Talk:Ball hog

message: Let's have some consensus and compromise here, everyone.
What's your opinion and what is your resolution?.--User:69 01:11, 03 Sept 2006 (PST)
:Ok thank you for doing this. My idea of how to do this is below. hopefully others will have better ideas, as mine is a little weak. Also do you have any idea of how to do this other than total removal? --Wildnox 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I personally am strongly opposed to singling out any one player (especially in the pro/college ranks) is that I cannot imagine a true honest-to-goodness ball hog could ever get very far in organized basketball.  At the lower levels especially most coaches wouldn't stand for it and would bench the player if hogging occured.  Not to mention that the vast majority of players (especially those who make it to the pros or high collegiate ranks) want more than anything to win championships, and as Michael Jordan's first few years and most of Wilt Chamberlain's career clearly shows (I'm not calling either one a 'hog at all...in fact Wilt at one time held the all-time assists record didn't he?) that one player just can't even come close to winning a championship all by himself.75.81.253.160 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling for consensus

message: What's strange is I have no true opinion on this article, as I only got here through recent changes and don't follow basketball. What I would like to see is a comprimise. My Idea would be to keep the sentence that keeps being debated, but to add counterpoint(something about the fact that the label is subjective, instead of based on a solid criteria). Additional examples of players who have, wether desevered or not, been labeled by some as ball hogs, preferably from more than just the recent years, would make the part in question appear less like picking on two players. --Wildnox 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any input, anybody? --Wildnox 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The subjectivity of the term is already noted in the article.  I really see no benefit to applying such a loaded term to anyone playing professionally in this article - leave that for the commentators. So my vote goes for having the contentious paragraph go the way of the pics that used to be here - vandalism magnets both. - CenozoicEra 00:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is other users have been obviously have been adding it in, so we need to find resolution other than revert, revert, revert, revert, revert ad infinitium. --Wildnox 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How I would like to do this

message: Well-known current players in the National Basketball Association who have been labeled as ball hogs include Kobe Bryant [1] and Allen Iverson [2].
means
If you need an example of who a ballhog is, please see Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson.
Isn't it obvious?
:Yes, it is obvious.  Personally, I'm ambivalent about having these examples included.  But you're fighting your battle the wrong way, and if you keep it up you'll eventually be completely banned from editing this page.  And the fact that you blatantly vandalized the page a while back isn't going to help your case.  We need to let the consensus rule, but keep the discussion open.  Also, please sign your comments so it's easier to keep track of who said what. -CenozoicEra 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballhog example 

message: To whomever is doing the Kobe-related edits, please stop.  The original page (from Feb. 14) was fine & needs no revision, at least not revision relating to Kobe.
--Makarios 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Edits 

message: Whoever keeps removing pictures from this page please stop this is considred vandalism.
70.52.144.151
It is not vandalism if it makes the article better and more accurate. They are not known to be ballhogs often, and they are only known to be that by their staunchest critics. The pictures are blatant pov pictures.
:We will continue to clean up after your sockpuppetry for as long as necessary. Simishag 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Removing POV Pictures 

message: The use of pictures to illustrate the article is not POV. Kobe is mentioned as a ball hog in the article (cited as well) so it is entirely appropriate to use an image here. It would perhaps be POV if there was a picture of Kobe but he wasn't mentioned in the article. For the same reason, the image of Iverson was appropriate, but was removed due to copyright (it's not fair use). Simishag 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I concur.  Bryant has been labelled as a ball hog by the media for much of his career. Jordan was too and Iverson often still is. There is nothing inappropriate with the image.  On a somewhat related note, contrary to what our friend Hganesan says above, I was not the person added the Bryant image to the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV nonsense

message: Having a pic here is probably not the best thing in light of the apparently irresistable urge of everyone to change it to their own personal least favs.  It also doesn't really shed any light on the nature of ball-hogging.  So I have removed it, and hope that the article will stay pic-free.  Obviously, if someone has a compelling reason to include a pic, we should be open to discussion.CenozoicEra 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The article for "democracy" doesn't have a (single) picture - should it contain one of the US or USSR?  It's also not really possible for a single picture to show ball hogging.  And vandalism is a constant problem whenever there is a pic on this page.  Just check the record - you even had to revert one recently yourself.  I think the pic is a bad idea. --CenozoicEra 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic not necessary 

message: This material is generally self-evident.  If someone really wanted to, I suppose one could demand a citation for each and every sentence.  I don't think that this tag is appropriate for this article.  Please use the FACT tag if and where you think it is needed.  Of course, bear in mind that there are no official statistics for ball-hogging (and it's too subjective a term to even be nailed down), so any facts offered in support would almost certainly constitute original research. - CenozoicEra 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is the article lacks any type of citation at all. Any kind of source indicating any of the material in the article should be added. As for original research: as of right now, the entire article is technically OR. --Wildnox 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I would suggest that the current article has no original research at all, but is common knowledge.  I don't think that anyone who grew up playing basketball in the U.S. would be surprised at any of the article's content.  Second, not all articles necessarily need citations (Center (basketball) has none at all), nor do all facts need a citation (Abraham Lincoln's birth date is uncited).  Citations are really only necessary when there is some element of uncertainty involved. - CenozoicEra 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do see your point. I'm very surprised that Center (basketball) has no citations at all. Feel free to remove the tag, though I still think citations would be nice as I support the use of the them as much as possible. I thought citations were required in all situations where it wasn't common knowledge, and not just for things that are uncertain, but I can't find nothing that indicates such. --Wildnox 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced tag 

message: KOBE BRYANT IS A MAJOR BALLHOG. Dan Hickman (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup no doubt. him, AI, lebron all of them. {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  KOBE BRYANT 

message: If there is a list of floppers on the flopper page (which i oppose), i think we should have a list of ball hoggers here also. {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Ball hoggers