seen Stern say whatever he feels like in the moment to try and push people to do what he wants. I know those of you in Oklahoma want to slant the articles to make this look like a done deal (and I don't mean that in a bad way) but it isn't so I think it would be best to just stick with the events as they unfold, the article is going to be long as it is, and leave the day to day rhetoric, speculation, or posturing out of it. --Coz (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to assume good faith. Speculating that editors from Oklahoma are trying to slant an article in a certain way is both unproductive and potentially erroneous. Keep in mind, also, that David Stern making a comment on the situation is something that happened. Stating in the article that Stern made such a remark is something "that actually happened". Chicken Wing (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point has been proven. Comments that show that this specific case to take ownership of the team back has merit are being deleted while "experts" talking about "theory" keep being included. This is pretty clearly intended to slant the article towards the OKC viewpoint and give the impression that there is no way that Seattle can keep their team and that is flat out not the case. --Coz (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chicken Wing; we are attributing the quote to Stern, not saying it as fact. And we can't dismiss it as rhetoric — statements by Stern are valid, as he is the top representative of the league. But we can also include an equally brief summary of Nickles' statement, as well. I believe he said he wants to represent the best wishes of the residents of Seattle by not accepting a buyout and continuing with the lawsuit. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why the Seattle PI's research is under dispute here. The PI found that legal experts believe Schultz's lawsuit isn't likely to succeed. There's nothing wrong with that. If there is other legit research that shows legal experts think the lawsuit has merit, then that should be included also. If there isn't any, that doesn't mean we should omit the PI's findings. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coz, removing a sourced sentence that is properly attributed and as neutrally worded as possible just because the opposing view is not included is not a credible reason. The only problems with the sentence you added about the SoS lawyer on KJR was that it wasn't properly attributed (which I corrected) and the source that was provided to support the claim appeared to be a link to copyrighted material that was being re-used without the permission of the copyright holder, which is a violation of WP:COPY. If a reliable source with the SoS lawyers opinion is found and properly attributed, then I don't see why it can't be included. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all the constant changes I missed the change you made and then someone removed it completly. My issue is with this being called "findings" by the PI. The problem with reports like that is that papers go find legal "experts" who know nothing about the specific cases and ask them about legal theory. For instance when the issue of the lease first came up these "legal experts" commented that all leases can be broken simply by paying off the rent. Sounds good but it didn't apply to this case because it is not a "lease" but a "use agreement" and they can have specific performance clauses. Now we see the PI (who is noted for shoddy work) go out and ask these "experts" about the theory surrounding "good faith". Well they didn't ask about "Best efforts" which is a different standard and they didn't ask about fraud upon entering into a contract of this type. Other legal experts have been quoted on TV and radio as saying that this particular case has a good chance. It also opens the door to anti-trust issues which probably explains why Schultz picked one of the top anti-trust lawyers around to handle the case. --Coz (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coz11, you are dangerously skirting the three-revert rule. I would suggest you read over the policy and understand it, as it is a blockable offense. However, this also applies to Chicken Wing, Okiefromokla, and Bobblehead. Right now it doesn't matter who is right or wrong: If this starts to become a full-blown edit war (which it is fast becoming), then it will have repercussions. Noble Story (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]