Talk:Kobe Bryant/Archive 1

message: Hey, I noticed that this article does not conform to Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. As I noticed, most of the writers of this articles are Kobe Bryant fans, and are quick to erase any bad information pertaining to him, even if factually correct. As per policy, all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals. It is obvious that this entire article has bias and is aimed toward Kobe Bryant fans, not the public as a whole. I suggest a dispute in neutrality.
-Gonsher
Why don't you give examples. 
Actually you should talk to whoever does this. I do not delete factual information. Add something factually negative and see what happens. Go to STEVE NASH page that is where you see the erasing of what is factually correct. You got the wrong article in mind. 
Goonerth
Would someone please make an elaborate 'Player Profile' section (a la Shaq) as soon as possible. 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV concern

message: The paragraph for the 2006-07 season is outdated. It claims Bryant's 52 points on November 30th was his season-high, but Bryant surpassed this amount (53 points) on December 15 in a come-from-behind win against the Houston Rockets. Granted, the game went into two overtimes, but it should still be considered his new season high (and could be regarded as an equally significant win for the Lakers.)
KeithAllen 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-07 season is outdated 

message: :Vote and discussion on Kobe Bryant's accuser, moved here Fuzheado 00:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote and discussion on Kobe Bryant's accuser moved back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Seth Ilys 04:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it'fdss taking place at talk:Kobe Bryant's accuser moink 04:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early notes 

message: It is unethical for this article to publish the name of Kobe's accuser. It is private and should be kept private. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.207.118 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ms. Faber filed the civil suit under her own name; it is a matter of public record now. Please see discussion at Talk:Katelyn Faber. --howcheng  [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSER 

message: Its been mentioned in the article that it was Phil Jackson who decided not to play Kobe in the fourth quarter of Lakers vs Mavericks game, where he scored 62 points. It should be noted that Phil Jackson in fact gave Kobe an opportunity to enter in the quarter, which Kobe himself declined. Here is the source:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-lakerep22dec22,1,1009784.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=1&cset=true  You have to register though
----
WOW 81 points. I dont know about you people but I was blown away--Gusiman 07:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kobe's 62 

message: Blown away, i was. that was a treat, to turn on the tv and watch a piece of history unfold. what an amazing performance =)  hahaha, just playing, John Thompson said if Wilt played the Raptors of today and took as many shots as kobe, he would have 200 points.
-- MCDRLx 10:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The game is available on Google Video for $3.95. I'm adding a link to that. Simishag 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not available in my country apparantly (Australia). I have found a website for europe and australia that can send it to me on DVD though. Koberulz 11:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  81 points! 

message: *All Lakers franchise records.
: I'll have to disagree with that.  Each NBA team does keep their franchise records for various statistics, so it's not just "slightly" relevant. Kenimaru 09:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the problems with this is that because Kobe has played for the Lakers for about 10 years now, he is bound to own some of the records simply through longevity. Unless the records are really important ones (I realize this is POV), I think it would be better simply to note the number of records he holds, such as "Kobe holds XX Lakers season records and YY Lakers career records." Simishag 06:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). The discussion here pertains to what records are "significant" enough to be listed here. Because Kobe may hold a large number of records, we need to limit the number we show here. A laundry list of every single record is not appropriate. Simishag 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slightly relevant

message: *Greatest pct of total points scored.
:I propose separate sections for the 62 and 81 point games (or perhaps 1 section for both).  The 81 point game was a really incredible performance.  It deserves its own summary, and it would be appropriate to list all relevant records with that summary.  The 62 point game was quite impressive as well and probably deserves the same treatment.  Putting these games in their own section would provide an appropriate level of historical context and allow the various records set to be noted without cluttering up the main records section. Simishag 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I removed a lot of the bogus names.  Several of these are not verified and I couldn't verify them through google searches.  Some of them were just plain wrong.  For example: Employee #8 - this nickname was given to Antoine Walker while he was on the Celtics and he had a commercial that referenced it.  Izzo is not a nickname of Bryant but rather the name of his nike line.  Other nicknames such as "the dagger" "the assassin" were found no where.  
2/17/06
I've seen many kids now yelling Kobe when throwing a ball of sorts on an off target trajectory so perhaps you could add that?
:Even if we assume that your observation is accurate, I don't think it would meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard.  Any one of us saying "I see kids do such-and-such" may well be 100% true, but it would be pretty tough for an outside reader to verify, so it's not appropriate to state on Wikipedia.
:If you could find an article from a reputable newspaper or periodical that discusses the phenomenon of kids doing this, then it would make an appropriate and interesting inclusion here.  Mwelch 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These claims need citations.  That goes double for "the dagger," which has long been used by announcers to reference a shot near the end of a game, not a player. Simishag 07:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Can somebody please verify these changes.  They are suspicious, but I don't know the subject well enough to know which version is correct.  It looks like this might be a case of sneaky vandalism. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  The edits that came from 71.138.68.86 were indeed factually incorrect.  I have reverted them.  Mwelch 20:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle vandalism? 

message: Removed tabloid image of rape victim, edit out pov, and added fact templete. Please do not revert without discussion and consensus. I also have questions about the fair use of images. Some of images seem okay, and other do not.  --FloNight talk 18:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid image of rape victim, pov text, fair use images   

message: This line was recently deleted and I believe it should be restored. My arguments:
# It is in fact a legitimate record category. It indicates the subject accomplished the feat in question on repeated successive attempts, akin to baseball's 56-game hit streak. The long range of a 3-point shot leads to a much lower percentage of completions compared to close shots or free throws (in general) and thus is an example of repeated accomplishment of a difficult feat.
# It is not ambiguous. "Consecutive, game" (longest streak of success in a single game) and "without a miss, game" (highest total of completions without a miss in a single game) are two clearly separate categories.
Hunter103 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd can see the legitimacy argument, but it is ambiguous, at least as phrased.  Is there a clearer way to phrase it?  I read the above a few times and still didn't comprehend the difference until I went and read the ESPN article cited on the removed line.  (Of course, maybe I'm just slow.  lol)  Mwelch 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consecutive 3-point shots without a miss 

message: whos the fucking idiot who took all the kobe pics?
All those pictures were copyrighted and belonged to the NBA, and sign your posts-Bradley(UTC)
:First, please be civil.  Second, all of the copyrighted images will be deleted soon enough.  I also found an image of Bryant that we can legally use, :Image:Kobe Bryant Free Throw.jpg. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO 

message: Trim down the sex assault stuff a little who even reads all of it now? It is over now. And put more info about the championship years. 1 PARAGRAPH FOR 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS??? I will fix this later. 
:The sexual assault case is an extremely important part of Bryant's life, and the fallout an important part of his career, so it should not be minimized or simply glossed over.  What happened and its effeect on his life and career are things that need to be in this article.  Yes, it's over now, but this is an article about his life and that was a part of his life and pretty darned big one.  So please keep that in mind with regard to any proposed 'trimming' of that.
:All of that said, however, certainly his championship years are important too, no doubt.  So if you'd care to offer an exapansion on that section, that's something that might well be appropriate.  Mwelch 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is dumb the fact that the championship years take up 1 paragraph while the sex assault case takes up close to 1/2 the article

message: I trimmed down this section to keep to the facts. It is not proveable that he is one of the best defenders in the league. Him being named to the All-Defensive first team means that the NBA thinks he is. It's more effective just to say that he was first team All-Defense (a fact) and let the reader infer that he's one of the best defenders (an opinion). Likewise, it is a fact that Nash won the award by a large margin. If you want to say that "many believed it was a surprisingly wide margin" you'll need to cite the Gallup poll or something (and even then, the correct wording would be "According to the Gallup poll, XX% believed it was a surprisingly wide margin"). howcheng  {chat} 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The expectation that the race would be close was commonly repeated throughout the basketball-covering media.  Even writers like Skip Bayless and Bonami Jones, who argued that they felt Nash should win in a landslide, acknowledged that it seemed very possible he might not win at all.  So I've added several citations to that effect (that the race was generally expected to be close).  Mwelch 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MVP candidacy 

message: This section is much too long and needs to be trimmed.  This season alone accounts for about 25% of the article.  While Bryant had a great season, I don't feel that it should be longer than his champinship years. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the "2005-06: Season for the ages" section 

message: Addressing both of the above points (2005-2006 section length/MVP section writing):
I think the current length is a byproduct of two things: 1) The article is about Kobe Bryant, the individual, and there frankly is a heck of a lot more by way of interesting individual accomplishment to discuss in this season than there ever was in any other season.  And 2) the desire of folks to immediately update biographies with current event info.  Nobody was around doing that on Wikipedia during the championship years; they were doing it this year so voila.  Given that, I don't really have too much of a problem with the way the current season grew while the season was ongoing.  Now that it's over, though, I do think it should be condensed.  I would not, however, necessarily use a measuring against the current chapmionship years section as a must-be-shorter-than guide.  Like I said, no one was around updating that, so one could easily argue that section should be larger. This season was his best season overall, as well as quite possibly marking a significant crossroads in his career, so it deserves some size leeway in that regard.  
And with respect to the question about MVP, he was certainly a stronger MVP candidate this season than he ever has been in any other season, so I think it does merit mentioning more so than in any other season. (Yes, I know he finished 3rd in 2003 compared with 4th this time, but he had many more people on the "Kobe should win" boat this time around than he's ever had before.  He got over 20 first place votes, whereas before, he'd never gotten any more than the 7 or 8 he got in 2003, and outside of that never more than 1 or 2.) 
So as part of a condensed recap of this season, his MVP candidacy should (IMHO) still be mentioned.  But yeah, I imagine we can do without items like such-and-such Internet site had him listed as the favorite and stuff like that. Mwelch 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree that this past season doesn't have to be shorter than some of the other sections. My point was that it is currently much too long.  You are right in that is just how Wikipedia works and I have seen the same thing happen in a number of other articles too. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  We'll have to have a condesnation of it be on the "to do" list.  Given the recent goings-on here, though, rather than rush to it, I'm inclined to it may prove easier in the long run if things are allowed to "settle" for a bit first.  Unless someone else wants to do it before then, I'll give it a go at that time.  Mwelch 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, with things being a bit calmer now that the page lock is on, I just took my first cut at condensing the 2005-06 season section.  It's still pretty long, but not as long as before.  I'll let the rest of you decide whether the current length is justified given the importance of this season in his overall career, or if further shrinking would be useful.  Mwelch 05:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both of the above points 

message: To User:Hganesan: This is not a sports news or fanboy site. We are not "Kobe haters" who are not "keeping it real."  Haters simply vandalize this page. Some of us are fans too, but we are attempting to keep the tone of this narrative factual and concise, without a lot of extraneous analysis and personal opinions. You need to tone down your writing and ease up on the scope of your changes. Already, a number of editors have seen fit to revert your edits as poor quality, and you have refused to cooperate on simple issues like copyrighted images. Perhaps you would be better served at a Laker fan site where you can post whatever you want. Simishag 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fanboy edits

message: Can anyone produce the original report that verifies that Bryant scored a 1080 on the SAT?  I am unable to find anything conclusive online.  Many articles cite 1080 as the score he earned, but seem to pass it off as public knowledge.  He also speaks anywhere from three to seven languages, depending on whom you ask.  The Wikipedia entry should reflect that at the very least, his SAT score cannot be independently verified, and if it chooses to adhere to the 1080 claim, it should produce a citation more convincing than a web forum somewhere in cyberspace.
:Agreed about the citation, and I've added that.  Though I'm not sure that the "cannot be independently verified" should be put there, unless someone as actually tried to independently verify it by calling up the mainstream, reputable news organizations who have reported it as fact, requested their source, and been denied the information.  I believe the Wikipedia policy is to trust the fact-checking of established, reputable news organizations (i.e. not tabloids and stuff like that).  The citation I've added is from Newsweek.  And others that I can remember just off the top of my head include CNN and the Associated Press (which mentioned his 1,080 score as long ago as when he first came out of high school). Mwelch 22:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the SAT score information even relevant?  It just seems to me like one of those pieces of information that doesn't really fit in the sentence and in the paragraph, ya know? 71.110.42.208 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kobe's SAT score 

message: This is rather comical. Here is the copy I wrote which actually identifies the people making the claims of bias:
:Columnist Jason Whitlock suggested that Bryant's fourth-place finish was due in part to season-long criticism from influential analyst Charles Barkley. However, soon after Whitlock's column was published, Barkley stated on TNT that "there's no way in good conscience you can leave Kobe Bryant off of your top-five MVP ballots." Of the 125 voters, 22 left Bryant off their 5 man ballot; in other words, 22 voters believed that he was not a top 5 MVP candidate. 
I think that frames this issue without resorting to weasel terms like "Some claim that.." or "general media bias." It identifies the people making the claims and whom they think is biased. I'm not certain that we need this commentary at all, but if it's going to be in the article, it needs to be specific.
The main antagonist here is either User:Hganesan or User:169.229.65.29. Based on the similar styles of edit comments, I suspect they are one and the same. The user(s) has/have also been making changes to related pages such as Steve Nash, taking some not-so-subtle digs at Nash's MVP award. Also refuses to particpate in discussion pages despite repeated requests, and even started an edit war over the use of a copyrighted image. Simishag 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, User:169.229.65.29, User:169.229.65.30, User:169.229.65.35, User:169.229.65.40 unfortuantely have all been sockpuppets of User:Hganesan, posting from U.C. Berkeley, under Office of Residential Computing machines it would seem . . . moving from one machine to another as each successive IP is blocked by admins.  Agreed that it's gotten to the point of being comical.  Mwelch 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That'd be AT&T WorldNet Service.  They're probably the user's ISP. I think they only offer dial-up, though, so that's probably why campus machines are the user's first choice.  Mwelch 18:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "KOBE 4 MVP" & Fanboy part deux

message: I've unprotected the article per a request at WP:RfPP as it seems to have been long enough. If the vandalism gets out of hand again, please drop me a note or request protection again. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I believe User:Hganesan should qualify as a notable source for the sole purpose of attributing the claims he makes about the most hated athletes in sports. Please do not remove the attributions in this section as they are accurate and necessary. At least then we can leave the section in and people won't fight about taking it out. Simishag 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Hganesan as a notable source

message: This page needs a lot of work on citations.  There are some facts and opinions on here that need to be backed up with sources.  See WP:CITE and WP:RS.  Metros232 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. Feel free to add. Simishag 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: As pointed out by User:67.187.111.66 we aren't really a collection of trivia - someone needs to work the content in the trivia section into the rest of the article and remove information that's not notable. - - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia (revisited) 

message: Here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0924041kobea6.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.54.151 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bears fucking walk up to this" reference 

message: ===For the attention of anon user: 208.58.196.156 RE: my edit===
*black text is 208.58.196.156's original work.
*My comments in red--Downwards 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Private life" section alterations

message: *black text is 208.58.196.156's original work.
*My comments in red--Downwards 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the attention of anon user: 208.58.196.156 RE: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobe_Bryant&diff=71265564&oldid=71233673 my edit]

message: a picture decent enough for kobe....
:Sorry, it is a copyright violation and has been removed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I did some cropping and adjusted the contrast some and now the original free throw image looks a little better. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally..... 

message: I watched the Lakers' game today on sportscenter and Kobe was wearing another number, 24 I believe. Is there any information on why he changed? Dlong 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he wanted to. It was announced last season. Koberulz 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 

message: I was surprised to see that this article is fairly neutral. Although I think 90% of the "records" are totally insignificant (franchise records, youngest to ___, etc.) this article doesn't slob Kobe's knob any more than the typical sportscaster. 
However, it's obvious that when you compare this one with the Steve Nash article, there were a lot of bitter Kobe fans who tried to work all sorts of digs into Nash's entry. It's just sad and pathetic. Why don't you include the fact that over the last two seasons, Kobe's percentage for game-winning shots is lower than the league average (source: www.82games.com)? And the Lakers not making the playoffs the year after Shaq left is blamed on everything EXCEPT for Shaq leaving--which almost everyone regards as the biggest factor. 
I guess there are some articles on Wikipedia that will never be NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peergynt323 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This diff. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new numbers for Wilt and MJ appear to be correct, according to nba.com.  However that same link indicates the numbers quoted for Elgin and Rick Barry here in this article were (and thus still are) wrong as well.  The article currently references a list on Yahoo! Sports that (supposedly, at least) lists out all 50-point games in NBA history. I'm not really inclined to spend time counting up that list and trying to reconcile that count against what nba.com says, though.  If anyone else feels like doing it, have at it.  Mwelch 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check... 

message: Well, first off, this section doesn't really serve a purpose.  There is nothing personal about it given the fact that nearly everything listed there groups him with other players.  On top of it, these are bogus "clubs" that not one major stat site or record site recognizes.  They are also way to conditional in the fact that the fact that it requires upwards 3 things to describe the "accomplishment".  This section is already long and we don't need to add non-notable fake clubs to the list.  Especially when these scoring clubs all reference the same month/week of play for Bryant.  Unless there is a referencable site that lists these so called "accomplishments", they really don't belong here, and even then, I would still argue they don't belong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coumarin (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal accomplishments