Talk:Ball hog

Calling for consensus

Let's have some consensus and compromise here, everyone. What's your opinion and what is your resolution?.--User:69 01:11, 03 Sept 2006 (PST)

Ok thank you for doing this. My idea of how to do this is below. hopefully others will have better ideas, as mine is a little weak. Also do you have any idea of how to do this other than total removal? --Wildnox 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I personally am strongly opposed to singling out any one player (especially in the pro/college ranks) is that I cannot imagine a true honest-to-goodness ball hog could ever get very far in organized basketball. At the lower levels especially most coaches wouldn't stand for it and would bench the player if hogging occured. Not to mention that the vast majority of players (especially those who make it to the pros or high collegiate ranks) want more than anything to win championships, and as Michael Jordan's first few years and most of Wilt Chamberlain's career clearly shows (I'm not calling either one a 'hog at all...in fact Wilt at one time held the all-time assists record didn't he?) that one player just can't even come close to winning a championship all by himself.75.81.253.160 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How you would like to name people ballhog

Wildnox, I see you DO have a "TRUE" opinion on this article. Otherwise, you won't bother to change it everyday. If you really like to name people as ballhog, why don't you put all of their names in this article. It will be a gallery of displays, a ballhog hall of fame. I have no idea why you are desperatly trying to put some names on that article.--User:69 06:52, 03 Sept 2006 (UTC)

Reverts of a user ignoring consensus do not show opinion. I don't care about basketball, at all, I just don't like users who ignore consensus and try to make decrees on how the article should be, that and you ignoring any mention of compromise doesn't help. --Wildnox 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have near daily reverts on other articles on subjects that don't interest me at all. I just happen to edit them because I came across them. --Wildnox 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part of this is, when I didn't make edits to this article for awhile, you were still being reverted, what does that tell you? --Wildnox 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me that this article has been wrong for so long that people consider changing the article to a more neutral point of view a vandalism. I don't make compromises? Tell that to people who have been reverting this article to the old one. Why aren't they adding anything else? Consensus is not an objective point of view. People used to have consensus that African Americans are inferior. Are they right? Of course not. Please spare me this consensus over objectivity stuff. --User:69 11:33, 3 September 2006 (PST)

Compromise and consensus are how wikipedia works. Also, I have been trying to comprimise with you, just because others have been reverting you doesn't mean you ignore my attempts at helping you. As for the vandalism thing, your edits are not vandalism neither are anyone elses here, sorry if I called any of yours such. --Wildnox 15:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and if you could reach a consensus with other users, it would be quick in getting rid of me. --Wildnox 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How I would like to do this

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

Any input, anybody? --Wildnox 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subjectivity of the term is already noted in the article. I really see no benefit to applying such a loaded term to anyone playing professionally in this article - leave that for the commentators. So my vote goes for having the contentious paragraph go the way of the pics that used to be here - vandalism magnets both. - CenozoicEra 00:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is other users have been obviously have been adding it in, so we need to find resolution other than revert, revert, revert, revert, revert ad infinitium. --Wildnox 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballhog example

Well-known current players in the National Basketball Association who have been labeled as ball hogs include Kobe Bryant [1] and Allen Iverson [2].

means

If you need an example of who a ballhog is, please see Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson.

Isn't it obvious?

Yes, it is obvious. Personally, I'm ambivalent about having these examples included. But you're fighting your battle the wrong way, and if you keep it up you'll eventually be completely banned from editing this page. And the fact that you blatantly vandalized the page a while back isn't going to help your case. We need to let the consensus rule, but keep the discussion open. Also, please sign your comments so it's easier to keep track of who said what. -CenozoicEra 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Unnecessary Edits"

Please stop labeling or providing stereotype of what a ball hog is. Allen Iverson is such a ball hog that he has 7 assists per game? Does that make sense?

Irrelevent, what you just said consitutes original research. See Wikipedia:Neutral

Irrelevent, naming a player as a ballhog is not a research. It's an opionion. See Wikipedia:NPOV

Citing that a player has been labeled by members of the media as a ball hog, is not POV, it's fact, are you implying that no member of the media ever labelled either of the players in question "ball hogs"? Wildnox 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put Iverson or Kobe's name in the citation. Just because some beat writers from ESPN or MSNBC say such and such are ballhog doesn't make it true. ESPN and MSNBC are "opinion" columns. The writers intentionally pick those players so they can gain more readers which translate to money.

The part of the article removed never says it's true, it says they have been labelled so by some, proper citation was provided. You can't remove something just because you don't agree with it, that would lack NPOV

You cannot label something just because you think it is true. For example, if most people think George W Bush is a dimwit. Should people make a reference of his name on a wiki page named dimwit? Is it still Wikipedia:Neutral if you do that? No, it's not, so stop "misleading" people by linking players to the ballhog page.

I have never said it's true, nor has anyone else, only thing here is saying that the media labelled certain players as "ball hogs". Neutrality can be maintained through careful wording, I left you a message which mentioned this, but you chose to ignore it. Also in the as reference to George W, nobody ever calls him a "dimwit" in the article, but there is an entire article of criticism for him, from your point of view, that doesn't exist. Wildnox 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: Any citation of any player will be reverted and deleted.

It is not unlikely you will be banned after violating WP:3RR in an effort to push your POV on an article. So I doubt this. Wildnox 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can solve this problem by stopping "point" your finger at someone else and call him a ballhog.

How do I stop "point"(sic)? Check your grammar before posting next time. Wildnox 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ball-hog is such a subjective term that this entry is laughable

Please stop labeling or providing stereotype of what a ball hog is. Allen Iverson is such a ball hog that he has 7 assists per game? Does that make sense?

Do not put Iverson or Kobe's name in the citation. Just because some beat writers from ESPN or MSNBC say such and such are ballhog doesn't make it true. ESPN and MSNBC are "opinion" columns. The writers intentionally pick those players so they can gain more readers which translate to money.

WARNING: Any citation of any player will be reverted and deleted.

No one is saying they are ballhogs. They are saying that they are often labeled ballhogs, which you just friggin admited in this paragraph. Just because you are a fan of them doesn't mean you get to silence any critics that have given them a label. Again, no one said they were ballhogs.

68.196.250.47 15:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You infer that they are ballhogs by putting their names on a page named ballhog. The citations are "opinion columns". An opinion is a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. It is subjective. Wikipedia is not a place for opinionated criticism. Wikipedia is a place where people can get an unbiased information that maintain a neutral POV. Furthermore, this page is about ballhog. It is not a page about NBA players. Why are NBA players' names inserted as "possible" examples? It will mislead readers thinking that such and such players are ballhog.

The only one it seems to mislead is you. 128.6.78.50 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm going to assume you meant to type imply, and not that you have no idea what infer means. Also, who the hell are you quoting? I see "Opinions columns" and "possible" in quotations, but I never saw anyone using the term. Actually other than that I don't have much of a response, you just said the same thing as the last time, and the time before that, it gets old. Wildnox 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets old pretty quick. I don't see any way to resolve this.

I do, you need to understand that the article is not calling anyone a ballhog.128.6.78.50 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Edits

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

The picture of Kobe should be taken off this page. As it is obviously very biased and unncessary.

Yeah it is so biased. This whole wikipedia is in love with nash and biased with Kobe. AND BTW it was PS2PCGAmer, an ADMINISTRATOR, who added the Kobe pic. Man, that is just sad. Well I am fighting for a fair Wikipedia in terms of Kobe and Nash, anyone who is sick of this kind of pics help me out.Hganesan 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan[reply]

Stop Removing POV Pictures

Whoever keeps removing pictures from this page please stop this is considred vandalism.

70.52.144.151

It is not vandalism if it makes the article better and more accurate. They are not known to be ballhogs often, and they are only known to be that by their staunchest critics. The pictures are blatant pov pictures.

We will continue to clean up after your sockpuppetry for as long as necessary. Simishag 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no sockpuppet, I'm going to continue of clean up what you post as well as the other biased people here. You cannot just put up pov like that.

POV nonsense

The use of pictures to illustrate the article is not POV. Kobe is mentioned as a ball hog in the article (cited as well) so it is entirely appropriate to use an image here. It would perhaps be POV if there was a picture of Kobe but he wasn't mentioned in the article. For the same reason, the image of Iverson was appropriate, but was removed due to copyright (it's not fair use). Simishag 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur. Bryant has been labelled as a ball hog by the media for much of his career. Jordan was too and Iverson often still is. There is nothing inappropriate with the image. On a somewhat related note, contrary to what our friend Hganesan says above, I was not the person added the Bryant image to the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic not necessary

Having a pic here is probably not the best thing in light of the apparently irresistable urge of everyone to change it to their own personal least favs. It also doesn't really shed any light on the nature of ball-hogging. So I have removed it, and hope that the article will stay pic-free. Obviously, if someone has a compelling reason to include a pic, we should be open to discussion.CenozoicEra 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a picture is available for an article it should be used. Kobe bryant is mentioned in the article as often being singled out for being a ball-hogg therefore it makes sense to include his picture since one is available. Wikipedia generally has a large prefference of including pictures in articles if they are available. Brodey 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article for "democracy" doesn't have a (single) picture - should it contain one of the US or USSR? It's also not really possible for a single picture to show ball hogging. And vandalism is a constant problem whenever there is a pic on this page. Just check the record - you even had to revert one recently yourself. I think the pic is a bad idea. --CenozoicEra 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tag

This material is generally self-evident. If someone really wanted to, I suppose one could demand a citation for each and every sentence. I don't think that this tag is appropriate for this article. Please use the FACT tag if and where you think it is needed. Of course, bear in mind that there are no official statistics for ball-hogging (and it's too subjective a term to even be nailed down), so any facts offered in support would almost certainly constitute original research. - CenozoicEra 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the article lacks any type of citation at all. Any kind of source indicating any of the material in the article should be added. As for original research: as of right now, the entire article is technically OR. --Wildnox 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would suggest that the current article has no original research at all, but is common knowledge. I don't think that anyone who grew up playing basketball in the U.S. would be surprised at any of the article's content. Second, not all articles necessarily need citations (Center (basketball) has none at all), nor do all facts need a citation (Abraham Lincoln's birth date is uncited). Citations are really only necessary when there is some element of uncertainty involved. - CenozoicEra 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do see your point. I'm very surprised that Center (basketball) has no citations at all. Feel free to remove the tag, though I still think citations would be nice as I support the use of the them as much as possible. I thought citations were required in all situations where it wasn't common knowledge, and not just for things that are uncertain, but I can't find nothing that indicates such. --Wildnox 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as great a player as Kobe is, he's a hungus. The only way a teammate could ever possibly hope to get the ball is to steal it off of him. His picture is absolutely necessary to help readers understand what is the epitome of a ball hog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.10.6 (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KOBE BRYANT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Hickman (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOBE BRYANT

KOBE BRYANT IS A MAJOR BALLHOG. Dan Hickman (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ball hoggers

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