Talk:Kobe Bryant/Archive 1

Player profile request
Would someone please make an elaborate 'Player Profile' section (a la Shaq) as soon as possible. Goonerth

NPOV concern
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)Hganesan

2006-07 season is outdated
The paragraph for the 2006-07 season is outdated.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)

Last night he scored 58


 * You should note his accomplishments for the season, AT THE END of the season. If not, there would be too much jargon, and constant out of date material

Early notes

 * Vote and discussion on Kobe Bryant's accuser, moved here Fuzheado 00:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~


 * ''Vote and discussion on Kobe Bryant's accuser moved back to Votes for deletion. Seth Ilys 04:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And now it'fdss taking place at talk:Kobe Bryant's accuser moink 04:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A significant revision, which removed some language that did not maintain a neutral point of view, was rolled back without any explanation. See rollback dated 5 Sept. 2004.

The earlier version was an improvement in that it added relevant facts. If you believe that the article still does not have a neutral point of view, edit it so that it does. But do not delete or rollback relevant facts. Thank you.

NPOV issue
POV disclosure: I'm a womens' studies major. And sexual health activist.

I think this is NPOV though:

''The Bryant case highlights the difficulty of discussing the issue of rape. In particular, the prevalence of false accusations of rape are widely misunderstood. Persons who identify themselves as "rape victim advocates" vociferously argue that women only very rarely lie about rape. On the other hand, several large studies indicate that about half of rape accusations are false. [2] (http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_5120.shtml) The Innocence Project has freed about 100 men falsely convicted of rape. Thus mens' issue activist argue strongly that the systematic suppression of discussion of false accusations of rape is unfair to men and must change.''

Persons who identify themselves as "rape victim advocates" vociferously argue that women only very rarely lie about rape. Citations, please. The use of the word "vociferously" predjudices the discussion, too, IMO. And it's such an awkward phrase, aesthetically.

several large studies - the link is broken. And the stydy linked to on the innocence project says 10% of all crimes, certainly not 50% of all rape convictions.

Thus mens' issue activist argue strongly that the systematic suppression of discussion of false accusations of rape is unfair to men and must change. No argument here. I agree completely.

I want to work the following artice in as a reference: "Who says women never lie about Rape?": The "believe the woman" zealotry promoted by Juanita Broaddrick's defenders is bad for feminism.

Anyway, this comment itself is in progress. I'll write more after my exam.


 * The case was dropped, but it does not mean the woman lied. A host of events could have contributed to this, e.g. harrassment from fans, etc.

rmvd text
This text was removed during a vandalism rollback. I didn't want to put it back in without some other verification. " Leads all players in the Southeastern Pennsylvanian area in total points (2,883). One of the players surpassed was Wilt Chamberlain (2,359)." Joyous 02:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSER
It is unethical for this article to publish the name of Kobe's accuser. It is private and should be kept private. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.207.118 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC).
 * 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 &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The charges were dropped, techinally he didn't do it and she lied. She's not a victime legally so her name can be used.

"Technically," dropping a case does not mean that she lied. It means she chose not to pursue the case.

Professionalism of the article
It seems to me that there is a lot of spurious and unnecessary information in the Kobe Bryant article. What does Shaquille O'Neal's alleged comments about Kobe or purported reasons for "slimming down" have to do with Bryant whatsoever? Even if any of these matters are fodder for tabloid sports journalism, Wikipedia articles ought to rise above it and set a higher standard. Next we'll see articles about his alleged beer and weed bingers or quotes from Charles Barkley that he's a punk whether any of that was true or not. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.53.149 (talk &bull; contribs) 10:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ESPN 5 reasons
I don't know if it can be edited, but the explanation of the 'Shaquille O'Neal' is the man argument in the ESPN classic segment appears very biased, and should be removed. Kobe's rise as a basketball player coincided with a period where Shaq's powers were diminishing and he was increasingly injured, so something had to give. Also I'm not sure Shaq's playoff experiences conclusively prove anything about who the man should have been - Shaq has played alongside both Penny Hardaway at his peak and Dwayne Wade.

Side Note: Penny Hardaway has been horrible ever since Shaq left.


 * It has nothing to do with Shaq leaving, it has to do with Injuries. Do your homework, junior.

Kobe's 62
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)

81 points!
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)

Kobe Bryant at 27 yrs old became the youngest player in the history of the NBA to reach 15,000 career points surpassing such greats as Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan in the process.

This is sort of deceptive though, simply because he was able to start younger128.59.24.224 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone could add in the "Trivia" section that the 81p game was also his 666th game ;)

And it took him 66 shots to get there as well (46 from the field, 20 from the FT line. Pity we dont get NBA oer here.


 * The game is available on Google Video for $3.95. I'm adding a link to that. Simishag 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Game Winners
I removed the Michael Jordan "28" game winners reference. Michael Jordan scored 28 game winners under the criteria that it was a game winning shot with under 10 seconds left on the clock. The list supplied of Kobe's game winners is under a different criteria meaning Jordan could possibly have more game winners under that criteria.


 * I added that sentence merely to provide some definition of "game winning" shot, but I don't have anything to back it up. A cited definition would be appropriate for both Jordan and Bryant.  I'm assuming the numbers are comparable somehow and were taken from an outside source but I have no info on this. Simishag 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 21 game winners of Bryant. I looked at several of these games and they didn't match the criteria that were defined as game winning field goals. The definition was the goahead field goal which was also the last field goal of the game. Several of these were not go ahead field goals or the last field goals of the game. In particular: The Orlando game in 1998, the Pacers game in the finals, and the most recent Clippers game. These games were included in a list of game winners that was part of this profile several weeks back. In particular, these 3 games were listed in the so called "21" shots. So, by my estimation, it is 18 or lower, and until someone verifies all of these, we should just leave the game winners at several. -Ben 2/16/06 6:24 pm ET

Is there really a need to list every game winning shot as well? It takes up a whole page and really provides no further information other than date and score. It seems rather ridiculous to specifically site every single game he has scored a game winning shot. Simply listing how many shots he presently has should be enough for an encyclopedia. The same goes for the records section. A bunch of those records are meaningless and are next to irrellevant. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.6.78.50 (talk &bull; contribs) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
 * I'll agree with you on the game winning shots, but the records I think are more notable, at least the NBA and franchise records. I wouldn't object to getting rid of the high school stuff as well as the non-first-team stuff ("All NBA 2nd team" etc). I propose we create some subsections here as it's getting kind of long. Perhaps three sections, "NBA records," "Franchise records," and "Other achievements"?  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I refactored and tried to make some of them sound less fanboy-ish.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Howcheng: I removed many of those "records" as they are very redundant. There is no need to list that he holds a record for consecutive 3pters in a game, and a half if they are in the same game. You don't need to say that he holds a Laker's record for points in a game when it's already been referenced as the 2nd highest scoring total of all time. And a lot of these records are never mentioned in Kobe Bryant's achievements. Several of these types of records are never even mentioned on any prominent NBA site. Because several of them are irrelevant and borderline useless.

I consider there to be 3 types of records listed in this wiki page.

Very relevant, for instance, the youngest player to reach 15000 pts or the 2nd highest point total in a single game. His 81 point game as well. Or most 3pters in a single game.

Slightly relevant, which I would rather not have there but left because someone may think it's important, such as Holds Lakers franchise record for most consecutive free throws made at 62.

And useless, such as Holds NBA record for greatest percentage of own teams' point total with 66.4% of the Lakers' 122 points, set on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors.
 * 1) Holds NBA record for greatest percentage of both teams' combined point total with 35.8% of 226 points, set on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors.

You could techinically list hundreds of useless records such as holds the record for most field goal attempts in a quarter. A lot of these just take up space, are redudant, and have no real relevance to Kobe Bryant the player. This is a biography, not a list of every game he's played.

As an example, go look at Michael Jordan's wiki page. It isn't flooded with borderline useless information and gives almost no reference to specific games, unlike this page. If you noticed, I only deleted the records I thought were useless and irrelevent. I can't even find links to where some of them are verifiable. In my opinion, even listing something about holding a franchise record for a single game achievement really has little relevance. Kobe Bryant's page is the only NBA player page one flooded with this type of useless information, likely added by a superfanatic. I think a few sentences explaining Kobe Bryant holds several scoring records for Lakers franchise would suffice as opposed to listing all of them, because the majority of them are not major records that anyone, including the NBA cares about. There's no need to take up more than a whole page with achievements no one has ever heard about, or would care if they did. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.6.78.50 (talk &bull; contribs) 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Jordan's article is also much longer than this. Perhaps we can start off by going through the section and grouping them into your categories: Very relevant, slightly relevant, irrelevant. I say just start listing them and if anyone disagrees, then it goes into a "Disputed" section and we can discuss from there. Sound good?  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general point being made about there being a lot more in this article than is really needed with regard to listing out individual records. But I'd dispute the greatest perecentage of one tema's points scored being one of those that's irrelevent.  To score 2/3 of a teams total points, even a higher proportion of the team total than Wilt Chamberlain when he scored 100, is astounding and it also points right to the heart of one of the main things that makes Bryant so controversial:  his being a one-man show so often on the offensive end of the floor. Mwelch 02:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Very relevant

 * Everything in the "Career highlights" section.
 * Youngest player to do whatever (NBA All-Star, 10K pts, 15K pts).
 * Most 3pters in game/half.
 * Most consecutive 3pters in game/half.
 * 62 pts in 3 quarters.
 * All personal records.

Slightly relevant

 * 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)
 * 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)

Shimshag, what a silly contention; Are u also suggesting that Kareem's career scoring record is only slightly relevant, because he played for a long time? It should be obvious to you if Kobe, or anyone else, was not a good player, then they probably wouldn't have much longevity.


 * 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)

Irrelevant

 * All high-school related records.
 * Since Kobe didn't play in NCAA, and Michael's page got his accomplishment in NCAA, I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, but perhaps changing the format into a paragraph would be a better presentation? Personally I've read reports about Kobe's accomplishment before he was even officially drafted.  Is there a better deal than Divac <-> Kobe? Sorry Divac, no offense. Kenimaru 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * High school competition really isn't comparable to NCAA, especially Division I. High school records are done on a statewide basis rather than nationwide, to say nothing of the obvious differences in talent. If there are some especially notable records, perhaps they should be noted under trivia, but otherwise I don't think they're that important. Simishag 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So shimshag, i guess you would say that NCAA competition isn't really comparable to NBA either, right? You are clearly very Anti-Kobe


 * Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). No, NCAA competition is not comparable to NBA. The talent levels are very obviously different. There are important rules differences (shot clock, distance of 3 point line, number of fouls, bonus foul shooting) that have a major impact on the style of play. To compare the two is simply foolish.
 * The broader point, however, is that records become less relevant as the level of play gets lower. I don't think we would need to note it if Kobe set a peewee record with 38 points in a game of 10 year olds. Simishag 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

 * 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)


 * Greatest percentage is useless information, it is not encyclopedic. It was an impressive performances, but there have been many impressive performances in the NBA, which do not get 'special notice.'

Trial
I think that the fact that after the sexaul assault case was dropped, Kobe said that his accusser might have not consented to the event is an important fact that should be added. User: Mmmmhhhhmmm 11:00, 4 February 2006


 * The criminal and civil trials are covered in extensive detail on Katelyn Faber. I don't think we need to rehash every detail of them here. Simishag 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think every aspect of the trial needs to be covered on this page, but it currently gets only two sentences. That is not in proportion to its relevance to Bryant's career, public image and notability. There is a section titled "Controversy and trial", that goes into great detail on Bryant's interactions with his teammates, yet only gives the two sentences regarding the rape case. There is undoubtably a significant number of people that know of Bryant more for his involvement in the rape case than for his on-court performance.


 * The rape case was only a major story because of his on-court performance. The two are tightly linked, and to suggest that people only know Bryant because of the rape case strains credulity. Simishag 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fair statement to say that people that don't follow the NBA might have heard of Kobe Bryant, but not in a way that would make him notable to them. Any professional athlete facing trial on rape charges is going to be news because they are notable for being a professional athlete involved in a scandal.  That doesn't mean that most people that become familiar with them due to the legal proceedings had more than a passing knowledge of their significance to their sport.  Obviously, Bryant being as big a name as he is in his sport made the story that much bigger, but that just makes it that much more likely for someone to know of Bryant primarily because of the rape trial and not for playing a sport they don't follow. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, one of the two sentences:

"Although these charges were eventually dropped in the fall of 2004 and a civil suit that followed was settled, Bryant's tarnished image continued to plummet."

is worded to make it seem like the fact that Bryant settled the civil suit reduces the significance of rape charge. In fact, settling the civil suit gives weight to the charges.


 * Incorrect. In a legal sense, the criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice. The settlement of the civil suit is meaningless. Your suggestion that the settlement "gives weight to the charges" is POV. The implication is that Bryant settled the suit because he knew he was guilty. To use another POV, why would the accuser refuse to testify and then take a settlement if she knew he was guilty? Doesn't that suggest that she was only looking for money?
 * In reality, the truth probably lies in the middle, and Bryant most likely settled the suit on the advice of his attorneys, for the same reason that other people take settlements: regardless of actual culpability, there is uncertainty inherent in any legal proceeding, and it's quite often worth a large price to avoid that uncertainty. To suggest that Bryant settled the suit "because he was guilty" is very obvious POV. Simishag 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't suggest that he settled the case because he was guilty, only that the fact that he settled is more likely to indicate that the civil suit had merit than to indicate that it had no merit. The current wording suggests the opposite, that settling the suit makes the likelyhood that there was merit to the charges less likely&mdash;that is POV.  I would rather the wording didn't make any suggestion at all as to the significance that the case was settled&mdash;that would be NPOV. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 21:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole treatment of the rape charges in this article seems to be an attempt to minimize this incident in Bryant's history rather than an NPOV examination of the notable aspects of Kobe Bryant. The discussion of the trail and civil suit needs to be expanded in this article, particularly in regards to Bryant's actions in regard to the legal proceedings. Amoung other things, Bryant's statement he made following the case would be a relevant fact to include in this article. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 12:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that some additional detail would be appropriate here. However, it needs to be short and to the point, since the case is covered in excruciating detail elsewhere. Let's remember: despite the massive press coverage, the criminal charges were dropped and the civil case was settled. Neither of these would be particularly notable for most people. Simishag 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that's all I'm suggesting. I'm not trying to push a POV on whether Bryant was guilty or not, just trying to discuss removing what seems to be bias in the current article to reduce what was a pretty significant, but negative, event to barely a mention. I don't think most of the detail from the other article needs to be included here, but there is certainly more to say on the subject as it relates to the event's impact on Bryant and his actions related to it that should be included here. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 21:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a legit point. Up until now, I hadn't really looked as the current brevity as an attempt to minimize, but really just more as, as others have noted, it's covered in another article.  But upon further review, we don't even have on of those "Main article . . ." links here, so yes, in thinking about it some more, it is too glossed over.  I don't have time to work on it right now, but I'll add more when I get some time if no one beats me to it. Mwelch 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. I would do it, but I'm sure others have more knowledge about it. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The revisions by 24.130.126.57 appear to resolve this, at least to my satisfaction. Well-written, easy to read summary that avoids taking sides and getting into too much detail. Nice work. Simishag 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. I already left 24.130.126.57 a comment complementing the additions. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both &mdash; both for the kind words and for having the discussion that brought the issue into my mind in the first place. A great way to articles improved.  24.130.126.57 09:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (Mwelch, just not logged in)

Trivia
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)

"Izzo" is the name his teammates use to refer to him, and "The Dagger" has long been used by announcer Stu Lantz. So, please, stfu. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.96.63 (talk &bull; contribs) 08:40, 18 February 2006. Can't find one reference to a teammate referring to him as Izzo. Can't even remember hearing it once. As far as the dagger goes, never heard of him referred to that either. And google searches on both terms only lead to this discussion and no other reference. On a side note, chill out. You can make a case for something without insulting everyone who simply wants you to verify something before you post it. You haven't done that. So please, stfu until you have something usefull to add. -BJL


 * 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)

Subtle vandalism?
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&bull;contrib 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Youngest player to start an NBA game
Can we get a source on that? (Since we seem to be having battling edits over it.) Mwelch 04:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jermaine O'Neal is the youngest player I believe
http://www.answers.com/topic/jermaine-o-neal

"He became the youngest player to start an NBA game at the age of 18 years and one month." Derelix408 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately, that isn't a good source because that answers.com article is just a cached version of O'Neal's Wikipedia article. So in other words, that means Wikipedia was the ultimate source for that.  And since Wikipedia also has said that it's Bryant . . . well that doesn't really resolve things.  In googling it, there seem to be non-Wikipedia-related pages that say it's Bryant.  I haven't seen any non-Wikipedia-related pages that say it's O'Neal.


 * I do note the O'Neal Wikipedia source lists his age for this supposed record at 18 years, 1 month. I also note that non-Wikipedia sources do mention that O'Neal, at that age, set the record for youngest person ever to PLAY in an NBA game.  But none of these non-Wikipedia source say anything about him STARTING at that age.  I suspect that whoever wrote on O'Neal's Wikipedia article, read about him being the youngest to play and misinterpreted that as meaning youngest to start.  They then wrote youngest-to-start into his Wikipedia article, and thus now that's showing up at answers.com


 * But again, I'm only speculating about that. We really need an official source we can turn to here to settle the issue on both of their pages once and for all.  Mwelch 06:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Guiness World Records website, his youngest-to-start record still stands. Jermaine had the record for youngest to set foot in an NBA game, although I believe that's since been broken by Andrew Bynum. MCDRLx 08:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks like you're correct on both counts.  The Guiness site lists Bryant youngest to start and O'Neal as youngest to play.  Kobe being the youngest to start happened first.  Then, the O'Neal came along.  If the Guiness site updated O'Neal as youngest to play without changing Kobe as youngest to start, then I'm inclined to believe indeed Kobe still held the record at that time, and thus would still hold it now.


 * And Bynum now being youngest to play is easier to verify, since we know when his first game was at the beginning of thie season. Comparing that to his birthday reveals him to have only been a week past 18 at that time, which would  indeed making him younger in his debut that was O'Neal.  The Guiness site just must not have been updated on that point.


 * Thanks again! Mwelch 08:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid image of rape victim, pov text, fair use images
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)

Seperate Article for Sexual Assault
I think it deserves its own article--Levineps 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In effect, it already has its own article. Since Katelyn Faber's only notability is as Kobe Bryant's accuser and alleged victim, at the moment her article is the de facto Wikipedia article on the sexual assault case.


 * That said, there is substantial detail missing from that aticle, so I can see the case for wanting more detail than that. If so, I'd either just add the detail to that article rather than starting a new separate one, or if making a separate one, I'd essentially gut her article of most its current content, use that content for the starting point of the new article and leave hers saying little more than that this is how she came to notability and linking to the new one.


 * The second way indeed may not be a bad way to go. Currently there's an article entitled Katelyn Faber that's not really about Katelyn Faber, the person, but really is about this case.  If that article is expanded with more detail about the case, that will exacerbate that less-than-ideal situation.


 * If, on the other hand, the material is moved to a new article specifically about the case, that does leave Faber's article as essentially a stub, but I don't know if that's such a bad thing. Its brevity would be reflective of the fact that indeed this case is the only thing for which she is currently notable.  Nothing wrong with that, I don't think.


 * If folks do wanna take that route, though, it should probably be discussed on the Katelyn Faber discussion page before implementing it. Mwelch 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Consecutive 3-point shots without a miss
This line was recently deleted and I believe it should be restored. My arguments:


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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)


 * 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)

WHO
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)

THAT IS A SHIT PIC! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

yeah get a new pic!!!!

I do believe I'd like to repeat what was already said above: be civil. Second, unless you own the copyright for an amazing picture you'd like to share, the current picture will have to do until another one that can also be legally used is found. In other words: stop complaining. --Miriemirie 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

can someone PLEASE get a new pic?! there, is that civil enough for you?

Why don't you take it, since you are complaining so much.

ya i STRONGLY agree w/ the past posters that someone should get a new picture, this is an insult to the greatest player in the game today. im trying but everytime i do it's COPYRIGHT VIOLATION, --Jack69

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
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)

There is an article called Kobe Bryant sexual assault case which I wrote some time ago, so I believe we could reduce the sexual assault case and have a link there.Dan 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

MVP candidacy
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").  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

---Am i the only one who feels the MVP section is indredibly bloated and POV? does the fact the he was an MVP candidate deserve this much attention? Why don't we have a section about when he was a candidate in 2003 as well and every year? Also look at this writting :

"PinnacleSports.com, the largest sports betting site on the internet, had Bryant as the MVP favorite. However, Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns was named the MVP by a wide margin. Bryant finished only fourth in the voting, although he was second in first-place votes. Because the MVP award is voted upon by members of the media, some of his supporters claim that his fourth-place finish reflects what they see as a general media bias against Bryant. This argument is also strengthened by the fact that out of the 125 media members to vote for the award, 22 left him off the ballot. In other words, 22 voters believed that he was not a top 5 MVP candidate."

Look at all this useless info and opinion, wikipedia is not here to determine if sports writers bias is responsible for kobe not getting MVP nor is it to back up kobe bryant's case for him winning MVP. ---Duhon 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not useless, they are called facts. Those are facts not useless opinions. GET it in your HEAD.

Length of the "2005-06: Season for the ages" section
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)


 * I agree. I also do not understand why there is useless information regarding the 06-07 season in this article.  Yes, he has changed his game, but it is just not encylopedic or relavent

Both of the above points
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Fanboy edits
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)

Kobe's SAT score
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)


 * 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)

1080 is a pretty low score

"KOBE 4 MVP" & Fanboy part deux
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)


 * 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)

at it again on 12.134.204.214. Simishag 07:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

This fact should be in the MVP section as far as percieved media bias against him
He made the 2005-2006 All-NBA 1st team as well as the 1st team All-NBA Defensive team


 * I believe it's noted elsewhere in the article. All-NBA isn't the best comparison, since each position is voted on separately; the top 4 MVP candidates all made the first team, and there wasn't a lot of controversy about first vs second team. The perceived media bias section is more focused on the MVP award and why Kobe finished in 4th. The fact that 22 voters had him 1st, yet 22 voters left him off entirely, suggests a wide range of opinion on Kobe.


 * Speaking of which, please don't delete the stuff about Whitlock and Barkley. The comment "POV of POV of POV" is asinine. Kobe's supporters have certainly suggested media bias, and the citations are merely proof that prominent individuals have said that. The section does not, to me, have a POV one way or the other as to whether the media bias is real; it simply reflects that people have talked about a bias. That is "framing the debate", not POV.


 * More to the point, removing the citations makes the whole section weaselly. We can't simply say "some people allege media bias" without naming who those people are. Simishag 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think in order to introduce MVP votes pointint to media bias,you need to get statistics on Nash, Nowitzki, and James's vote count. If 20 leave Nash off the ballot, does that mean there is a bias against him? What if each player is left off a ballot by 20 voters. Then, there is no bias and it's just standard. As far as pointing out that KObe is the only All NBA and All Defensive first team, it's not really relevant. He was far from the top vote getter in either of those votings as well. All it says is he was the best SG. -EW


 * From what I recall, Nash and LeBron were left off the ballot by only like 2 or 3 each. Nowitzki was higher, but less than 10.  And, as pointed out, Kobe got more first-place votes than LeBron and Nowitzki.  So that's where the oddity comes in.  That a guy who gets that many first-place votes could then also be left off of so many ballots altogether.


 * I think the numbers show that it's pretty clear that that wide a range of opinion on him is unusual. The question is does that really indicate a media bias against him by the ones who left him off?  Could one argue there's a media bias for him by the guys who voted him first, even though his team finished 7th in the conference?


 * The whole issue of what should really be the MVP criteria is one that comes up repeatedly, and not just in the NBA, but in baseball, too.  Is it just the best player?  Is it the player who made the biggest difference in terms of what his team's W/L record would have been without him?  Is it the player who made the biggest impact in terms of making his team a title contender, where they wouldn't have been without him (i.e. if you added 25 wins to your team, but that just took them from being 15-67 to being 40-42, nice job, but you're out of luck, cuz they're not a title contender)?  You can find sportswriters who fall in each camp, and probably some with still other criteria, too.  And they vote based on what they think the criteria should be.


 * If I'm a writer who has always advocated that simply "best all-around player" should the criterion (and I have always voted accordingly), I think I could pretty safely vote for Kobe first-place as the MVP this year without being accused of being biased in favor of him. Whereas, if I left him off my ballot entirely this year, that would certainly be reason for pause.


 * Conversely, if I'm a writer who has always advocated that the MVP should be from a legit championship-contender (and I have always voted accordingly), then I think I could leave Kobe off my ballot entirely this year without being accused of being biased against him. But if I voted him first-place, that would raise some questions.


 * But we just don't know guys' voting records to that level of detail. So that just leaves us to see the oddity of 22 first-place votes, yet 22 left off entirely and wonder why that came to be. Mwelch 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowitzki was left off by 11. Billups was left off by 32. These numbers can't be used to determine anything. I could make a case for alleged Media bias in support of Kobe based on the fact that he was 2nd in 1st place votes. Besides, if the race was supposed to be "so close" because of "so many candidates", you would expect someone in 7th place to be left off the ballot a significant amount of voters. The fact of the matter is that the MVP votes reflected how they have historically. It doesn't matter how big the numbers you put up are, if you aren't on a top team, you're not getting the MVP. There are way to many factors involved to cite 22 voters not including Bryant on their ballot as a media bias. -EW


 * Well, again, this is about framing the debate. I don't think we (the editors) have suggested that there is a definite bias. Prominent media personalities have made that suggestion, and we have cited that appropriately. The MVP voting was used by Bryant's supporters as evidence to support their views, so we've included some numbers and quotes here, without any commentary one way or the other. As far as the case for a bias in favor of Kobe... well, good luck finding any sources to support that one.
 * The main reason this section is interesting is that it's the first time in a while that there's been anything controversial about the MVP vote. There are always people who think their guy should have won, but this year was unique in the amount of ink spilled about it. I think it was also unique in the quality of the candidates. Simishag 00:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, there was just as much ink spilled about it the year Malone won it over Duncan, the year Duncan won it over Kidd, and last year. There's nothing unique about it. BenihanaLee

I would argue that last year's vote was more controversial namely with the closeness of the race between Nash and Shaq and the perceived racial element of Nash's win brought up by some journalists.

Duhon

Unprotected
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)

User:Hganesan as a notable source
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)

Hey simiboy, that whole paragraph was removed wasn't it?? So why don't you keep quiet about it, it doesn't matter anymore, it is not even on there. Hganesan 05:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Late Game scenarios
I noticed someone removed my section about Kobe's famous clutch performances. I suppose they may have seemed to the person who omitted them as the work of an overzealous Kobe fan, which i am absolutley NOT. I just felt it was important to demonstrate the REASON why Kobe has such a reputation, whether or not certain statisticians's findings would agree. So, i removed possible indicators of POV (even though it really WASN'T the work of a Kobe biased fan) and tried to make it as neutral as possible WHILE recounting the facts of what occurred in those late game episodes. I did this simply to show both ends of the spectrum, which I beleive is only fair. Fow what its worth I hate Kobe as much as the next guy, but I respect his abilities as a player and want both sides of the arguments to be properly augmented. I Hope no one has any problems with this.

While it is great that you would like to give detailed accounts of isolated clutch performances, there comes a point in which it becomes way to detailed. Unless it was a career defining shot like Michael Jordan's 98 finals game 6 shot, it probably doesn't need to be documented. At this point, it's sufficient to mention that he has hit several big shots and leave it at that. It would be better to see which shots of Kobe's get broadcasted periodically as tribute to him in the same fashion that the NBA did for Reggie Miller and his shots against the Knicks, for example. 204.52.215.2 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue with late game heriocs and what not is that this isnt a Kobe Bryant biography. It already has too much information which really isn't neutral by any means.  The best way to conform the article is to look at the article for Michael Jordan or any other athlete.  Yes there was a lot of controversy with MJ ala his gambling habit or that he was the most endorsed basketball player; however, you wont find that type of stuff on his page.  This an encyclopedia page and not a complete bio.

NBA Title sections
I feel these are getting too lengthy and detailed. I also question whether they actually belong in this article. It seems more appropriate for the Lakers article. A lot of the information in there refers to the team and not to Kobe Bryant specifically. Coumarin 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i agree we should clean up the article with NBA title sections, because Kobe doesnt = the laker organization. if that was the case then jerry west or shaq would have the same stuff on their wiki pages as well.  it doesnt add to the article.

General Problems
I made a few changes to the article today, and it looks like it needs lots more work. I took out some clear instances of POV, attempted to fix a continuity problem and cleaned up some prose. There are several things that need citations. In fact, the article is filled with detail but nearly without citation. Does anyone know for sure that he is the first guard to skip college? Weren't there any European players who played in pro leagues instead of going to college? Just wondering. Levi P. 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i suggest we clean up and remove the sexual harrassment stuff and move that part of the article to the accuser's page with a link kobe's page back to her. all the conflicts that kobe has shouldnt be dragged out into a biography on wikipedia since wikipedia entries should be more or less an encyclopedia page and not script for a book.

Man you guys are insane. Why is Kobe Bryant a bigger article than the entire los angeles Lakers page? And you've moved and trimmed down things? Cut out some more of this stuff, this is ridiculous, we don't need to know every odd fact about Kobe.
 * The LA Lakers article has a huge sub page for it's history. Kobe's doesn't have one (unless you include Katelyn Faber). --Ted87 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there is something else wrong with the article. It says that Kobe was the first guard to be drafted into the NBA... that is WRONG. Oscar Robertson was the first. Get you facts straight people. Jferkingstad 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)JFERK

Kobe isnt the first guard to be drafted out of high school. That would be Oscar Robertson in the 1960 NBA Draft.Jferkingstad 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)JFerk


 * Just for clarification in case anyone else comes along to read this, Oscar Robertson was 22 at the time of the 1960 NBA Draft and was coming out of the University of Cincinnati. He was a "territorial" pick, as I recall.  And I do know there were occasions when teams "put dibs" on players coming out of high school, so to speak, even though they weren't eligible to play and wouldn't be officially "drafted" until they became eligible.  The Philadelphia Warriors, for example, did this with Wilt Chamberlain.  Wilt is officially the third pick of the 1959 NBA Draft, since that's when he first became eligible to play in the NBA, and that's the draft in which the Warriors territorial pick for him was actually used instead of Philly's regular first round pick that year.  But the Warriors actually claimed those territorial draft rights to him in 1955 when he graduated from high school.  I think Jerry Lucas was another player where this sort of thing happened.


 * I do not recall if Robertson's territorial rights were also claimed straight out of high school, or only after he was in college. Doing a quick Google on it just now, I didn't find any hits that suggest it was out of high school.  But then, most info on the 'Net about Wilt doesn't mention that he was drafted that way either, so that's not conclusive.


 * But even if the Royals put did put their claim on Robertson straight out of high school, it still all depends on what you mean be being "drafted". If they did "put dibs" on him in '56 when he graduated high school, then yeah, you could argue that that means he was the first guard drafted out of high school.  But you could also argue it the other way, too, since the actual draft in which he selection counted and his actual entry into the NBA didn't come until four years later.  Mwelch 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

major move
I made a whole new article, Kobe Bryant Sexual Assault Case. To reduce the size of this article, I eliminated the section here. But please, realise that the other article matches word for word!!! i just copied and pasted to avoid making rhe article too huge.Dan 00:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So to make room in the article you "eliminated" arguably the most significat event in his recent life? The trivia section is a paragraph long but you eliminate that? Brodey 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When forking, one ought not to remove a section wholly; rather, he/she ought to create a brief summary and then, per WP:SS, to add the Main template. It is altogether illogical for this article to be devoid of substantive mention of the sexual assault case, and I'm inclined to think that we ought simply to return the removed section (redirecting Kobe Bryant sexual assault case hither); even as the article is, per WP:SIZE, slightly larger than we'd prefer, I don't think the sexual assault section to have been exorbitantly large or otherwise biased.  At the very least, we ought to discuss the issue here (which discussion, I think, should have happened prior to the forking; one should, of course, be bold, but when undertaking significant changes should (WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative, collegial spirit underlying the project) likely raise the issue ex ante.  Joe 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above point, a current athlete who has experienced his share of controversy Barry Bonds does not have a seperate page for his Balco controversy instead it is included on his main page. and as for page size being the reason for removing the section i highly doubt that's the main motivation. There have been already numerous attempts by users to rmeove the section for other reason's than page size. Duhon 14:20 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia (revisited)
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)

"Bears fucking walk up to this" reference
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).

For the attention of anon user: 208.58.196.156 RE: my edit
In November 1999, 21 year old Kobe (Where are the hyphens?) met 17 year old Vanessa Laine (Again, where are the hyphens?) while she was working as a background dancer on the Tha Eastsidaz/ Snoop Dogg (Why is the a space after the forward slash but not before?) music video [4]" G'd Up ". (In the video Vanessa is in the convertible in a silver bikini). (Get rid of. Irrelevant.) Kobe was in the building working on his album, which was never released). --Downwards 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC) The two began dating and were engaged just six months later in May 2000, all while Laine was still a senior at Marina High School in Huntington Beach, California ('''Unnecessary to state the location of Marina High School. The link suffices.''') . Due to the media, she finished high school through independent study.
 * black text is 208.58.196.156's original work.
 * My comments in red --Downwards 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They married on April 18th,2001 in Dana Point, California. There were only about 12 guests at the wedding. Neither Kobe's parents, nor his two sisters (Just let it say family), nor longtime advisor and agent Arn Tellem, nor Kobe's teammates attended. Bryant's parents were opposed to the marriage for a number of reasons (And what were they apart from the one about to be mentioned?). Reportedly Kobe's parents had problems with him marrying so young, especially to a woman who wasn't African-American. This disagreement resulted in an estrangement period of over two years, during which Kobe Bryant did not have any contact with his parents. Finally in Spring 2003 after Kobe's 1st daughter Natalie was born, Kobe and his parents reconciled. (See below. Why is Natalia being introduced twice?)

According to Vanessa's cousin Laila Laine, there was no prenuptial agreement: "She just came home one day and said something to the effect that Kobe didn't want a prenup...that he loved her too much for one", Laila Laine remembered (It is already cited, no need for the quote.).

The Bryants' first child, a daughter named Natalia Diamante Bryant, was born on Sunday January 19th,2003 (The day is irrelevant, all that needs to be said is "January 19, 2003". You also neglected to put a space after the comma). The birth of Natalia influenced Bryant to reconcile his differences with his parents: Kobe/Vanessa & Joe/Pam were once again on good terms. Vanessa Bryant suffered a miscarriage due to an ectopic pregnancy in the Spring 2005; and later in Fall 2005 the Bryants announced that they were expecting their second child. Their second daughter, Gianna Maria-Onore Bryant, was born on Monday May 1st,2006 (again, day irrelevant - the date suffices.). Interestingly, Gianna was born 6 minutes ahead of of former teammate and rival Shaquille O'Neal's daughter Me'arah Sanaa, who was born in FL (Where Shaq's daughter was born is irrelevant to article).

stop being a bitch about it

Xyljin 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Honestly? I'd just pull the entire section, and perhaps supplement details about his family in the trivia section, if at all. While the fact that he's married and has a family is fairly relevant, the level of detail gone into here is a bit much.

Finally.....
a picture decent enough for kobe....


 * Sorry, it is a copyright violation and has been removed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I just want to know how the hell you have a Kobe page and no mention of his alter ego. MAMBA--


 * Mamba Is not an "Alter Ego" it's a name he used to describe himself at times

Number
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)


 * Because he wanted to. It was announced last season. Koberulz 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Gonsher is just a hater who is insecure that his own favorite players are overshadowed by Kobe...
Because he is really pressed to get every bad piece of Kobe Bryant news into this article. Sure, some of it might be technically correct (not sure what you're referring to as I did not erase it) but their significance is hardly noteworthy if it's the same lame criticism that has been echoed on message boards (the article still mentions his reputation as a "ballhog"). There's already enough Kobe hate going around - I'm sure everyone knows his perceived flaws - why make a big case of it, disputing this article's "neutrality"?


 * Because the site is meant to read as an encyclopedia and should not contain any opinionated information.

81 points
There isn't enough information about his 81 point game, someone should put up the statistics or make a brief summary about it.

Neutrality
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).

Please check...
This diff. Thanks! - -  weirdo actor tundefinedc - - 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Personal accomplishments
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).