Jump to content

Talk:Shaq–Kobe feud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cheowhite24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shaq

[edit]
Stale
 – No context and no sources provided.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interview with Lisa Salters, when Shaq was talking about the 'good friend' who told him he needed to play well to beat Detroit, he said that Hubie Brown was the good friend, not Kobe Bryant.` Phillip J. Fry 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Validity

[edit]
Resolved
 – Over 100 sources cited, and still being discussed in the press in 2011.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very well written and researched and all, but what validity does it serve as an encyclopedia entry? Ultimately, it seems like the whole Shaq and Kobe affair is nothing more ultimately, than tabloid news, especially when looking back at it, as I just did upon finding it and reading it here just now (and I live in LA, and I am a Laker fan, and I lived through the whole high school Lakers debacle that is S&K). Again, it's written well, and I'm not suggesting for anything to be done with the article, I'm just curious to see how others feel about it and putting my two cents here...that's all!  :) --Stoogeyp 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who u callin kid john

I am leaning towards agreement here. Shouldn't this info just be a part of the article on each player? --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


89.180.154.170 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)I'm not really very hip to the "eliminators" vs. "includers" wars in Wikipedia, but I've never understood the argument for deleting well-written, truthful articles. Yes, Shaq vs. Kobe might not be an incredibly important subject; but someday in 2025 some kid might be researching this for a school paper on Shaq, or some sportswriter might be looking for info for a piece on the three-peat Lakers. This page might be helpful then. The article is long enough that it would make it unwieldy to simply include in the Kobe and Shaq pages. So why not just let it be?[reply]

I am having a difficult time searching for a reason to merge this article into the Shaq and Kobe article, respectively. I have found more reasoning for keeping it.

Wikipedia policy: "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles; however, because Wikipedia does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on." Also, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Although there is an ongoing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not." The sub categories of this Wikipedia policy do not exclude this article. Thus, I am in agreement that this article should stay. -- Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaq-Kobe feud was definitely very notable in the sports world, and is very notable for sports history in general. Rock8591 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

As an NBA fan, I find this to be an important part of NBA history. The fued possibly changed sports history. I agree that it should stay.--69.19.14.33 (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Russell

[edit]
Resolved
 – Story about Russell removed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was Shaq that said he was inspired by Russell to patch things up with Kobe, I think its believable if he retracts the statement and says he made it up. It would be another thing if Russell took credit, and Shaq contradicted him. Therefore, I think its trivial to mention in this article, and can be removed. It could be placed in Shaquille O'Neal if you want to show him creating attention for former greats.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the article being not neutral if we only show what Shaq said today and ignore what Shaq said yesterday. Also I don't think it is trivial. If I am the reader, I would be interested to know why he made things up and the retracted it. Is it because he was wanting to make peace with Kobe but didn't want the public to know?—Chris!c/t 23:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was to be neutral and not mention either the orig story or current one, and just say they shook hands and hugged. Otherwise, this becomes a soapbox for Shaq's stories, which cant be totally avoided, but I would draw the line when he contradicts himself and there are no other sources to corroborate.—Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove then. I guess not mentioning the whole contradiction is a neutral way to handle thing too.—Chris!c/t 00:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest/most dominant

[edit]
Resolved
 – Verbatim quote removed and summarized instead.

Bryant complimented O'Neal afterwards and said, "Congratulations, greatest," while O'Neal returned, "Congratulations, most dominant."

The above quote in the article is taken from O'Neal's autobio. 173.66.61.187 (talk · contribs) pointed to a video where O'Neal calls Bryant "greatest", and Kobe calls Shaq "most dominant". We can either

  1. leave the quote, and assume the video is a different instance
  2. remove the quote altogether, and just say they complimented each other
  3. change the names on the quote

I'm leaning toward 1 or 2. Also, the youtube video is a copyvio, so I wouldnt use as a source in the article. (I dont doubt that the video is authentic).—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this edit by MyWisdomTeethHurt (talk · contribs) removed the quote, I'll make the changes per option 2.—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

[edit]

I commend the authors for doing such a detailed article. But the sections are extremely long and not to the point. The paragraphs themselves are the longest I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The "Final Years" section is the longest section I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I wasn't able to see the key details without spending a significant amount of time away from my other work. On Wikipedia, the content can always be found in other places, but it's the PRESENTATION and ORGANIZATION which makes me always click the wiki article first. This time I came here and didn't gain any knowledge because it was too hard to read.

Since a lot of work was of course already put into the article, I would like to at least suggest that the main points are put in bullet form somewhere. I want to know what the feud was all about, but don't have time to read these detailed stories of how everything unfolded. Dr. Universe (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Universe: Fair points. These would all need to be addressed if this were to be promoted to a Good Article. For an idea of the history of this article, it had numerous POV issues and was weak on citations before I began editing in 2010 (see here). Since then, the community has done a lot of cleanup, and footnotes have gone from a mere 7 to it's current 149. The difficult part is that this subject has mostly been a soap opera in the media, with little analysis of the feud as a whole that would make it easy to summarize without worrying about original research. My take is that the main points of the conflict were their different work ethics (Bryant was a workaholic whereas O'Neal was not as driven) and personalities (Bryant was serious, while O'Neal was a prankster). Then there is the whole angle of the clashing of alpha dogs. As a start, the lead of the article could be improved to outline more points of the article. Some sections could also be broken up further. The hardest copyediting would be moving from a chronological flow to organizing key points of the feud—that one may never happen—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Shaq–Kobe feud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shaq–Kobe feud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shaq–Kobe_feud&oldid=1199698081"