Talk:Kobe Bryant

THESE ARE NOT AWARDS

Statistics are not awards. "Scoring titles" are not awards, they are mere achivements. Likewise, winning NBA championships is not an individual award. We do not include such things in players' info boxes. Case in point: if we were to include statistical achievements for every other player, the pages for Chamberlain and Jordan would be stretched. Stop being Kobe fanboys.

"Compared to Michael Jordan"

Erase that "Kobe is often compared to Michael Jordan" sentence just written. INFO doesn't fit with article.

Agree completely. He is not OFTEN compared. He is compared by a few moronic commentators who will do anything to get their name out there a la Mark Jackson. And he has basically only ever been compared in one aspect; as a pure scorer.

2007 All-Star Game

I agree totally. But since Wikipedia's such a shitty source of information, it still hasn't been highlighted in the article. Also the 'rape' case and the 'shaq-thing' are place ahead of all other NBA milestones that Mr. Bryant has set. It seems that there is an attempt by Wikipedia to magnify this man's personal issues.

Nba Milestones

Kobe the most amazing player the NBA has seen since J=Michael Jordan. He is also widely reviled by his teamates, none of whom would play with him if they had a choice.

I think it's really unncessary to include the "youngest player to acheive X points" with X being incremented every 1000 points. Considering he will get 1000 points every 30 to 35 games.

also, i've removed 18,000 points (28 years, 156 days), set January 27, 2007 vs. the Charlotte Bobcats. I believe wilt Chamberlain holds that record. I couldn't find the exact date but by Jan 15, 1965 (the date he was traded) he has already reached 18000 points. Since their birthdays are only a 2 days apart it was pretty easy to figure out Wilt was younger on Jan 15 in 1965 than Kobe was on Jan 27 in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z3u2 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Z3u2 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

in fact, now thinking about it, why should all the "youngest player to be..." be listed under milestones?? Youngest to win nba dunk contest, start an nba game, etc, are more like records than milestones. They should be moved to another section(or removed).

and, many of the lakers franchise records. Can we have a better source for all those? Many of the sources currently listed are just boxscores or recaps for the specefic game. Individual game stats doesn't really justify that it is THE MOST of laker's 60 year history. Ex: Points-Overtime, playoffs: 12 (May 4, 2006 vs. Phoenix Suns)

Z3u2 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ummm, also removed Most points scored by a player against a team in consecutive games: 112 (81 on January 22, 2006 and 31 on November 17, 2006 against the Toronto Raptors) under NBA Records.

1. it's really not a record and 2. It's really simple math that Wilt Chamberlain would have scored more than 121 in two games against the same team. When he scored 100 points against NY, he probably would have scored more than 12 points against NY in a previous/later game when he avgs over 50 points a game

a lot of these records...really are just filling up the spaces with no encyclopedic values

Z3u2 20:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I'm not a fan of the whole list of "youngest to score X thousand points", but as long as they are there, then for the record, I don't believe Wilt Chamberlain had 18,000 points when he was traded. He scored 2707 in '59-'60, 3033 in '60-'61, 4029 in '61-'62, 3586 in '62-'63, 2948 in '63-'64, and had scored 1558 in '64-'65 at the time he was traded. All that added up is 17861. His scoring average that year after the trade was 30 points per game. So at that pace, figure it took him perhaps four or five more games after the trade to reach 18,000. If he happened to get off to a slow start in those first few games after the trade, it might even have been six or seven. That extra two weeks or so tacked on to Chamberlain's age at the time he really reached 18,000 would be enough time for Bryant to in fact be the youngest.

There are a gazillion newspaper article references to Bryant becoming the youngest to 18,000. It's a little tough to believe they've all miscalculated. Mwelch 08:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe they all did. Looking up his stats at one site had him 1558 in '64-'65 before the trade and 1743 after. But at another site, those numbers are reversed. And if the latter is true, he'd indeed be over 18,000 at the trade. And it's late enough now that I don't feel like putting any more time into figuring out which is right, so I'll back down now and just go to bed. lol 8-) Mwelch 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

nickname: his most used nickname is KB24. can someone please change that?

After going back to check the states, perhaps you were right on the first post. I guess we were both too tired staring at all the numbers. 1743 was the minutes he played (as seem on http://www.databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=CHAMBWI01), and i believe i had used that number earlier as well.

PS: After Jan 15 there's quite a few games scheduled for Wilt's new team: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1965_games.html Although it still seems, by using wilt's avg ppg, he may not have reached 18000 by jan 25 (same age as kobe reached 18000)

what i meant by "youngest to reach... should not belong here" was, i think it should go under the "nba record" category instead of "nba milestones". Every player have their own milestones, they don't have to be the youngest to say they've reached a milestone of X points on Date Y.

Z3u2 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I get a chance, I'll double-check it all and also give some thought to what's really the best way to format such info in the article. Just a little too busy with other stuff to put a *whole* lot of time into the issue just this moment.

Thanks! Mwelch 03:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd Like to add a nickname to kobe's page I would like "The Second Coming" or "The Next Michael Jordan" fuck all the people thats what kobe said.heh he

no

Section names

Some of these section names are whack. "Unquestioned leader" doesn't sound very professional. Tayquan 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't agree more Z3u2 18:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That needs to go then. How about "Post-O'Neal era"? Or something like dat? Tayquan 05:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Something, anything. The section names violate NPOV. --Chancemichaels 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

remove franchise record

i've removed Free throws attempted Quarter: 16 (3rd quarter, December 20, 2005 vs. Dallas Mavericks). because shaq had way more in a quarter (25) during a 2000 playoff game against the blazers. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/05/20/lakers-blaze000520.html

Most of the references shown next to each so-called "records" are just a game recap/scorebox, which doesn't say it is "indeed" a record.

How i figure it is that some fans, see Kobe's stat in a game with high numbers in a certain category, they think it "must" be a record, so they just put it up on wikipedia and ref it to the boxscore.

I'm trying to find better references to some of the so called records, but if i cannot find any, i will proceed to remove them since it's not verifiable. Z3u2 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the long list of records, but it should be noted here that as far as NBA record keeping goes, playoff records and regular season records are kept differently. If a record isn't explicitly stated as a playoff record, then it's referring to regular season games only. I don't know whether Bryant's 16 is the franchise record or not, but if the only basis for nixing it is that O'Neal had more in a playoff game, then that's not valid. Mwelch 05:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I think it would be a good idea if everybody just backed off and took a breather. I know there are heated points on both sides, but an edit war will only draw one of us back, and eventually get the topic locked. Nobody wants that. So let's just slow down a bit and not make any edits without discussing them first. Thanks Sue Rangell 23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Err . . . to what edit warring are you referring? Other than reverting the constant vandalism (and one other edit that was quite reasonably reverted because the user added an item to the trivia section that was already discussed in detail within the article body), there hasn't been any edit warring on this page lately (looking for some wood upon which to knock as I type that, cuz goodness knows it's indeed been a problem in the past). There are points on "both sides" of what? About what is it that you're talking? Mwelch 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

first started playing basketball?

When did he first start playing basketball? The earliest mention of him playing basketball is at the high school level. Did he ever play basketball in Italy as a kid or just soccer? Mahanga^{Talk to me} 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He played a ton of basketball as a kid.

His dad was a professional basketball player. I imagine Kobe was born with a basketball in his crib.

Changes to lead

To User:Duece22: Please stop adding your content to the lead. It is excessively long and poorly written, and a number of editors have reverted it already. Your actions are bordering on vandalism. Simishag 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jersey change/sales & edit summaries

I don't really care where this jersey info goes, but I don't think it's appropriate for the lead graph in a section about the 2006-07 season. It's a pretty minor fact in the context of the season, and if Kobe had been injured or played poorly, we wouldn't be talking about jersey sales. My comment about WP:DICK was addressed to User:Tayquan, whose edit summary was rather patronizing and unnecessary. "Common knowledge" is not so common. When you add specific claims, add a source. If you don't, expect your content to be reverted. Simishag 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for you to utilize "WP:DICK" comments or continually trump one's contributions. I agree, that the article is constantly subject to much WP:FC and unsourced material (I myself have reverted and removed a ton of POV in this article, and have become actively involved in maintaining it). The jersey issue is a minor fact and for that reason I believe it is better served as a lead for the season and gradually grow into the more pertinent information. Ex: You wouldn't start a paragraph with Bryant led the league in scoring during X year and was All-NBA X for X time. He was born in the year blah blah. Instead, you would start with the latter. Zodiiak 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's simple common knowledge to anyone who has ever been in any economics classes, marketers and companies are always looking for ways to create new demand, whether it be through new styles or models etc. All the people who had #8 will now have to buy #24 jerseys to remain up to date. Also look at my brief edit history-I add no "cruft" to articles. His jersey sales are important to the average reader because it gives an estimate as to his popularity. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 06:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is it's also common knowledge that someone who is playing the way Kobe is playing is going to see a rise in the demand for their jersey, no matter whether they have a new number or not. Especially when he's bouncing back from the especially low jersey sales of three years ago. So which factor is the primary reason? No matter which way you answer, it's you interpreting the situation to come to that conclusion. And it's not Wikipedia's place to do that sort of interpretation. That is a textbook case of original research. If someone's actually done some market research that says "It's the number change; just his play alone is not a significant factor", then by all means that can be cited. But in the absence of such a study to cite, it is simply not appropriate for the article to make that determination, no matter how intuitive it may seem to you (or to me). Mwelch 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources were added, the current wording is fine unless you want to remove any mention of what the cause of his rise in jersey sales is. Because it's also OR to consider that he's number one solely, or even mostly, because of his improved image. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 08:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

With sources, it is fine. Sorry for being unclear. I was not suggesting it be changed to simply say it's the image thing. I was just providing an example to address why the "it's common knowledge; it's Economics 101" argument was not sufficent without citing sources.

Cheers! Mwelch 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to archive talk page

This talk page is getting really big. I propose archiving the older portions of it. I think we can archive anything before the "2007 All-Star Game" section. Simishag 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Zodiiak 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Archived. Zodiiak 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Simishag, feel free to just archive talk pages on your own in the future. It doesn't need to be discussed ahead of time. :-) --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Can we get semi-protection on this page? It's hard to read through the page history with all the new accounts and anons clogging up the edit history with nonsense. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I suggest posting it at WP:RFPP next time in order for your request to get higher visibility. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Number

I thoght he was number 8 now he is 24, why?Lewisbell 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental. Zodiiak 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He is number 24 because that was his high school number. Alos, wil someone please put in the 4 consecutive 50 point games he had, the first player to do that since Wilt Chamberlain (Who had 7 consecutive), and also his 2nd consecutive season of leading the league in scoring, and also how he was the youngest player to score 19,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.224.42 (talk)

Reading is fundamental, Reading is fundamentalx2. Do you guys even read the article...or just come here to complain? Zodiiak

I come here to complain. lol. :) Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Other notable events

This section needs to go. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 12:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it in a week if it's not discussed. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge the noteable aspects into the article and remove the subsection, as opposed to just removing everything. Zodiiak 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did it might need a little work. Looks Ok though. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User RfC related to this article

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf. Quadzilla99 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I deleted some of it, more needs to go. Trevor GH5 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Emmy might be important, if it's true that he did win an Emmy. Trevor GH5 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

The stats table should include his field goal percentage. Trevor GH5 05:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally unsure how to cite this link as a source, but 8 August 2007 Kobe was on Jimmy Kimmel Live. In the interview he explicitly stated his admiration for Ronaldinho and FC Barcelona. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALUjFWHGRtw . If someone can work that into a citation and remove the tag, I would be very grateful. Beach blvd 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The Nick name Black Mamba comes from the snake not the comic.

What's an award? What's a legit statistic?

I wonder if the editors currently involved in such issues as what constitutes an "award" and whether scoring average in a month is a legitimate statistic wouldn't consider talking the issue out here, so that an editorial consensus can be accurately gauged and demonstrated? (I think I have a decent idea what the consensus will be, but it's a lot easier to point to it definitively when everyone's comments are visible in full on the talk page, rather than as just a string of reversions and counter-reversions with edit summaries that are subject to length restrictions.) Mwelch 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Best player today

I do not believe this is a question for the majority of the NBA fans. Kobe Bryant is the best individual basketball player today. Most TV experts attest to this and so do most current and past players. I have added the following : While having to contend with allegations of being selfish on the court he is widely considered to be the best individual basketball player in the world today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk5000 (talk • contribs)

That sentence pushes wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View in the worst way. It is against Wikipedia policy. One of the sources you site is just based on a forum. The second source is Stephen A's opinion. The third source, I never even heard of that site. You might want to read up on Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. If you'll notice, I'm not the only one who will remove it, many editors will remove it, simply because it is unencylopedic. Please do not revert again per wikipedia's 3RR rule. You should always discuss changes and additions such as that, before simply adding it and then arguing. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sportingnews.com HAS a forum. They also happen to have expert analysis : http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/. The article I cited is a news article by a professional journalist. This comment may push the neutral point of view policy in your opinion (I make no such concession) but it certainly does not cross the line. My original point is valid. The vast majority of serious experts, fans & players agree that Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player in the world today. That is a statement of fact. However, I will show deference to the Wiki community and NOT edit the page again until others have weighed in. Regards. KK5000 22 May 2007

I appreciate your candor. Although it is not just my opinion, since another editor had already removed the comment. Any comments on Wikipedia regarding being "the best" or "the greatest" will likely lead to edit warring. For example, See Here to view how heated things can become. That is why Wikipedia strongly enforces Neutral Point of View policies. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate you and burntsauce weighing in. The neutrality policy must be enforced strictly. The vast majority of serious experts, fans & players agree that Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player in the world today. It is a neutral statement free of bias. I see the discussion you cite regarding Jordan's page. I also see this line on his page "Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time" I would gladly concede to "Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players today" for Kobe. I will be editing the page again in 24 hours to what I just stated (with more sources) unless the community gives me a good reason not to. Regards. KK5000 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, just remember to get consensus on the subject before including it. You may get more favorable results if you substituted the word greatest with something less subjective. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you say is an accurate "consensus" word? "Best"? Regards. KK5000 22 May 2007 (EDT)

>>I think stating that Bryant is one of the premier players in the league today is more agreeable. Greatest will probably be highly arguable since some may point out that he does not have any MVP or Finals MVP Awards. Others may point that individual accolades do not constitute greatness and it is a matter of making team-mates better, which will ultimately lead to the Kobe Bryant is selfish argument, etc. But that's just my two cents on the matter. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read my original addition you will see me qualifying the "best player" statement with the selfish allegations. However "premier" should be sufficient for now if that is indeed the widely held view of the Wiki community. "Greatest" will come in time.

Regards. KK5000 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I, too, would rather see "considered one of the best" (or "premier" or whatever) or something like that, rather than just "considered the best". When using "weasel words" ("widely considered") and "peacock terms" ("best"/"greatest"/"premier") like this (and WP:AWW and WP:APT notwithstanding, the harsh truth is that there are occasions when those words and terms are the best way to convey important information — especially in an article's lead section, where one needs to be especially concise), it's best to be overly cautious and err on the side of being too timid. As mentioned the Jordan article says "one of the greatest". I personally think it could say "widely considered to be the greatest" and that statement would still be accurate, but given that the weasel words therein greatly increase the likelihood that someone will come along looking to challenge the statement and edit war over it at some point, I agree it's best to back off of that and be extra safe about staying well within non-debatable territory. Mwelch 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mwelch, also down in the player profile section you could mention that where he ranks. A poll like this one for active players would be great but I don't think we have one for shooting guards or all active players. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, boring old Tim Duncan is really the best player in the world. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate and agree with Mwelch's points. I will try and make it as uncontroversial as possible. Tay, now who's making extremely debatable statements :-) Seriously though, for rankings there's always : http://www.nba.com/fantasy/draft_kit/shootingguards1_19.html

Regards. KK5000 22 May 2007 (EDT)

That's fantasy basketball rankings not player rankings by sportswriters or columnists. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I just saw your last edit—since Duncan and the Spurs are still playing a lot of people from PTI to Mike and Mike in the morning are saying Duncan is the best player now and the best player in the last ten years. Just say "widely regarded as one of the best players of his generation" or something like that. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried putting a new wording in there. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why these opinions have to go in the lead, but if they do, they need to be properly cited. I don't mean a cute little "ref" tag pointing to a blog post or some hack reporter who wrote "he's the greatest!" Prominent adherents of this viewpoint should not be hard to find. Also, statistics do a better job of making the point than "widely considered." Simishag 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see two problems with that. Firstly, the reader has to know enough about basketball that they can interpret basketball statistics in such a way that they get the message that such-and-such a player is one of the best ever. Anybody who has such a knowledge of basketball stats probably already has at least a decent idea of in what regard a player like Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant is held. People who don't know that already about Jordan or Bryant probably aren't going to be the best at interpreting what those players' individual statistics mean. Secondly, detailed statistics really should not be in the lead, which is supposed to be a concise summary of why so-and-so is notable. Although it admittedly suffers from the drawback of being a combination of weasel words and peacock terms, "widely considered one of the greatest" is a much more concise way to make the point of what the player's importance is, and makes that point clear even to non-basketball fans.

I don't have any problem with the principle you mention of making sure to cite prominent opinions when going that route, though. That sounds good to me. Mwelch 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article it doesn't have to have citations look at almost any featured article. That's one of the first things I found out when I started editing here. As long as its cited in the article it's fine to have it uncited in the lead. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"As long as it's cited elsewhere in the article" is the key. In this specific case, I don't see where the sentiment that he is regarded as one of the best is well-cited elsewhere in the article. Closest is the "one of the most complete" statements which is cited to a page on hoopshype.com that was written by . . . who knows? I wouldn't count that as necessarily a "prominent" opninion. So the statement in the lead would need to be cited.

In the general case, I'd advocate statements like this (weasel words/peacock terms) be only in the lead, for the reasons I state above, and I'd avoid repeating them in the rest of the article. For the rest of the article, I'd go with stick with WP:AWW and WP:APT, and instead use the method of laying out statistical facts, per Simishag's preference. So again, the statement in the lead would need to be cited there. Mwelch 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I even used cautious wording; note how I said he has a reputation as one of the best scorers in league history, when in reality he is one of the best scorers a matter of fact. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Bryant is one of the better players today, to classify him as one of the Best Scorers in league history is extremely excessive. You're bringing up an entirely different argument here. You can minimize arguments by simply stating he's one of the best players today. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kobe's lifetime scoring average does not even put him in the top 10 of all-time scorers, so I think we can dispense with that nugget. Your point about not needing cites in the lead is well-taken, but in my experience this refers to facts rather than opinions. It is one thing to say that Kobe was the season scoring leader; this is independently and easily verifiable, whether it's cited or not. Opinions, however, should be cited when they appear. If this makes the lead too long, then perhaps that information doesn't belong in the lead. Simishag 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I agree with the general sentiment but it should be phrased in a way that makes it less impeachable. For instance: "With 9 All-Star selections, 3 NBA championships and 2 scoring titles, Kobe is widely viewed as one of the elite players of his generation." This is the kind of statistical reference I had in mind. Even casual fans know what "All-Star" and "championship" means. Simishag 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I better understand what you're saying now. Yeah, I don't have any problem with that. Mwelch 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

-> OK I definitely agree with Immortal23 that the sexual assault thing does not belong in the lead. It was big news in 2003 but it is just a footnote as far as his legacy is concerned. That should be removed from the lead. It is already well documented below. Secondly, "He is generally regarded as one of the best players of his generation" can't possibly be the consensus line. I know the legendary "Mike & Mike" team may be calling Tim Duncan or whoever else the best player of this generation but basketball fans (including Kobe haters of which there are plenty) need only ask themselves who any GM would be picking as the first player for their team in a draft of current players. I suspect 8 out of 10 will pick Kobe and the other 2 will be fired. I suspect most people who agree that Duncan is the best basketball player would also suggest someone other than Barry Bonds is the best baseball player in the world and so on. Contrarians have their place in society but these certainly can't be considered mainstream views and those are the ones that need to be mentioned in the lead. In the list of people who have stated Kobe is the best today : Charles Barkeley on TNT (I gave a link to the transcript) Sam Cassell on TNT (same transcript) Bill Walton (ESPN commentary) Lebron James & 80%+ of the players in the league when asked the question (numerous times)It goes on and on.... I don't know any serious sports journalist/expert who would argue against Kobe Bryant being the greatest individual talent in the game of basketball today. The rest of this is just unreasonable nitpicking. Regards. KK5000 23 May 2007 (EDT)

For reasons already gone over above, we shouldn't go much stronger than "generally regarded as one of the best of his generation" or some other such words to that general effect.

Couldn't disagree more about the sexual assault in the lead. Some kind of mention of it definitely belongs there. The lead is "what makes this person notable?". The sexual assault case was front page news and made him very notable to a ton of people who did not know nor care about then, nor know nor care about now, the particulars of his on-court legacy. Mwelch 02:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely concur on the rape case. This was front page, international news, and although Kobe was famous before the case, even people who weren't sports fans paid attention to the case. It was not the typical "boys being boys" case that sports stars occasionally get involved in (DUI, a bar fight, etc.). People might come to this article looking specifically for information on the rape case, and it had a major impact not only in his personal life but in his professional career.

As for the "premier player" stuff: There used to be a reference in this article to a poll of NBA general managers. They asked the GMs "who would you build a team around?" (or something like this) and Kobe was the top choice. That's the kind of thing that could give significant weight to the claim that he's one of the greatest. GMs are clearly recognized authorities in the sport, and their opinion carries some weight.

If not that poll, then perhaps a reference to Magic Johnson saying he's great (I'm sure there's something like this around). Again, this is not about disputing the statement that he's great, or disputing that it's a key part of "cultural literacy" for anyone interested in the NBA. It's just about finding someone who actually said it and can reasonably be accepted as an authority. Simishag 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave out the whole "great" thoughts. "One of the premier players today" or something similar is sufficient enough. You're just asking for problems by attempting to use the word "great." It's incredibly suggestive. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 03:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to imply any specific words, just trying to make a point about how the idea should be presented. Simishag 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the scorer thing he scored 81 points in a game and averaged 35.4 ppg in a season, and over 30 two other times. I don't really see how there's any dispute that he has a reputation as one of the best scorers in league history. To go by career scoring average is misleading as several players, such as Kareem, were clearly premiere scorers (see Kareem's numbers for his first six seasons:[1]) but other factors dragged down their career average. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, you're attempting to conclude Kobe Bryant as one of the best scorers in league history based on two seasons. His scoring average is not top 10, his total points amassed is not among the top 30, and he's not ranked among any of the leaders in any major statistical categories for the playoffs; that includes total points, scoring average, field goals made, free throws made, three pointers made, etc. This of course may all change in a few more seasons, but as of right now I don't think you can justifiably make that conclusion. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 05:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Zodiiak, you stated "This of course may all change in a few more seasons" Why fight the inevitable? ;-) Regards. KK5000 24 May 2007 (EDT)

because it hasn't happened, quite frankly. yes chances are he's going to rise in the record books, but until it has happened we never quite know what may happen. Chensiyuan 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree that if people think it is dabatable it should be left out, but it's pretty common knowledge:[2][3][4][5][6] I'm not really sure what made up criteria you're following, but saying that someone is one of the best scorers in league history means that at their peak they were able to score at a very high rate. If a guy plays two seasons and averages 45 points a game and then dies in a car accident he wasn't one of the best scorers in league history by that logic. Maybe prolific is a better word. Either way if people think it pushes the POV I'm fine leaving it out, but I think its common knowledge. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

>>The "made up" criteria I'm following is exactly what the "Experts" on ESPN stated after Kobe scored 81 and had his 35 point season. It's common knowledge to be ranked among the best in history you better have the statistics and historical background to prove it. Two seasons qualifies as one of the best in league history? By that criteria alone we could consider another 50 players among the best scorers in league history. I'm not saying that Kobe won't be among the best in league history, I'm saying that it's extremely premature and completely irresponsible to suggest that he is right now on an encyclopedic article, especially based on just two seasons. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's five valid sources USA Today, nba.com, several newspapers, and several star players such as George Gervin and Dirk Nowitski (which you totally ignored). The number of seasons is irrelevant as I said:"If a guy plays two seasons and averages 45 points a game and then dies in a car accident he wasn't one of the best scorers in league history by that logic." Like I said if people think it pushes the POV I think its fine to leave it out. I didn't see it that way, but when I do see an article that I think pushes the POV I know I don't want to read it. Incidentally you're confusing longevity with quality. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can nitpick aritlces all you want. If you want me to waste my time analyzing them I will. The first two links bash Kobe as being an MVP, they do acknowledge that he is a scorer. The third nba link says that he could become one of the best scorers in the history of the NBA. The fourth links diminishes Bryant's achievements by stating that if the current rules of the NBA applied to Jordan he would've scored 100 points. However, Gervin does acknowledge him as a great scorer. I'm not going to go through the rest of the links because as of right now they're just random opinions from individuals. The way to prove that he is among one of the best scorers in the history of the NBA, for an encyclopedic article, is by showing his rank among the top scorers in the history of the nba (Smishag suggested something similar). Longevity with quality? Let's classify Tracy McGrady as one of the best scorers in the history of the NBA, since he did have two quality 30 point seasons as well. Of course, that's just ridiculous to classify TMac among the best in the history of the NBA. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article. That being said, I've made my points clear, I'm not going to go back and forth here. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point I don't even care to include it if people feel it pushes the POV. But what you're saying is patently absurd and a lie. Here's some direct quotes from the sources: Dirk Nowitzki:"He's one of the best scorers this game has ever seen."[7] George Gervin:"What Kobe did was establish himself as one of the greatest scorers of all time at an early age."[8] This whole nba.com article is titled:"Bryant Amongst the Scoring Elite" and opens up with a photo montage of Bryant and other great scorers in league history:[9] it's everywhere even Yahoo! videogame reviews:"Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers recently proved himself to be one of the most dominant offensive basketball players in history"[10], Steve Kerr Yahoo! article:[11] "that it may be time to debate whether or not he's the most complete offensive player in the history of the NBA." Tracy McGrady:[12]"He’s one of the best freakin' offensive players in NBA history" I'll stop there for your sake. In addition, please tell me you're not saying newspaper articles aren't valid sources. I like your made up definition, point that out in the dictionary...oh that's right it's not in there, because you just made it up. Longevity does not equal quality they're separate. By your logic a scorer could average 45 ppg for two seasons and then die and he wouldn't be one of the best scorers of all time (have I said that yet?). Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tayquan, this is the second time you've exemplified condescending behavior towards me. Your attitude on here has caused me to severely question your intentions as an editor on Wikipedia. That being said, I never stated newspaper articles aren't sources. I said this is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. Meaning only facts, not opinions, should be presented in the article. In addition, I never argued about the individual quotes in the newspapers (which is absurd to assume because X said it, X is right), I summarized the article's content. Next, I never defined what a great scorer is, I simply stated valid methods in which one should prove / exemplify how the person is a great scorer. Smishag pretty much summed up the debate, let's leave it at that. There's no need to harp on the subject anymore. Zodiiak^{Dial Z} 00:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the phrase "common knowledge" being thrown around a lot, and it really seems to me like a euphemism for "opinion." It may be a widely held opinion that few disagree with, but it's still an opinion. Any of us can find articles to support our opinions, but that doesn't make the opinions into facts. "Kobe was the scoring leader for 2 seasons" is a fact. "Kobe is a great scorer" is an opinion. In fact, the very definition of "great scorer" is a matter of opinion. "Kobe is not in the top 10 scorers of all-time" is a fact. "Kobe is one of the best scorers of all-time" is an opinion. The term "best scorers of all-time" is a matter of opinion.

I find your selection of articles to be rather lacking. Contemporary players are not a good choice; they are mostly media-savvy and not about to say anything negative about another player. NBA.com is not really an unbiased source either; one could easily read that article as a promo piece. I'm not even going to bother with a video game review. Kerr is starting to get a reputation as an insightful commentator, but I'd like to see him keep it up for a few years, and anyway all he did was call for a debate to begin. That's not expressing his opinion.

And lest you think I'm only nitpicking your articles, I'll be happy to take the other side of the argument: Kobe's detractors. You may disagree with them, but to pretend their opinions don't exist or don't matter misrepresents the debate and pushes a POV. If you're going to point to interviews with current players, why not ask Shaq? What about Karl Malone or Gary Payton? They actually played with Kobe in something besides an All-Star game. What about Phil Jackson (he's certainly an authority on the game) calling Kobe "uncoachable?" He obviously felt strongly enough to include that statement in a published book, even if he's changed his mind now. What about the various sports writers that say Kobe shoots too much, that he hogs the ball, that he doesn't make his teammates better?

Anyway, my main point was simply that this kind of stuff does not belong in the lead of the article. I don't object to "one of the premier players in the league today" or something close to this; that represents a widely held belief. Anything beyond that is just asking for trouble down the road, when someone else will come in and reopen this. I think the vigorous debate that has taken place here clearly indicates the lack of real-world consensus on this issue. And finally, I think we need to be careful about analyzing all this with the aim of furthering a specific conclusion. That's original research. Simishag 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying "I'm pretty sure became is past tense" and pointing out you made up a definition when you did is just stating common facts. Don't start throwing around accusations of incivility. Linking to irrelevant discussions to attempt to make someone look bad is not the way to go if you truly want to get along. Like I said I don't even care to include it if people think it will push the POV (in that respect smishmag just took 500 words to say he agrees with me) but to act like its debatable is laughable. This article alone is enough to show that its common knowledge:[13] Also I'd like to think that people who have actually played the game know a little something about it. Anyways, I'm not sure if anyone heard me when I said this so I'll say it again: I don't really care to include it if people think it pushes the POV (even though I don't think it does), I know when I read I read an article that has somethings which I perceive as POV I turn off mentally and just stop reading. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

---> OK I had agreed to let this be for now but this is getting ridiculous.

""Kobe is one of the best scorers of all-time" is an opinion. The term "best scorers of all-time" is a matter of opinion."

That is technically correct. But if that high standard of opinion versus fact is to be observed I'll be editing out the following lines from Jordan and Duncan's pages respectively.

Jordan : "Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time" - This is CLEARLY opinion Duncan : "His list of accomplishments and leadership in the Spurs' NBA title runs in 1999, 2003, and 2005 have led basketball experts to consider him to be one of the greatest power forwards in history" - Again opinion of experts. You are clearly saying it doesn't matter who's opinion it is. Doesn't matter who says Kobe's one of the best ever. It is their opinion and opinion does not belong in the lead. Let's take these 2 out. I'll be going through the other basketball greats' pages and taking out all "opinions" after we agree to take this stuff out.

And oh by the way, Shaq, Malone & Payton's opinions do not count since they have openly shown malice and bias towards Kobe. Their opinions are admittedly not objective and therefore irrelevant. Plus Shaq also said "Kobe is the best basketball player ever" If he were a movie it's name would be "say anything" but let's add that to his page and not get off track here.

Regards. KK5000 27 May 2007 (EDT) http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-lakersbryant&prov=ap&type=lgns That means Phil goes with him?

The opinion statements do need to be removed. Any such statement is obviously POV by nature and full of questions rather than answers. What does "He is generally regarded as one of the best players of his generation." supposed to mean anyways? Does "generally" mean 50% agree with that, or 65%, or 80%? Is best the top 10, or top 50? Does his generation include those who are 5 years or 10 years older/younger than him? That statement should be removed outright, it leaves too much room for bad interpretation instead of stating facts, which is what we are supposed to do here. If someone wants to cite a legit poll/vote of players, writers or anything else to that effect, I think that would be fine since it is a statement of fact, but leave the POV statements to fan sites.--DailyGuy 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

DailyGuy, "He is generally regarded as one of the best players of his generation" was a "consensus sentence" Please do not remove anything like that unless the discussion page agrees to do so.....

Regards. KK5000 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't see any call for consensus or straw poll or anything here but a lot of arguing back and forth. A number of us have objected to the statement, in varying degrees. The fact that none of us removed it does not imply consensus; as you can see, new editors disagree with it as well. Personally, I get tired of trying to edit it. The statement is so obviously disputable and debatable, and there is no way to write it in an encyclopedic manner, and fanboy edits will always trump my patience. Simishag 06:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Championship years

Wow, just one short paragraph (4 sentences) mentioning the fact that he won 3 championships; equaling the amount of mentioning that he gets for being frustrated with the Lakers and wanting a trade (before any actual trade happens, no less). You guys are great. Seriously. (Viewport 22:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Yeah right xD

"He is considered one of the most complete players in the NBA"

Yet another Kobe-loving editor. Bryant is indeed A VERY AVERAGE player in the NBA and is not in the top 50 greatest of all time. Get it right.

Put the thekobevideo.com in the article!!

Someone needs to add onto the article under 2006-07. LIKE on JUNE 18, 2007 a website with the title named thekobevideo.com appeared where the guys caught kobe in public spouting about the lakers and Andrew Bynum, and they are now selling if for $1.99 and they need 50K copies sold. It is all over ESPN!!

Read this please. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 02:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead Women Tell No tales and www.kobe-rape.com

A tell all book about the rape case has been published and is available as of June 2007 you can visit www.kobe-rape.com for more info. The book alleges that Kobe raped the victim and then planned her murder. I already added it onto the kobe sexual assault page, maybe it should be added here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.240.244 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that, that's not an impartial source....Kwame1234 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be impartial, they just have to be reliable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states the FACTS from an IMPARTIAL and NEUTRAL point of view. There are chatrooms to spout nonsense, wikipedia isn't one of them. Let's remember to state FACTS, as this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. 71.114.6.117 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Right fool, and the FACT is a BOOK, a whole book has been published and is available to the public with a take of how it went down and that alleges kobe raped the girl, AND, there's a website about it www.kobe-rape.com. That's a FACT, we have an obligation to REPORT a book that is published about the case. Man you kobe fans are pathetic. stop hiding everything; this isn't BSPN (ESPN) with its biased crap. I'm just stating there has been a book and website about it, freaking face it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.1.112 (talk • contribs)

They're boks out there too about people saying they've been kidnapped by little green monsters. I suppose that's fact too, because it's in a book, seriously get yourself an education before you spout shit on wikipedia. This isn't a website for publishing nonsense. I'm sure they're websites for Kobe-haters, this isn't one of them. Now hop away somewhere and never come back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.6.117 (talk) 04:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Problem with admin User:Ohnoitsjamie on Kobe Bryant Sexual assault case

She keeps deleting the Link and info about the book Dead Women Tell No Tales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case and wrongfully claims it's "spamming". Clearly she's just a kobe fan who wants to hide information. Please another admin report her, you can't just delete reliable source like that or info about the BOOK. It's part of the AFTERMATH of the case.

1) Please see the talk page for that article, which is a more appropriate place to discuss this.

2) Please see the talk page for Ohnoitsjamie, which is a more appropriate place to discuss this.

3) Please see WP:DR which will inform you of the proper routes to handle your disputes.

4) Please see WP:RS and be sure to take note of the world "reliable". Not just published, but "reliable". Do the author and/or the Swiss publishing company behind him meet the standards outlined there? (I'm not declaring that they do not; I'm just saying that you need to be able to credibly assert that they do.) What is the publisher's reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking? Admittedly the following are not final, determining factors, but the lack of substance in the publishing company's website, the fact that I can't find any information on anything else they've ever published, and the fact that in the two months it's been out, this book and its rather sensational claims seem to have garnered zero interest from the same mainstream press that was all too happy to report the gory details of the accusations against Bryant during his legal case, don't instill me with oodles of confidence about the reputability of the source here. Mwelch 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant#Conflicts and turmoil

Why is this a subsection of NBA career profile? —AldeBaer 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request For Semi Protection

This page is constantly being vandalized by Kobe-haters, who are not interested in facts but fiction. This is an encyclopedia, therefore doesn't it have a responsibility to report facts and leave gossipping and libel to the tabloids? Can an administrator please semi-protect this page....from vandals...