Talk:Chris Mullin

Photo?

Could use a smaller photo, this one's a little large. --Fitly 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Trademark haircut

No mention of his trademark flat-top? He has always had this unique style.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.155.106 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Racial overtones"

In this article about White NBA players, Michael Wilbon writes about Chris Mullin, "Chris Mullin, the five-time NBA all-star and Dream Teamer who is now general manager of the Golden State Warriors, studied the moves of black stars Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe while growing up watching the 1970s Knicks. But he wore John Havlicek's No. 17 and looked up to Larry Bird." I think given this it is fair to say he looked up to Larry Bird and wore Havilicek's number because the three shared a common racial background.--TM 14:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's quite an assumption to make. Perhaps Mullin looked up to Bird because they had similar athletic "gifts". The only clear racial overtones are the ones provided by you.172.190.20.145 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an assumption at all. Those are the words of well known basketballl commentator Michael Wilbon, not myself. Wilbon contrasts "black stars" Frazier and Monroe with white players that Mullin idolized in Bird and Havilcek.--TM 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're taking that quote out of the context. The article is about the decline in white American basketball players between (say) 1975 and 2005. Wilbon is merely saying in the bit you have quoted that Chris Mullin, who became a (white) star player himself, had white role models (Bird and Havlicek). The point Wilbon made is that white Americans in the early 2000s did not have equivalent role models, although he goes on to say that the bigger reason is cultural (i.e. white parents discouraging their children from pursuing basketball). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Mullin (basketball). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120124150755/http://www.usabasketball.com:80/mens/men_alpha_M.html to http://www.usabasketball.com/mens/men_alpha_M.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Chris Mullin (basketball). 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/20100818075707/http://www.hoophall.com:80/hall-of-famers/tag/1992-united-states-olympic-team to http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/tag/1992-united-states-olympic-team

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2019

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: Move. The consensus is that this subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC according to the evidence. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Chris Mullin (basketball) → Chris Mullin – The basketball person is a clear primary topic over the politician. Among total combined page views for both people, the basketball person has 94.2% of them. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support based on pageview stats which clearly favour the basketball player. PC78 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Unlike some of the similar cases that have cropped up recently, Mullin’s case doesn’t rest solely on page views (flawed logic IMO). Mullin has clear historical significance - Hall of Fame basketball player, two-time Olympic Gold Medalist, college Player of the Year, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a US-centric nomination. I had never heard of the basketball player. However, being in UK, I had heard of the politician, a major public figure as MP and campaigner against miscarriages of justice. Page views are a crude measure of notability, which is not a popularity contest. Narky Blert (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's true... I'm also in the UK and have never heard of the player (I have zero interest in basketball), however it's perfectly reasonable to think that he will be known to basketball fans outside the US. I'm not sure you could say the same about the politician. Also, WP:NWFCTM. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Calidum 14:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. US-centric. Never heard of the basketball player; certainly heard of the politician. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How many basketball players have you heard of? Mullin is in the Hall of Fame, an NBA All-Star and a two-time Olympic Gold Medalist. He’s a very well-known sportsman, and not just in the US. I would say the VAST majority of Americans have never heard of Alex Ferguson, but that wouldn’t be a very good reason to move that article to “Alex Ferguson (Association football).” Rikster2 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • How many British politicians have you heard of? However, most football fans in the world (not just the UK) will have heard of Alex Ferguson (we don't just consider whether British or American people have heard of someone). Trust me, that's far more people than are basketball fans. Manchester United is one of the most famous sports clubs on earth. Some sportspeople are household names even to those who do not follow sport; Mullin is certainly not one of them. Of course the basketball player is the primary topic in the USA; but understand that the politician is the primary topic in the UK, where few people follow American basketball. Elsewhere I doubt either is primary, since few will have heard of either of them. Therefore, neither topic is primary in the grand scheme of things and the status quo should remain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I have heard of more British politicians than you would think (including Mr. Mullin, who I don’t think was remarkable) since I lived and worked in England for two years. My point is, basketball is a non-factor in the UK but is very prominent in continental Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. I find it interesting that in addition to getting the clear majority of page views on English WP, there are articles about the basketball player on over 30 other language WPs (including a “good article” on Finnish Wikipedia). The politician is found in no other language - so which is country-centric? I can buy a Chris Mullin jersey in China. Dirk Nowitzki has singled out Mullin’s play for the 1992 US Olympic Dream Team as one of his influences as a youth in Germany. Both Mullins are no longer active in their fields, I think we have a pretty good read on where they sit historically in relation to one another. Rikster2 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support One is in the hall of fame for his profession, the other reads like a run-of-the-mill politician.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no "hall of fame" for British politicians! It's an American concept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most Europeans don't know the basketball player

In the past, this page redirected people to the page of the basketball player, but that doesn't make sense.

While in America most people who say that name refer to the basketball player, hardly anyone knows him outside the US. In Britain and Ireland, for example, the British politician Chris Mullin is much more famous, he was the most famous Labour politician of his time, and a novel of his, A Very British Coup, had two successful television adaptation and was a bestseller.

Conclusion? This page should simply be a disambiguation page with both names. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxim.il89, I undid your bold page move, but restored this comment, which you made after your original move. You might have missed the previous discussion immediately above at #Requested move 15 May 2019, which supported the basketball player as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Feel free to make another WP:RM request if you still disagree. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, so we obviously need another discussion, especially in the era when people address old biases and stuff.

In Europe, hardly anyone knows this basketball player, and in Britain, 99% of those who have heard the name obviously would refer to the politician. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2020

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: No move. In closing I took into consideration the WP:CANVASSING issue covered in the discussion, but with or without that there clearly is no agreement that a change to the status quo is warranted here. In terms of policy, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the prevailing advice. Clearly the basketball player predominates in the page views, and many of the participants argued convincingly that his prominence in the game meets the threshold of long-term significance. As such, I find consensus against the proposed move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Chris Mullin → Chris Mullin (basketball) – In Europe, hardly anyone knows this basketball player, and in Britain, 99% of those who have heard the name obviously would refer to Chris Mullin (politician) - not only was he a prominent politician who appeared in the headlines a lot, he also wrote a novel, A Very British Coup, that was adapted twice to successful TV shows!

Right now, this page redirects people to the page of the basketball player, but that doesn't make sense.

And yes, I've read the arguments in the previous discussion... how he's a Hall of Fame inductee, and all of that... It's obvious that in America most people who say that name refer to the basketball player. However, you need to understand that for those who live outside America, him being a member of a basketball Hall of Fame is an equivalent of someone being a member of a water polo Hall of Fame.

This page being directly of the basketball player is culturally biased, and as we live in an era when such biases are being challenged, I request that you view this from a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia obviously shouldn't represent the perception common only in one country.

Conclusion? This page should simply be a disambiguation page with both names (as it used to be).

Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Per arguments raised by me above. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer This !vote was by the nominator. (Per WP:RMCOMMENT: Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.)—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. there is no clear primary topic here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer This !voter was canvassed on their talk page with a non-neutral message by the nominator.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer This !voter was NOT canvassed but simply invited to take part in a discussion they've shown interest in before. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support except it should be Chris Mullin (basketball) consistent with other disambiguated basketball player biographies. Even searching from the US (as I've never heard of either person), top results were mixed between the athlete and the author. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree, changed it now in the proposal. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have 0 interest in basketball, but I agree with the consensus in the previous discussion. The basketball player receives 95% of the pageviews compared to the UK politician. A DAB page would be an unneeded roadblock. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In America, yes, and America is big, but not outside America. in Britain and Ireland, 99% would refer to the politician. Honestly, all you're saying is that America has more people. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Saying the basketball player gets more pageviews is just saying that the US has more Wikipedians than the UK. 99% of pageviews in the US will be for the basketball player and 99% of views in the UK will be for the politician. That geographical bias is what makes it "no clear primary topic" - it's not one of those cases where 80% of pageviews in all major en.wiki countries are for a primary topic, and 20% in all countries is for a secondary topic.Le Deluge (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Something I forgot to mention! Chris Mullen (the author-politician) was the leader of a campaign to release the Birmingham Six, Irish people who were in prison for a decade and a half under accusations of terrorism (which they were not guilty of), when the prosecutor basically "hid" evidence. Because of this, Chris Mullen is still mentioned in history books and in every documentary about this topic.

So in Britain or Ireland if someone said the basketball player is more important, people would find it laughable. He isn't just another random MP or Senator - he really was extremely famous (or infamous for the ones that opposed him - the term "looney left" was first used in regards to him, by The Sun) in the UK. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As I said in the last RM. Making the basketball player primary is wholly Americanocentric. Most people outside the US have never heard of him. If all we do is look at pageviews then in almost every case an American topic is going to be primary as America has more people. This is happening all too often (see Talk:John Lewis). It was wrong there, it's wrong here and it needs to stop. Relatively minor figures on the world stage need to stop being made primary topic just because they're Americans and Americans assume that just because they've heard of them then everyone must have done. This is English(-language) Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I feel like John Lewis was a bit different. In this case, I'd say most people in the US haven't heard of basketball player Chris Mullin, whereas a muuuuuuch larger portion of the US had heard of civil rights leader John Lewis. (Especially given his recent death.) Not saying it's fair, but just providing my opinion that they're a bit different. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Very good point, but I think it's also important to note than in Britain 100% of the population, when mentioned John Lewis, refer to the department store. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer This !voter was canvassed on their talk page with a non-neutral message by the nominator.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer This !voter was NOT canvassed but simply invited to take part in a discussion they've shown interest in before. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. No primary topic for this name. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, BrownHairedGirl, Schazjmd, Le Deluge, Necrothesp and Paintspot Infez. WP:NOPRIMARY. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on pageviews. Besides that, Mullin is a two-time Olympic gold medalist and is known in MANY parts of the world as a member of the 1992 US Olympic Dream team, considered the best basketball team ever assembled. I actually think there is a British bias going on in this discussion. Just because the sport isn’t popular there doesn’t mean Mullin isn’t a figure known around the world. And again, pageviews say that overwhelmingly English Wikipedia readers are looking for the basketball player, not the British politician (how many folks outside the UK know who he is, if we want to play that game). Rikster2 (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but don't some of you people read the discussion? It's already been said how the whole issue of "pageview" is nothing but a representation of the fact America is bigger.
  • Yes, he's won two Olympic medals... and for the rest of the world it's an equivalent of winning Olympic medals in water polo, impressive, but come on! The author-politician is literally in the history books for what he did for the Birmingham Six. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I read the discussion and you can stop being disrespectful and start assuming good faith. First, do you have proof all the views are coming from the US? And besides that, aren’t naming conventions meant to make the reader experience easier? If 95% of the views are coming to the basketball player then keeping this the primary makes for a better user experience for those searching this name. And the basketball player absolutely has lasting notability, he’s not some run of the mill player. Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I’m not convinced that any of the other Chris Mullin are better known than the basketball figure. Looking at the pageviews, I would say it would be better to leave this as it is. Whilst the Brutish politician may be know in the UK, is he really know by the vast majority of the current UK population? This is not to take away from his achievements, but in this case the basketball related person seems primary. I would hate to think the arguments were being made just because of where Mullin lives... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In Britain, the only Chris Mullin known is the author politician, and yes, he is known by the vast majority. The term "looney left" was literally invented for him, and younger people know him because of the TV shows based on his novels.
  • "In this case the basketball related person seems primary. I would hate to think the arguments were being made just because of where Mullin lives" - Outside of America, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea who the basketball player is. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Why do you assume that outside of America the overwhelming majority of people have no idea who the basketball player is? I’d argue outside of the British Isles pretty much NO ONE outside of serious Anglophiles know who the politician is. Basketball is the third most popular team sport in the world - it just isn’t popular in the UK or Ireland. I think it’s telling the politician only has one article on a foreign language Wiki, whereas the basketball player articles are in over 30 languages. Rikster2 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Because it's a fact. I've lived in Britain, Israel, Ukraine, and I have Russian ancestry - the overwhelming majority of people in Europe haven't heard of him because they don't care about basketball. They know such names as Michael Jordan and LeBron James, and if there's a star of local ancestry, they'll know it, like, Germans definitely know Dirk Nowitzki. Chris Mullin the basketball player is a name that is unfamiliar to 99% of the European population (maybe even more). Just like that basketball player is very popular in America, the politician is very well known in Britain and Ireland, which is why the page shouldn't prioritise one. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the guideline WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. The basketball player receives 800+ views/day while the politician gets only ~50.[3] The basketball player's historical significance established as a 2-time Olympic gold medalist and member of the Basketball Hall of Fame. There is nothing in the primary topic guideline about considering geographical boundaries of prospective English-language readers. Supporters are spouting the community-rejected "what first comes to (your) mind" complaint.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer Maxim.il89, the nominator, canvassed over a handful of editors on their talk pages with non-neutral messages.[4]—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems like I should put a notice on the basketball, NBA and OLYMPICS Wikiprojects to solicit votes. If I were that kind of guy, that is. Rikster2 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Notification can be fine when posted neutrally and to all interested parties (e.g. WikiProjects, noticeboards, etc).—Bagumba (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Right, so you'll put it on the NBA and basketball noticeboards... but not on, let's say, UK politics? I mean, surely that should count as "canvassing"? I mean, if you only post it in basketball related pages, it's obvious what the outcome will be. Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer - I didn't "canvass," I've notified those who have been editing the Chris Mullin page and/or those who took part in the previous discussion, that's not "canvassing." Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • 1) Your message was not neutral. 2) You did not notify any basketball or Olympic domains or editors. 3) You cherry-picked who you notified. 4) You are not taking responsibility—now—if you did not know about the canvassing guideline before.—Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Prove it! Many of them never expressed their position on it or voted on it, I just saw them as active editors on those pages, so invited them to join.
      • Most of those who have voted here weren't invited by me.
      • It's literally normal to inform people that a discussion is taking place, how else would people who actually know something about the topic take part in it? Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I was initially suprised that there was more participants here after one day than the previous RM had in total. Presumably, now, this was the product of the canvassing (and perhaps talk page stalkers). At any rate, the close is not a head count.—Bagumba (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, every person I've invited has either edited those pages or took part in the previous discussion - it's not some random people. Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • But you only notified those editors who have expressed agreement with your position, not those (for example) who voted to move the page in the above discussion. That’s definitely canvassing Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Prove it! Many of them never expressed their position on it or voted on it, I just saw them as active editors on those pages, so invited them to join.
      • Most of those who have voted here weren't invited by me.
      • It's literally normal to inform people that a discussion is taking place, how else would people who actually know something about the topic take part in it?
      • You suggested to inform the NBA and Basketball WikiPeojects... but not the British Politics Project, isn't that biased canvassing? Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Response - But did you only invite editors on the politician's page? I don't see any editors of the basketball player page in your history. I have not asked anyone to take part on this discussion nor have I posted on any project Talk pages about it. But I might consider it given your behavior. Rikster2 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
          • FYI - I invited the folks from the last move discussion who you didn't invite (who weren't already participating). You invited the two opposing votes for the 2019 discussion but not the supporting ones (I didn't get invited to take part, for example. Wonder why?) Rikster2 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Comment on canvassing - I looked at the first set of editors that Maxim.il89 invited to the discussion. Two were editors who opposed the last page move (those who supported it were not invited), one was the politician article creator and the other four were some of the highest volume editors on the politician page (no editors to the basketball player pager were invited). Now he has listed this discussion on a number of project boards (again with a non-neutral solicitation), most of which are specific to the politician, but none of which are specific to the basketball player (though some - like the Biography project do refer to both). I listed this discussion on the NBA, basketball, college basketball and Olympic projects to correct this oversight. Rikster2 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Pot, meet kettle. You said how you'd list it on the basketball and NBA pages, which you now have... and you dare to accuse me of not being neutral? Dude, did you suggest to share it on political projects? No, straight away you said "NBA" - as if people on an NBA page, most of them American, have heard of the British author-politician.
              • You said you'd share it on basketball pages, fair enough, I've shared it on political Projects. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
                • No, here are the facts - I joked about sharing it on those pages because you were canvassing. I never linked this discussion on those pages until AFTER you’d linked it on a bunch of projects relevant to the politician. I notified participants from the last discussion AFTER you’d notified a hand-picked group of editors. I did not canvas, I tried to balance yours. And I did so with neutral messaging, unlike yours. Rikster2 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeline with diffs of all notifications are availabe at this noticeboard posting.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments in previous discussion: it is clear from long term pageview stats that most readers are interested in the basketball player and coach. Several people above have stated arguments to the effect of "99% of pageviews in the US will be for the basketball player and 99% of views in the UK will be for the politician" (or similar), but this is an oversimplified generalisation that doesn't appear to be based on anything other than the prejudices of those users. There are many fans of American basketball outside the US (and no, I'm not one of them), and not everyone, or perhaps even most people, in the UK will be familiar with the politician and author. I don't see any compelling argument for this page move. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose All the PTOPIC metrics point to this being the primary topic, and the move request is defective on its face, based as it is in its own national bias. PTOPIC specifically rejects a move based the 'what's known in my country' in WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT -- such a move is recipe for disruption across the project as a user as in this move request tries to move topics based on their national origin in clear contravention of this being an international project. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Those who oppose the move only have ONE argument, which is page views... but if you looked outside America, those statistics would change dramatically. This is literally the bias some of us have mentioned here. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope. I also argue that the basketball player is more well known in countries other than the US and UK. The NBA (and the sport in general) has a huge following in places like Australia, China, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Turkey, the Philippines, France, Indonesia, Brazil, etc. This is before you start to look at the world-wide exposure an athlete has as a two-time Olympic gold medalist. The politician ONLY has local reknown. Rikster2 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The NBA definitely has following outside America, but not "huge," let's be honest, Europeans like football. In many European countries, even ice hockey is bigger than basketball. In Britain and Ireland, cricket and rugby are bigger than basketball.
    • There are many Olympic champions with names similar to others who still don't get the main page redirected to them. Saying the politician is only locally known, what? He's very well known all over Britain and Ireland. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - From a British perspective, I recognise Chris Mullin as the writer of A Very British Coup but have never heard of the basketball player. A disambiguation page is the best way of dealing with this. Extua (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - From a Filipino perspective, I recognize Chris Mullin as the member of the Golden State Warriors but have never heard of the politician. The status quo is the best way of dealing with this. Also, it's a FA in the Finnish Wikipedia and has a handful of articles from Wikipedias of other languages.... the UK politician's only other interwiki is the Arabic one. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The basketball player was a member of the most famous international basketball team in, arguably, world history, and is a HOFer who played the world's second most popular sport...I also point to Alanscottwalker's succinct argument. Caro7200 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the current use fails WP:PRIMARY and smacks of American-centric, sports-centric bias. Frankly, I’ve never heard of either one of them (I’m in the USA but do not follow basketball much). In this case, pageviews are a mere popularity contest that has nothing to do with relative notability or their contributions to the world. This is a reasonably common name, there are apt to be others, and it is appropriate to disambiguate this name. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose Sure I think the basketball player is the primary topic. But Maxim.il89's invitations call the current link "a tad bit ridiculous" that violates any neutral invitation.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm from western Europe, I've never in my life heard of this politician. Is he known outsite of the UK and Ireland? I do however know who the basketball player is, not hard as he was a member of the Dream Team which is probably the single most famous basketball team in history. Alvaldi (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support: an obvious case for a disambig page. -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Overall usage and long-term significance are what matters per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not usage, significance or views by region or country. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The basketball player literally has no significance outside the US. In Britain and Ireland, that name means the author-politician. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You literally have given no facts to back this up. Rikster2 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I'm a Yank & I've never heard of either of 'em. It would certainly make sense to have a Disambiguation page that (briefly) lists what each is noted for, and then there'd be room for any other Chris Mullinses who become Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This argument about page views is rubbish - Chris Mullin redirects to his article, so everyone who looks up the politician is being redirected to the basketball player - of course his article gets more hits. The redirect should simply be a disambiguation page with both names. I grew up in Australia, but I remember all the argy-bargy about the politician (he was a journo at the time) not naming IRA suspects. He was played by John Hurt in a film version of the Birmingham six story. He was an MP for something like 20 years. He is at least as notable as some basketball player that no one outside the USA has ever heard of - I'd say he's the better known of the two - I'd certainly never heard of the basketball player. Bacondrum (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • THIS comment is brilliant - this is a great point! Even those looking up the politician end up getting to the basketball player's page, simply because it automatically takes them there. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - at the end of the day does it matter which one is better known? There are two articles about people called Chris Mullin. Is there a reason for this kind of silly popularity debate rather than simply having a disambiguation page? Bacondrum (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Page view stats are a good metric to know which one is, and is consulted for cases exactly as this.Howard the Duck (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You're totally right! Problem is, some people here don't understand that having more page views doesn't make a page WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Except that primary topic literally reads “A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.” The page views bear that out. The other tenet is about long-term significance, which both seem to have. Rikster2 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I like Rikster's argument about all the non-English Wikipedia pages for the basketball player. The Finnish version is even listed as a Good Article! Basketball is a global sport, even though it's not super-popular in the British isles. Zagalejo^^^ 00:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, he does have non-English pages... but the majority don't know him, simply because the majority outside America see basketball as a fringe sport. I can assure you there are quite a few water polo players with their page translated into many languages. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BrownHairedGirl; there is no primary topic here. Hence, per WP:NOPRIMARY, we serve the readers looking for both best by disambiguating both pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• The dishonesty on the basketball player not being known outside the USA is appalling. His article is recognized in the Finnish Wikipedia as one of the best written there and has more interwiki links than the politician. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The page views show the basketball player to be the clear primary topic. -- Calidum 04:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't understand, why not read the comments? That argument's been made, and it's been addressed. This situation is literally because America has more people, and even those who look up the politician add views to the basketball guy's page because it takes them there directly. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean page views are any less relevant. Certainly they carry more weight "In Europe, hardly anyone knows this basketball player." I suggest you read WP:PTOPIC because it says page views are one way of determining a primary topic and also warns that "one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what 'first comes to mind,'" which is the entire premise of this nomination and the support for the move. Also read WP:BADGER because you don't need to reply to every single oppose vote with the same tired argument. -- Calidum 14:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BHG. There is no primary topic, both should be disambiguated with a hatnote directing people to the other one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Which, in my opinion, is the fairest and most mature solution. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose based on page views, which show the basketball player is a clear primary topic. Chris Mullin gets on average 1,188 page views per day this year. Chris Mullin (politician) gets 50. Even if all 50 of those visit via the basketball player's page (which they won't) that's still 1,138 v 50. The other page linked, Christopher Mullins, gets on average two views per day. So that drops us down to 1,136 v 50. That's over twenty times as many views for the basketball player than the British politician. Yes, America has more people, but the encyclopedia is here to cater to the readers, and if more Americans want to read about the basketball player than Brits wants to read about the politician, then we should follow that. (For the record, I'm British.) Harrias ^talk 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • People, please take the time to read the discussion before you state your opinion - It has been explained how page views shouldn't be the only criterion, as America has more people, which creates more traffic. Also, even though searching for the politician land on the page of the basketball player, which gives him more traffic.
  • The fact is, in Britain and Ireland hardly anyone has heard of the basketball player, while many have heard of the author-politician.
  • Honestly, I really do believe it's important to read the discussion and getting informed before stating an opinion. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Stop assuming bad faith, and stop WP:BLUDGEONing, it just pisses people off. I read the whole discussion, and the views in each direction before giving my opinion, with reasoning. If you continue to respond in disparaging fashion to those who don't agree with you, you will soon find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Harrias ^talk 08:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Stop assuming I assume bad faith. I don't think anyone here comes with the intention to disrupt the process, but many people think they know what they're talking about (and they might really know) without reading the debate. When one states an opinion about an article move, it really is a good idea to read both sides of the argument before coming to a decision. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Very Strong Oppose Per Bagumba. Long-term significance is probably equal, so we're left with usage. Though page views aren't the only factor to consider, they are overwhelming i n favor of the NBA player. In the absence of evidence of the usage in English reliable sources favoring the politician, there's no real argument here. National origin isn't a fact in determining a primary topic, nor should it be. Btw Maxim, please read WP:BLUDGEON instead of responding to my comments. I have read the discussion here, and the constant badgering, along with the clear canvassing (MILHIST?? Seriously??) and non-neutral notices, are poisoning the discussion. You need to back off and allow the process to run its course before you get taken to ANI. BilCat (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, outside of America, hardly anyone has heard of the basketball player, and in Britain/Ireland almost everyone who says that name refers to the politician. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • And again, it's TOTALLY irrelevant. Sorry, not sorry. BilCat (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - 2 equally notable persons in differnt domains need a dab page. Fob.schools (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to address something. User:Bagumba said in the previous vote on the topic, "One is in the hall of fame for his profession, the other reads like a run-of-the-mill politician." - This is the perception I would like to address. Just because one is a Hall of Famer (is there even a Hall of Fame for politicians?) doesn't make him notable to people outside the US, who mostly don't care about basketball. The comment about Chris Mullin (politician) being a "run-of-the-mill politician" shows that not everyone does research before expressing an opinion - he was very popular (or unpopular, for opponents - the term "looney left" was literally invented for him by The Sun), led the fight for the Birmingham Six, and wrote a bestselling novel that was adapted twice into successful (in Britain) TV shows. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As I've said before, the whole "Hall of Fame" concept is an American one in any case. Being in some "Hall of Fame" means nothing to people outside America. Just another example, I'm afraid, of how many Americans assume that everyone does things the way they do them and must have heard of people because they're big in America. Basketball is simply not that notable in most countries. We non-Americans may be aware (and rarely much more than be aware) of a handful of the very top players, but Mullin is not one of them. I'm not saying there aren't basketball fans outside America, but it's not the universal sport it is there. It's hardly football (soccer), in which the top players of all nationalities are known all over the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Alanscottwalker. All indications are that this is the primary topic. Most of our readers are looking for this article, so we shouldn't inconvenience them with extra clicks. (t · c) buidhe 09:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • How exactly is it the primary topic if hardly anyone knows him outside the UK, and in Britain/Ireland 99% of those who think of Chris Mullin mean the politician?
  • Also, even those who look for the politician first find themselves on the page of the basketball player, so the numbers aren't accurate. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Just to dispel this myth, here are page views for “Chris Mullin (basketball)” for the month of April 2019 (the month before the page was moved to the current location). The basketball page had 1875 page views/day, the politician article had 126/day and the Chris Mullin DAB had 11 views a day. Can we please bring data and facts to this discussion, not just sweeping opinions or theories? Rikster2 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There sure are some absurd claims here that basketball is a fringe sport not very known outside of the USA when in fact it is a global sport with an estimated 2.2 billion fans (third in the world) and is hugely popular in several contries. Regardless, the page views of the basketball player dwarf the views of the politician which tells you which Mullin the Wikipedia readers come to read about. Even if a reader would mistakenly visit the basketball player article when he was looking for the politician and we would deduct those visits from the basketball player visits (max 50 per day since that is the numer the politician has), the basketball player would still have over 10 times more visits per day than the politician. Not suprising as the basketball player was a member of the hugely popular Dream Team (the Beatles of basketball) that launched the global popularity of the NBA to the stratosphere. Fact is, the basketball player is globally known and has wikipedia articles in over 30 languages. The politician is locally known in Ireland/UK and has a wikipedia article in 1 language. Alvaldi (talk)

Thank you. The 2017 NBA Finals had an audience in China of 12.2 million unique live viewers per game despite the time zone difference.1 And FIBA announced that the 2019 World Cup had 3 billion viewers world wide.2 No one said it is soccer, but basketball is either the #2 or #3 team spectator sport in the world, depending on who you ask. Rikster2 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried out the water polo argument here. The champion of the 1992 Olympic water polo tournament is Italy. None of the gold medal winning players' articles are rated GA or better in any Wikipedia, even Italian. This guy's article is a GA in Finnish Wikipedia. Some Finnish dude must have known this person well enough, and found enough sources in Suomi(!!!) to make it a GA. Impressive. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I was non-neutrally WP:CANVASSed to this discussion, so I will not vote in this RM. I will, however, note that WP:PTOPICs invariably accumulate bad links - like this, which might have pointed to the wrong article forever absent this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The inquiry should go beyond "page hits" or the subjective "who have I personally heard of". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC asks us to consider "long-term significance" and "enduring notability". The basketball player meets that standard. He is consistently ranked as one of the 100 greatest of all time in his field of endeavor. See here (No. 56 all time), here (No. 64), here (No. 74), here (No. 83), here (No. 83), here (No. 82), and here (No. 84). While clearly notable, the British politician does not rank among the greatest British political figures of all time (or even of the last 50 years) and lacks such preeminent stature in his chosen field of endeavor. The current hatnote is sufficient to redirect those interested in the British politician. Cbl62 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose canvassed by neither side, and British. I can honestly say I know Chris Mullin from watching youtube videos about sports, and I know Chris Mullin for a variety of things in the UK political sphere. Both are clearly notable. However, much like George Foreman there is relatively clear support for a primary topic here. Is it fair that sports people are generally more notable than politicians? Maybe. Is it US-centric? Maybe. Are either of those things arguments? Not really. We generally steer people towards what it is they are likely looking for when there is a sense of topic primacy. I actually sense that in 100 years there will be a disambiguation applied because the relative significance of both individuals will have waned, making this feel like a dose of Wikipedia:Systemic bias being slapped with a WP:RGW haddock. Koncorde (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You've said, "I can honestly say I know Chris Mullin from watching youtube videos about sports, and I know Chris Mullin for a variety of things in the UK political sphere. Both are clearly notable." - but that's literally the argument in support! And then you say, "Is it US-centric? Maybe."
  • A person in Britain looking for Chris Mullin would likely be looking for the politician, perhaps after watching a show based on his book or after hearing his name in relation to his fight for civil rights. Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • But for the majority of the world, as all the data based on facts but not personal fealings indicates, a person looking for Chris Mullin is most likely looking for the basketball player. Alvaldi (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Indeed. As a British person who looked up Chris Mullin, I did so to find the basketball player. I had forgotten the other one even existed. Maxim, two things being notable does not mean both are equal. It's why disambiguation pages like Spitfire (disambiguation) exist, but there is only one definitive Spitfire even if Americans really think the 1976 Jefferson Starship album is more important to them. Koncorde (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry, terrible example. The Jefferson Starship album was literally named after the jet, and therefore, that makes Spitfire the more relevant one.
        • In the case of both Chris Mullin, they're notable in different areas. For example, Wikipedia gave the civil-rights guy John Lewis the primary page because of his civil rights activism and how popular he was due to it, fair enough... but Chris Mullin was just that in Britain when it came to the Birmingham Six and stuff.
        • If the basketball guy was more famous everywhere... yeah, I'd agree, but he isn't, which is why one should not be prioritised. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Not a terrible example, demonstrates primacy works despite personal preference. Also, I am not sure it was named after the WW2 plane (which wasn't a jet) but more likely about the idea of a fiery young woman full of energy (i.e. Katherine Hepburn in Spitfire (1934 film)). And Chris Mulllin the basketball player is more famous worldwide due to the success of Basketball worldwide (it's not soccer, but it is probably the second largest international game with professional leagues throughout Europe, China and Phillipines amongst other locales)[5][6][7]. Chris Mullin the politician is barely known in the UK. Everybody of a certain age might remember the Birmingham Six, but I doubt anyone can name a single individual involved unless they are particularly interested. In contrast Mullin is a HOF player, two time gold winning Olympic athlete etc and per the metrics provided by others clearly the person most often sought after. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Would you agree that the Spitfire aeroplane is more famous all over the world, and in every country most searches would be that plane? Yes, great.
            • Here, it's not the same. In Britain, way more people know the politician. The basketball player isn't really famous worldwide because outside the US basketball isn't that big, and when Mullin played, it was even less big internationally than it is today.
            • "Everybody of a certain age might remember the Birmingham Six, but I doubt anyone can name a single individual involved" - But people remember Mullin campaiging.
            • We have an American example. Most people don't know any human rights activists from the 60s excerpt MLK, and yet there was a decision made to make the John Lewis (the civil rights guy) the primary page, and same here. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
              • @Maxim.il89: Two questions for you. 1. How can a sport that you claim is not popular outside of the United States have 3 billions viewers during its last world cup? 2. How can a basketball player that you claim is not known outside of the United States have Wikipeda articles in 30 different languages? Alvaldi (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
                • 1. It's different and you know it, it's like athletics - most people don't care, most tournaments hardly have viewers (and even those are relatives)... but when it comes to the Olympics, all of a sudden everyone cares about it. 2. Basketball fans know him, there are basketball fans in every country, but outside the US, in most countries, there AREN'T MANY basketball fans - I didn't say they don't exist. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • @Maxim.il89: 1. All data based on facts but not personal feelings contradict your claim. The EuroLeague, the largest professional basketball league in Europe, had 1.3 billion views on television during 2018-19 season. NBA programming during the 2017-18 season reached more than 1 billion unique viewers.[8] Basketball is the most popular sport in China, the most populous country in the world.[9][10] The NBA had 800 million views from China during the 2018-19 season and the Chinese Basketball League reached a record 1.079 billion views for the 2018-19 season.[11]. 2. Again, all data based on facts but not personal feelings contradict your claim. Even when factoring for people accidently visiting his article while looking for the politician, he would still have 10x more views. He also has wikipedia articles in 30 languages while the politician has 1. All the facts point to him being an internationally know athlete who was a member of the most famous Olympic sports team of all time. I would gladly want to see you post any reliable sources that support your claim that basketball is not popular world wide. Alvaldi (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
              • @Maxim.il89: 1. Spitfires fame is the point. Most people searching are looking for the primary topic. They are not looking to get the Jefferson album. In this situation Mullin (basketball) is the Spitfire. Known worldwide, represented his nation internationally etc, hugely successful etc. In contrast the other Mullin is pretty much anonymous. He is the album that one person is looking for occasionally.
              • 2. They really don't remember Mullin campaigning. It was 40 years ago. The significant majority of people under the age of 40 probably don't even know about the story of the Birmingham 6, nevermind Mullin. I was born in 1980 and I do not remember Mullin at all. I remember the Birmginham Six. I couldn't tell you the name of any of them unfortunately.
              • 3. John Lewis is an entirely different debate. While "most people" don't know John Lewis the politician, even fewer know John Lewis the UK store with limited presence in Ireland and Australia. Koncorde (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
                • 1. Yes, but the Spitfire fame is consistent worldwide, not just in one country.
                • 2. I think you're wrong. I'm 30, I have no childhood memories of him, I know him because of documentaries about civil rights in Britain, the left of Labour, and the Irish situation. In his field, he is notable - it's unfair to compare people from different fields.
                • 3. Yes, but no. In Britain, everyone knows of John Lewis and their Christmas advert is a thing everyone talks about! In Britain, hardly anyone knows who John Lewis the American politician is. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • 1. And that's the point. Mullin the basketball player is the Spitfire known worldwide. Mullin the journalist / politician is the obscure album known in just one country (and not that well known).
                  • 2. Congratulations. You are not in the significant majority of people.
                  • 3. Yes.... and you think more people are looking for the store on wikipedia to read about what exactly? In contrast many more people will search wikipedia for information about the life and achievements of John Lewis the politician - hence its primacy. Koncorde (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't think there's a clear primary topic here. I'm an American and a sports fan, but I recognize that outside of basketball fans, Chris Mullin the basketball player is probably not very well-known. It seems that assigning the identifier to both individuals makes the most sense here. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Chris Mullin (basketball) already diverts here. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the problem is, so does the normal Chris Mullin, which is ridiculous. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      • No, that is normal. Koncorde (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Alex Ferguson analogy offered previously by Rikster is precisely on point. Although there are half a dozen notable Alex Fergusons, the English football coach was preeminent (one of the all-time greats) in his field and is rightly treated as the primary. Disambiguation is provided with a hatnote. The same is true here: Chris Mullin the basketball player is preeminent in his field (consistently ranked in the top 100 of all time), has long received the overwhelming majority of the views, is rightly treated as the primary, and the hatnote serves to redirect those interested in the UK politician. Cbl62 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

His "field" is basketball. That's not something that an overwhelming majority of English Wikipedia are interested in. As others pointed out, the difference in page views is because of the American population being a large part of the English-speaking Wikipedia community. That's not a good justification for making Chris Mullin be the page of one person, rather than a disambiguation page. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"His "field" is basketball. That's not something that an overwhelming majority of English Wikipedia are interested in" - What data is that based on? National Basketball Association gets a little under 9k views a day - more than the MLB and NFL pages combined. You have an assumption that people on Wikipedia don't care about basketball, but what is that based upon? Rikster2 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

KaatFan: You misunderstand the nature of WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. The test is not whether "an overwhelming majority of English Wikipedians" are interested in a subject. If it were, then virtually none of our preeminent athletic figures who happen to share names with other notable figures (e.g., Alex Ferguson, Ted Williams, Jim Brown, Larry Robinson, etc.) could be considered primary. The actually relevant factors (including page views ... by a factor of at least 15-to-1) all weigh heavily in favor of keeping Chris Mullin, the basketball player, as the primary. Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, anyone typing in "Chris Mullin" is going to be taken to the basketball player's page, regardless of who they're actually looking for. So of course the pageview numbers for that page are going to be higher. That doesn't indicate that more people are actually looking for the basketball player. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Others have pointed this out, but the facts don't back it up. As I have posted below, pageviews when this article was "Chris Mullin (basketball)" were 15:1 in favor of the basketball player vs. the politician before the move. I am sure some views are people hoping to see the politician, but the player gets the vast majority according to the evidence. Rikster2 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. While the aforementioned and unfairly disregarded page views are the primary reason, incoming wikilinks also weigh heavily in the basketball player's favour. The page view count merely showcases that there are more people (irrespective of location) looking for the basketball player and finding the right page immediately; why waste their time with a disambiguation page to accommodate someone for whom the argument "He wrote a book!" has been made? Bizarrely constant water polo comparisons, steady defiance of WP:NWFCTM and groundless data (people can come up with statistics to prove anything) do not sway my opinion. CalDoesIt (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Of course the basketball player gets more page views because there is no dab page to go to, so everything goes there first, BUT that does not confirm its the PRIMARY topic which is a subjective judgement anyway. The issue is easily solved by making a dab page. Get on with it and avoid the US centricity that sometime dominates such discussions when there is a simple solution right in front of our face. ww2censor (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• That is a theory that is not borne out when you look at the pageviews for the month before the basketball player was moved to the primary topic last year. Here is a chart of pageviews for the basketball player, the politician, and what was at that time the DAB page ("Chris Mullin"). The basketball player averaged 1,875 views a day while the politician averaged 126 views a day - that is a ratio of just under 15:1. It is one of the reasons the basketball player was moved to the primary topic in the first place - most readers are looking for the basketball player, not the politician. Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter though! First of all, what makes you think most of those views didn't come from the US? Secondly, athletes naturally get more attention than writers or politicians. I mean, in Britain, the majority haven't heard of the basketball player, but have heard of the author, and this alone should be a good enough reason to not redirect it to the basketball player.

You've forgotten to mention how the original discussion hardly had any participation, and I personally find it shocking such a small discussion was enough to get the "approval" for it. The fact there is such a debate on the topic now is enough reason to not redirect the name to the basketball player. Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, we look to page views which in this case (as Rikster points out) are 15:1. We do not subjectively ask whether one person's rationale for reading a page is more important than another. We don't consider sports readers to be less valid than others. We don't consider British readers more valuable than others. Your subjective approach here would render DETERMINEPRIMARY to be a free-for-all and is contrary to the plain language of the guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, if your theory is that all (or most) of the pageviews are coming from the US (and that this makes a difference), please back that up with data rather than just stating it as fact. I am not sure you can track that - I don't know how - but unless we know that is the case we can't take your "supposing" as fact. Just like the other guy "supposing" that most readers were looking for the politician was unsubstantiated (and wrong). Point blank, you don't know where those pageviews are coming from so stop acting like you do. Rikster2 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose pageviews leave no doubt as to which is the primary topic. The argument that anyone looking for the politician would inadvertently arrive at the basketball player's article has been debunked by the evidence that pageviews heavily favored the basketball player before last year's RM declared him the primary topic. As for the argument that the basketball player gets more pageviews because the USA has more people, that's an unproven assertion that isn't relevant even if true. The bottom line is that the vast majority of our readers who go looking for Chris Mullin are looking for the basketball player. Our job is to make it easier, not harder, for them to find him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

In Britain the majority would be looking for a politician. Having a page with both names wouldn't really make it harder, it would just make it one click away, but would make it more fair on the other one. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If that's true, then people in Britain who are searching for 'Chris Mullin' make up a tiny minority of the overall searches. Policy-based arguments favor maintaining the status quo because the basketball player is the primary topic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Mullin was a star player during the time period (Jordan era) when the NBA gained a massive international following. Also, given the politician only averages 50 views per day it's entirely plausible to say that there are days in which the basketball player draws more UK pageviews than the politician. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think the fact the opinions on this question are so equally divided only highlights the fact there IS a need for a disambiguation page. Otherwise, we'd see an overwhelming majority here embracing "oppose"... but we don't see it, we see that opinions are divided pretty equally. Maxim.il89 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You've previously made this assertion and don't need to repeat it. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Moreover, it misstates the nature of determining consensus. Further, your non-neutral and targeted canvassing was found to be improper at ANI (here) and raises questions about the initial wave of support votes. It is noteworthy that, after the first canvassing-tainted 24 hours, the votes have tallied 20 oppose, 11 support. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Only 2-3 people here were "canvassed" by me. I've made it clear I didn't know those rules, now I do.

The previous debate had a "consensus" that was, in all truth, laughable. It was a tiny debate, very few people took part in it, and yet it was seen as enough to redirect the basketball player's page to Chris Mullin.

Right now, we have a big debate, many voices heard, and yet you try and discredit it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Just let an admin close it when they are ready and stop with the extraneous comments. Some poor admin is going to have to read all this stuff and close it based on the arguments and how founded they are in policies and existing consensus. Votes are part of the decision, but not all of it. Rikster2 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, that is the next stage after a week of this thing. "Votes"? It's not about votes, it's about the points of view made. Those discussions are not votes, I'm knew and even I know it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said when I wrote "based on the arguments and how founded they are in policies and existing consensus." My point is, just let an admin get to it when they do and stop commenting. You are not saying anything new at this point. Rikster2 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pardon me, does anyone know how to get an admin to review this? It's been here for more than a week. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've requested a close at WP:ANRFC. It's not uncommon to take more than a week for an RM to be closed. -- Calidum 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure what to do. Maxim.il89 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2020 (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.